Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This is the government's first report on red tape and what we are doing to reduce it. Next week, the parliament will have its first ever repeal day: to abolish regulation and legislation that has outlived its usefulness or is doing more harm than good.

Cutting red tape is at the heart of this government's mission: to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. Red tape is what officials wrap people in when they think that government knows best. So, cutting red tape is a sign that this government and this parliament want Australians, individually and in the community, to have more control over their own lives. It is an acknowledgement of the people, our masters.

Next week's repeal day will scrap more than 9,500 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts of parliament. More than 50,000 pages will disappear from the statute books.

Added to measures already announced, repeal day initiatives will bring total red tape savings to $720 million a year every year.

The first repeal day will abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission because people serving our community do not deserve a new level of scrutiny.

It will abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor because all relevant legislation has already been reviewed and the former government ignored all the monitor's recommendations.

Redundant acts regulating, for instance, the 1970s conversion from imperial to metric measurement, governing state naval divisions (that became part of the Royal Australian Navy 101 years ago) and facilitating the construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme (that was completed in 1974) will all go.

As a result of repeal day, films will only need to be classified once—not again and again when they are reissued in DVD, blu-ray or 3D.

As a result of repeal day, businesses will not have to re-apply to use agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, because one approval should be enough.

Universities will no longer have to submit capital asset management surveys in addition to other surveys which cover essentially the same thing.

And jobs agencies will no longer be required to keep paper records of every applicant which, in one agency alone, occupied 336 filing cabinets.

Businesses will no longer be required to administer the former government's paid parental leave scheme, saving them an estimated $48 million. Associated with repeal day, national businesses will be allowed to operate under one workers compensation scheme right around our nation rather than having to operate in up to eight.

Next week's repeal day will be the first of many. Under this government, there will be at least two a year, because we will make people's lives easier, not harder. It is worth recalling that the first parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia passed just 513 pages of legislation—that is just half a page of legislation per day.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is worth contrasting with the last parliament, the 43rd, which passed half an act of parliament every single day.

Between 2007 and 2013, under the former government, some 21,000 new regulations found their way into national life. No doubt, some of these were good and necessary but some, clearly, were overkill at best. Why should a long day care centre with 15 staff and 75 places have to do paperwork, said to cost on average $140,000 a year which is $2,000 a child or nearly $10,000 a staff member? The result of this are fewer child care services and higher prices for the ones that exist.

Why should a Sydney cafe that serves alcohol and has outdoor seating be subject to 21 local, 29 state and 25 Commonwealth regulations or sets of regulations? That is 75 different hoops to jump through that mean higher costs for businesses and fewer jobs for Australians.

Why should Australian medical researchers collectively put 500 years of work into preparing grant applications of which only 20 per cent succeed? That is time not put into finding cures for disease. Likewise, why should every Australian university be required to report more than 50 sets of data to the Commonwealth Department of Education and a further 50 to other government entities? Again, this is time and money that is not directed to teaching and research.

Of course, government should be confident that standards are maintained and that taxpayers' money is accounted for, but it is too easy for officials to do their job at others' expense in the name of safety or accountability.

A reason why bricks and mortar retailing is losing out to online sales is the compliance costs that shops face, from planning regulations to product standards. A reason why our farmers find it hard to compete is that one dollar in every six of their earnings, the NFF says, is spent on compliance.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's repeal the real world!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield will remove himself from the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About 60 per cent of Australian businesses are sole traders and 85 per cent have fewer than five employees. All too often, the local newsagent, drycleaner, baker and butcher has to be the accountant, marketer, HR manager and cleaner for the business as well as the chief salesperson. They are virtually suffocating in red tape and it is well past time to say 'enough'.

On the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness ranking, Australia has slipped six places in four years to 21st. Australia's ranking on the burden of government regulation is 128th—yes, 128th in the world, nestled between Romania and Angola. On The Economist's productivity growth ranking, we come second last, just ahead of Botswana.

The first instinct of democratic politicians, confronted with a problem, is to promise to make it go away. Like a fence at the top of a cliff, sometimes regulation is necessary, but there is a limit to what government should do to protect us from ourselves.

More regulation is not the solution to every corporate, community or personal failing. Sometimes, we just have to accept that mistakes are inevitable and that misfortunes are unavoidable. When someone in authority gets it wrong, the best outcome might be a timely resignation rather than more regulation. When it comes to making us act responsibly, good example may be better than more rules.

