Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill (No. 1) 2012. The purpose of this bill is to repeal whole acts and special appropriations that are no longer relevant or in fact are wholly redundant. For example, it repeals old appropriations that have been spent, exhausted or lapsed. The bill therefore is housekeeping in nature. Perhaps the term 'noncontroversial' was coined for this bill. It is the fifth stock-take bill since 1988. It forms part of an ongoing process to clean-up the statute book. Despite the bills title, 'Appropriations', it does not in fact enact any new legislation, nor does it seek to appropriate any funds. If enacted, it would repeal 93 redundant appropriation acts from 1984 to 1999, 35 redundant supply acts from 1984 to 1997 and three acts containing redundant appropriations from the Treasury portfolio, including the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Transfer of Assets and Abolition) Repeal Act 2006, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Transfer of Pre-Transfer Contracts) Act 2006 and the Mint Employees Act 1964. The bill also repeals three superannuation related provisions contained in the Superannuation Act 1922 and the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Act, which contain redundant provisions. Megan Shellie, a bright young law student who is currently doing work experience in my office, observed that housekeeping of this nature is indeed a very good thing. She said that this exercise will be of benefit to law students everywhere in reducing the amount of redundant legislation they have to read in the course of their studies. So we have helped law students all over the country, which is a great thing!

The bill's explanatory memorandum states that the bill:

… would also further the Government’s deregulation agenda. The Government has stepped up its deregulation reform program … It is important that continued progress is made by Government.

While this work is worthwhile—and we support the nature of this bill and the removal of all those acts from the statute; it is indeed tidying up—it does not make any material change with regard to easing the regulatory burden on business, as suggested by the explanatory memorandum. It can hardly be described as a feature of a meaningful deregulation agenda to remove some appropriation bill that applied for three years some 20 years ago.

This bill serves to remind us of how the government has failed to honour its key commitments on deregulation. We are reminded of the government's failure to honour its famous so-called 'one in, one out' commitment. Remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker? What a brave statement that was, heralded from one end of the country to the other. The government said it would be the champion of deregulation. That was a commitment to repeal one piece of red tape or regulation for every new piece introduced. I searched throughout this bill. I got quite excited. I thought we were going to see some material deregulation, something that was going to improve the abysmal productivity performance of the economy after five years of this government. Despite a rabid search of this bill, nothing could be found. This commitment to repeal one piece of red tape or regulation for every one piece introduced is not added to in any significant way by this piece of legislation.

The latest analysis by the Parliamentary Library shows that, since coming to office, the government has in fact introduced 18,089 new regulations and has repealed just 86 items—not 18,086 items but 86 items. This would have to be one of the most abysmal failures in terms of promises in the history of the federal parliament, and that is a big stretch when you think of some of the things that have been broken in the last year or two. But the opportunity for deregulation in this bill unfortunately has not been taken up by the government.

We know that, when convenient to do so, the government exempts proposals from regulatory impact statements. It exempted the NBN related legislation. We just had a most eloquent speech from the member for McEwen—I don't think!—on the question of the NBN. What he failed to mention was what will probably be another couple of thousand regulations associated with that white elephant in the end. That is not recorded, of course. It is only the biggest infrastructure project in our history, but it does not rate a mention when it comes to featuring in the budget bottom line or when we look at new regulations that have been added.

This bill, while supported by the coalition, represents another massive missed opportunity for material reform in the area of deregulation—an area of abysmal failure, I am afraid, by this government. Nevertheless, I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not prepared to take the word of the member for Goldstein on regulations. He is hardly the most numerate man in the chamber. He is the guy with the $70 billion black hole. I think he was there when the coalition was announcing, during the campaign, their response to the NBN. I think he was there with the member for Casey. There was this extraordinary press conference. They completely fluffed it. In any event—

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I wish that the member would come back to the point.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with you. I have been very tolerant. I hope the member for Blair is going to address the bill before us.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. The member for Goldstein waxed lyrical in criticism of us. This legislation does what it says it does. It is a stocktake piece of legislation—one of a series of about five—getting rid of 93 appropriation acts from back in the days when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister in 1984-85 through to the days when John Howard was the Prime Minister in 1998-99. It also gets rid of 35 supply acts from the same period, three acts containing redundant special appropriations from the Treasury portfolio and three provisions on two special appropriations from the Finance portfolio. It does not appropriate any money; it is good housekeeping. It repeals whole items of legislation and special appropriations within acts that are simply otiose. In the circumstances it is worthwhile legislation. We know there is a lapsing—that is, if the money is not allocated at the end of the financial year, the legislation has no force and effect on the appropriation, so there is no loss of federal government money there.

This legislation is part of a series of statute stocktake bills dating back to 1998—a process to clean out the statute books. We are doing it, and I am pleased that those opposite are supporting it. But all too often they did not do these sorts of things when they were in power, so they can hardly criticise us for doing it. We have stepped up. I think the member for Goldstein criticised us about what we are doing on legislative instruments. We have had a series of amendments introduced by the Attorney-General on the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. These amendments have contributed to getting rid of that tranche of legislation, which is unnecessary and redundant. The Special Minister of State put it well when he said in his second reading speech on 20 June 2012 that the government has stepped up its deregulation reform program, including the progress made at the business advisory forum in May 2012 and the Prime Minister's economic forum in June 2012. I notice that my new premier, Premier Campbell Newman, did not have the grace, humility, determination or credit to attend the forum. He was too busy, he said. Sadly, he was not interested in the deregulation process that we are undertaking.

I notice a document signed by my friend the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting on Deregulation, who is sitting beside me. It makes reference to what we are doing on deregulation in this legislation—it is streamlined, effective, productive, and it is an annual update on the Australian government's deregulation agenda, which this legislation is part of. The forward to the legislation says what this government is about. What this legislation before the chamber really makes clear is that good quality regulations are key to achieving the Australian government's objectives of improved productivity, increased competitiveness, economic growth and equity. That is what this legislation is about. Regulatory reform is a process. It is an ongoing task. It should be pursued. Legislation such as this is important. We were criticised by the member for Goldstein for removing regulation and for the deregulation process. He should have a look at what we have done in the last 12 months—removing about 12,000 instruments, including a number of instruments that are contained in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. He should have a look at the fact that there are a further 2,600 instruments under consideration for removal as part of the review process. He should give us credit for actually fixing up things that he did not have the intention and determination to do when his government was in power and when he was a minister and sat on the treasury bench. In the circumstances, I commend the legislation to the House.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to thank members who have contributed to this debate, especially the member for Blair, who always makes a very sensible contribution to these matters.

The Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill (No.1) 2012 is the fifth statute stocktake bill since 1998, forming part of an ongoing process to clean up the statute book by repealing redundant legislation. This bill also supports the government's deregulation agenda by reducing complexity. The bill repeals 93 redundant appropriation acts from 1984 to 1999, 35 redundant supply acts from 1984 to 1997 and three acts containing redundant special appropriations from the Treasury portfolio.

The bill also continues to implement the government's response to former Senator Andrew Murray's report of December 2008 entitled Operation sunlight: overhauling budgetary transparency by repealing three superannuation related provisions containing two redundant special appropriations from the finance portfolio. This bill repeals whole acts or special appropriations within acts that are redundant. It does not appropriate any money. In addition to the appropriation acts that will be repealed by this bill, the government is reviewing appropriation acts since the 1999-2000 financial year to determine whether more recent appropriation acts are also redundant and should be repealed. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:27