As Tony Blair has conceded, government cannot guarantee a risk-free life. 'Ambiguity, uncertainty, the wisdom that comes with failing and changing your mind', he says, 'are all essential to progress'; because 'a risk averse public sector will stifle creativity and deny to many the opportunities to be creative.'

Since day one, this government has been cutting red tape. On day one, we began the process of scrapping the carbon tax. Repealing the carbon tax removes over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate legislation and removes compliance costs from over 75,000 businesses. Repealing the carbon tax not only takes a $9 billion handbrake off our economy and gives a $550 bonus to households but will provide a direct red tape saving to business of $85 million a year. And repealing the mining tax will save businesses more than $10 million in compliance costs.

Fifty-five announced but unlegislated tax measures will no longer proceed—including the previous government's $1.8 billion FBT hit on the car industry, and the cap on self-education expenses that would have hit tradies, nurses and teachers. Every cabinet submission now has a regulation impact statement so that its potential impact on business, community groups and households can more readily be identified.

All Commonwealth government portfolios now have a dedicated deregulation unit, formed from existing staff, because it is sometimes more important to repeal old laws than to pass new ones. Each cabinet minister is expected to consult widely before finalising new policy because the first law of government should be: do no harm.

At the December COAG meeting, all states and territories agreed to create one-stop shops for environmental approvals so that major projects will only need to be assessed once, not twice. There is already a one-stop shop for offshore environmental approvals which the Office of Best Practice Regulation estimates will save businesses $120 million a year.

Soon, NHMRC grants will run for five years—not three—so that successful medical researchers will spend less time filling out forms. This government is making it easier for people to do business with government by reducing reporting requirements, by using credit cards more and by paying bills on time. This government has also scrapped the Aged Care Workforce Supplement that forced providers to sign up to union-dictated enterprise bargaining agreements.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish! Rubbish!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Moreton makes one more utterance, he will join the member for Wakefield—one more.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All these measures demonstrate our seriousness about reducing red tape and making it easier for people to go about their lives.

But this is just the start, not the finish. Every department and agency is conducting a comprehensive audit of the costs it puts on individuals and entities so that it can put a dollar figure on the cost of compliance and reporting and start reducing it every year. Every department and agency will be required to contribute towards the $1 billion a year, every year, in red tape cost savings that the government is committed to deliver. The Productivity Commission is finalising the indicators that will make red tape reduction easier to judge.

Not only will deregulation become a standing item on the COAG agenda but there will be less red tape withinCOAG, with the number of ministerial councils dropping from 22 to eight. The reviews that the government has in train into competition policy, workplace law, and the financial system—all have a deregulatory focus. The white papers that the government plans—into tax and into the federation—are both intended to reduce overlap and complexity. We are carefully considering the former government's changes to coastal shipping and its changes to trucking rates to ensure that they make doing business easier, not harder.

For too long, governments have acted as if the Australian people work for them. People do not work for government; government should work for people. It is government's job to serve the people; not people's job to serve the government. In simple terms, we work for you. And we are working for you today by creating the biggest bonfire of regulations in our country's history.

Our mission is not bigger government; it is bigger citizens with more opportunities. To the Australian people, I say: this is about saving you money, saving you time, and trusting your common sense to make more choices about your life. I am proud of the progress that the government has made to date—but it is only the start of what is to come.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Shorten (Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor have always believed in making it easier for business to do business. We have always believed in competitive, productive and profitable enterprises. We believe in successful enterprises that provide Australians with good jobs—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Madam Speaker, the member for Kooyong is interjecting. He is out of place. Can you please sort him out?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind the honourable the Leader of the Opposition that there were many interjections—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not in his seat, Madam Speaker. He is not a minister yet.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is quite right—the honourable member is not in his seat. It does apply, as I have said to others. I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that those sitting behind him were far from respectful of the speech given earlier.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But they did make some good points. We have always believed in competitive, productive and profitable enterprises—successful enterprises that provide good jobs, secure jobs, fair pay and decent conditions. We understand the importance of small business. We need no lecture from those opposite. We appreciate the massive contribution that nearly five million Australians who own and work in small businesses make to our economy. That is why when Labor was in power we established a minister for deregulation. That is why, previously, despite this sense of 'golly, gee, discovery' from the Prime Minister that somehow he is the first Prime Minister to ever talk about repealing legislation, we repealed more than 12,000 pieces of redundant legislation, including 7½ thousand in 2013. That is why Labor initiated the most comprehensive COAG deregulation process to remove much of the unnecessary constraints on our economy across different levels.

Labor understand the importance of increasing productivity, increasing efficiency and helping put downward pressures on prices for small business. We are committed, in a bipartisan spirit, to the organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation. But, indeed, I must say—and I do not believe the Prime Minister necessarily spoke to this point as much as I expected him to—that we balance against our desire for the goals which I have just outlined to ensure that through our regulatory system we improve competition in this country; that we have quality standards, that we have consumer protections, in particular against fraud; that information is sufficient for people in Australia to be able to operate and make informed decisions in our markets; that we have a clean environment where we tackle pollution; and that we have wide access to services across the whole of Australia not just our cities.

We understand that we should have a regulatory system which encourages the start-ups of business, that when people are seeking construction development approvals they are not tied up in unnecessary green tape. We understand the importance of making sure that our utilities in very strategic parts of our economy provide services and opportunities for the businesses that have to deal with them, and the consumers. We are most committed to ensure that, in markets where there is some form of regulation, be it telecommunications, financial services or insurance, there are in fact proper information sets available for business—in particular, small business—so they can make the comparisons which allow them to benefit from the benefits of competition. We are very conscious of state regulations as well—property registration and the like—which can be an obstacle towards businesses succeeding. That can include a range of issues, from registration at state titles offices right through to retail tenancies. We understand the importance of credit being able to flow through our economy and making sure that that is not impeded by unnecessary regulation. We are most committed to reforms which will see people spending less time filling out their tax requirements, which will make sure that people can spend more time making a profit and less time filling in forms.

This matter should not be about partisan point-scoring or ideology. We believe repeal should be diligent, not ideological. That is why this talk of bonfires and war is so remarkably overheated.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who's talking about war?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess I was talking about that war on corruption, wasn't I. We do not want important protections to be lost under the guise of deregulation. We should have regulations to make sure that our consumers are safe. We should make sure that we have regulations that protect mum and dad investors—a point I will return to. We should have regulations that preserve our pristine natural environment. These are vital.

On the substance of the bills before us as opposed to the high-blown rhetoric of the Prime Minister, the statement of motherhood principles, let me talk first of all about the government's proposition to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission. I am concerned that the government is proposing to repeal a body that not only has the support of the sector that it regulates but also reduces red tape.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

The member for Bass is not in his seat and he is interjecting. I do not know what is going on over there.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass will desist.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To repeal the Australian charities commission, you would think the charities sector would be calling for its removal and shouting about the red tape burden, but the reverse is true. Today the Abbott government has managed to unite 54 leaders from the charities sector. This government loves their charities; they will turn up at the opening of a charity. There is no doubt that when it comes to the photo opportunity, those opposite are charities' best friends. But when it comes to red tape and protection of charities: missing in action, no appearance. We have 54 leaders from the sector taking the unprecedented action of issuing an open letter to retain the current framework. Let me say that this is courageous by these charities. We know what a vindictive, critical, punishing mob those opposite are. Those 54 charities have dared to disagree with this mob opposite. We will be watching you to see if you punish them, because that is your form guide. Indeed, some opposite seem to think that the charities sector is in love with their propositions.

Mr Andrews interjecting—

The Minister for Social Services says it is only 54 out of all of them. Minister for Social Services, say nothing. Let me go through what some of these 54 have said. The Minister for Social Services, who deals with them, so disrespects their right to have a separate opinion to his own. Tim Costello says:

The commission is actually working for us and it gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities.

Watch out for World Vision's funding, I would say now, in light of that comment.

Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Director of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at QUT, states:

During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities, and it is well-placed to continue that role. In the short term, it provides the infrastructure for a ‘one stop shop’ for Commonwealth regulatory requirements, and a dedicated force to work with other Commonwealth agencies to streamline their present arrangements. Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness to emerging issues of previous ATO functions, surpasses the sector’s original high expectations.

Then we have all sorts of other groups. David Crosbie, Chief Executive Officer of the Community Council for Australia, has said:

The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape—

a goal which the Prime Minister rhetorically dedicated himself to this morning—

increasing public trust and strengthening the charities sector.

I know the Prime Minister is a strong rhetorical supporter of our charity sector; I congratulate him on his Pollie Pedal. I should just say that David Crosbie did not congratulate him; that was me. David Crosbie continued:

Axing the ACNC would be a very clear sign that government is not interested in the considered views of the charities sector.

There we go. Louise Walsh, the CEO of Philanthropy Australia—no doubt another nest of Marxists, according to the ideologues over there—says:

Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community. The ACNC has only existed for just over a year – so far the progress is promising and we want it to be given the opportunity to realise its full potential.

There you have it. That is what the 54 people that the Minister for Social Services just dismisses. What did these people ever do to be dismissed by you, except dedicate their lives to looking after other people? What an arrogant chap you are! This ministerial statement on the charities commission goes on to show that, when it comes to this government evaluating the beauty parade between ideology and pragmatic, moderate common sense, pragmatic, moderate common sense never wins.

In August 2013, a pro bono survey—Oh! There are more than just 54 here; this might change the random remark that the Minister for Social Services made before—of over 1,500 members of the not-for-profit sector found that 81 per cent supported the ACNC. That would be more than 1,200, Kevin. Only six per cent of the survey respondents in the charitable—

The SPEAKER interjecting—

Sorry, the member for Menzies. Only six per cent of the survey respondents in the charitable sector supported a return to the ATO as a default regulator. The not-for-profit sector employs over one million Australians, turns over about $1 billion, involves almost five million volunteers and is the heart of all our communities. The Productivity Commission and the Henry tax review recommended a national charities commission. The Productivity Commission, so beloved of the government, declared the previous regulatory framework to be complex, lacking coherence and transparency and costly to charities. Abolishing the charities commission is an insult to taxpayers, who want to see where their donations go, and it is an insult to charities, who will lose their visibility and governance support. It is bad for the public, who will be vulnerable to more frauds and scams. So on the charities commission we have the government talking with high-blown rhetoric about how much it wants to cut red tape, but when it has a chance to turn its words into deeds they—the Abbott government and the Prime Minister—do not live up to their own rhetoric.

But there is a second example of how the government is inconsistent with the rhetoric of the Prime Minister's opening speech. When it comes to turning good words into good actions they go missing. I talk of course about the future of financial advice legislation. What a disturbing proposition that is from the government. The Assistant Treasurer, with the support of the Prime Minister, is determined to reduce the protections of mum and dad investors. The Assistant Treasurer was up-front during Senate estimates about his game plan to prescribe new regulations to dismantle the current consumer protection laws, with immediate effect, as soon as the parliament rises next week so there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of these changes—none. Putting aside Labor's concerns about the substance of the Assistant Treasurer's changes, we are most aggrieved at the process. This is all about pulling the wool over the eyes of Australian investors. Just as bad, the financial services sector faces the very real prospect of having to deal in a short period of time with competing regulatory regimes: the regulations that take effect from 27 or 28 March; the current laws, if the regulations are disallowed in the Senate; and whatever legislative landscape we end up with after 1 July when the parliament has dealt with the government's legislation. This is a red-tape nightmare dreamt up by the fevered imagination of the Prime Minister of Australia. The Assistant Treasurer appears to be proceeding in a ham-fisted manner, without any regard to the outcomes.

Labor went through numerous rounds of consultation when refining our policy. For the benefit of some of the new members of the coalition who might not have been in parliament at the time of the events that triggered this current round of consumer protection law that Labor put in place, it followed the collapse of Storm Financial. Bernie Ripoll's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquired into that and put legislation into parliament that it debated, inquired into and passed. Having seen the lesson of Storm Financial, those people opposite turn their backs on the experience of history. I cannot say when the next financial disaster will happen and I cannot say who the victims will be, but I know one thing: because of what you are doing, you are guaranteeing another Storm Financial and upon your heads it will rest. We will hold you responsible for your abandonment of basic common sense when it comes to consumer protection.

This is dodgy law done in a dodgy way which will lead to dodgy outcomes. If you want to make the changes, make the case via legislation. Front up and have a parliamentary inquiry. We saw what happened in Storm Financial; we saw what happened in Westpoint—high-profile collapses where in certain instances investors were lured into these investment products because financial planners were receiving hidden commissions to promote those products. Our financial laws, which you are seeking to dismantle, would protect consumers with a best-interest duty. There would be opt-in measures, requiring advisers to get their clients to opt in to receive ongoing service every two years, and annual disclosure—somehow annual disclosure is a bad idea. And then there is conflicted remuneration.

We put the government on notice. They want to reduce red tape, and I have outlined why we think as a principle that is sound. We put this Abbott government on notice that we do not want to effectively decriminalise and deregulate financial fraud in this country.

We are a constructive opposition. We will give the package they put forward careful consideration. We support the repeal of redundant 1901 legislation. We will not allow important protections to be recklessly cut. Labor stands for the protection of consumers, the protection of workers and the protection of investors. Markets are fundamental, but one economic lesson which we all know in this place is that markets periodically need the help of government. Regulations protect against abuses. We have a proud record of removing the unnecessary regulations, but we will be guided by the interests of all Australians, not just blind ideology. (Time expired)