Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were told this morning by the Leader of the House that it was to be like a school carnival. Well, the carnival is well and truly over at this stage of the debate. There has been a change in enthusiasm since when these bills were introduced a week ago. The tone of resignation that we just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister really does say it all. When you have to say to somebody who is sitting in silence, 'You shouldn't be laughing at this; this is serious,' you are really at the far edge of desperation of verballing. I will wait until the parliamentary secretary returns to the table before I ask him a question. I do not want to, in the forms of the House, put him in a difficult position when he is not ready for it, so I will make a couple of other remarks while I wait.

There was a moment—only a brief moment—when the parliamentary secretary referred, in his concluding comments, to the bills before the chamber and said that some $720 million in savings would occur as a result of repeal day. He then gave the examples of the FOFA legislation and the charities bill. We can have a different policy argument with those proposals, but none of those are being debated today. I ask the parliamentary secretary: how much of the $720 million of savings claimed comes about as a result of these bills today?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many millions of dollars. What the opposition does not like to hear is that we are still very much committed to our FOFA legislation. It was introduced last week. Our overall deregulatory effort is $720 million. From the document we have put forward you know that there is a $13 million saving attached to the omnibus bill. You also know that in the bills that we are discussing today we are getting rid of more than 1,000 redundant acts. The opposition also know that our $720 million figure has been verified in a public document based on costings by the Office of Best Practice Regulation, as well as by independent departments. This is across a whole range of measures which have significantly reduced the amount of duplication that exists in the regulatory framework that is currently in place. As well as dealing with the duplication of NOPSEMA and the duplication in terms of one-stop shops, I remind the House that we have introduced another piece of legislation that is extremely important in our deregulation framework. That is to open up the Comcare scheme to ensure that companies—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition asked me about our $720 million target. The Comcare scheme will provide a saving of more than $30 million. The Labor Party and their friends in the union movement ensured that when they first came to office at the end of 2007 there was a moratorium put on the Comcare scheme so that companies had to enter into expensive different systems in every state. Those opposite shake their heads.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

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

There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker—

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

Do not argue with the chair. Take your seat!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there is no point of order. The member for Watson should check the video tape because his colleague at the table was shaking his head. The opposition is not interested in the substance of repeal day. The opposition wants to have a bet each way. On the one hand, the opposition is saying that 'repeal day' is just a stunt: 'You are getting rid of regulations that are decades old and which have no impact out there in real life.' But on the other hand, those opposite get up at the dispatch box and say. 'We disagree with what you are doing on the ACNC.' Right? They are saying, 'You are having a disagreement with what the government is doing on FoFA. We have a disagreement with what the government is doing on Comcare. We have a disagreement with what the government is doing in terms of cleaning services.'

I want the opposition to understand that the more than 30-page document that we released publicly detailed more than 80 initiatives in the deregulation space—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the debate on the second reading, a second reading amendment had been moved which significantly broadened the scope of the debate.

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

We have moved on since then.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that we are in consideration in detail, that full breadth of relevance is no longer relevant to the debate, and while this would have been completely in order from the parliamentary secretary during the second reading debate, it is not relevant during the consideration in detail.

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

The parliamentary secretary will relate his comments to the bills before the House. But there is still, in consideration in detail when you are answering propositions put by the opposition, scope for you to answer in the terms you see are relevant.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In terms of the bills before the House, they have got rid of more than 1,000 redundant acts. In terms of the legislative changes that are contained in the omnibus bill, they will get rid of some of the duplication in the aged-care space so that building certification, for example— (Time expired)

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that there is so much interest in this 'repeal day' stunt and the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I turn to the galleries, and I look for just one face—just one face. But sadly, there is none. If I turn to the press gallery, sadly, there is none.

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

Perhaps I could ask the member at the dispatch box to address his remarks to the bill.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the three bills that are before the House today, can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House the proportion, that is, the percentage, and number, of regulatory requirements for business and small business between local government, state government and the Commonwealth? And what proportion of those are we actually debating today?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, just an issue of guidance here: is it right that members on our side are able to speak as part of this debate—

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

Of course.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And then I can then answer and sum up their questions?

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

You can choose to answer whenever you wish.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. Then I will allow the member for Hindmarsh to speak.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that deregulation and red tape are issues that we need to do something more about. We know in this bill that there are significant provisions that cover things like removing the superseded standard form agreement provisions that are outlined in the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code, which requires carriers to maintain duplicate summaries for each product and service.

I could go on. When I have been out talking to businesses—and the members opposite would be talking to businesses too if they were engaging with their communities—and whether it is Business SA, or the resources sector; whether it is the Royal Automobile Association, the South Australian Freight Council Incorporated, the Manuale Engineering or the Master Builders Association—the list goes on—they all say the same thing. They are all over the red tape and the compliance, and want greater it deregulation and the removal of these barriers that restrict their opportunity to do business.

We know that the Business Council of Australia has reported that an environmental approval process for one of its members cost the company more than $20 million, required more than 4,000 meetings and led to a 12,000-page report. These are the types of examples that we get when we are out there talking to businesses—small businesses. We are all about making it easier for businesses in the community. It is better for them to get on with doing what they do best, and that is their core business. It is not filling out forms. It is not filling out regulatory burden. That is why we are looking at removing these types restrictions on their businesses.

I will give you another one: the removal of Telstra's standard marketing plan and policy statement requirements—

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's because contestability failed under you!

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

Order! The member is not in her seat and may not interject.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was these types of burdens that led the Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, to say recently:

The release today of the federal government’s repeal day legislation marks a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by businesses and consumers in our economy.

Businesses know that we need to do some indifferent and they are welcoming the changes that we are making.

Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—

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

The member for Kingsford Smith!

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could be the Personal Property Security Act 2009 and the regulatory burden that falls upon that industry in terms of the length of time that goods need to be leased to be automatically subject to the PPSA. I worked for a law firm before and I know that changes like this were causing major problems for companies that were releasing goods and equipment. They were getting burdened by this extra demand.

We heard the parliamentary secretary mention before the workers compensation scheme, and the opposition has asked about the benefit for that. We will just remind them of the benefit. For the PPSA it was $11.2 million and for the workers compensation scheme it was $32.8 million. The list goes on—over $700 million of benefits have been calculated.

I want to congratulate the work of the parliamentary secretary, Josh Frydenberg , and the Prime Minister, and also of Greg Hunt on the one-stop shop—he did a great job in making that a one-stop approval process. When I was talking to SACOME about the resources industry, that is the one thing that they mentioned. They did not want the duplication between the state and federal bodies, they wanted the one-stop shop to improve the approval process for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Once this one-stop shop is implemented, businesses will have a much speedier and cost-effective environmental assessment process in place although it will still maintain high environmental standards. This is what it is all about: maintaining what we need and also giving businesses the best opportunity to progress and to do things in an expeditious manner.

In closing, I want to reiterate the great work done by Josh Frydenberg and our side. Finally we are doing something that is recognised by businesses, and recognised by small business in particular, giving the businesses a better opportunity to do what they do best and get out and run their businesses.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary, earlier, when he was talking about repeal day and I thought: why didn't we think of that? I have looked at the number of statute stocktake bills that went through the 43rd parliament. In a round figure, how many times did he speak on them? Zero! We had the Statute Stocktake Bill (No.1) 2011, the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012, the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 and the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012—which was one of my best. Amongst other things, I would like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. The people who bothered to speak on this from the then opposition included the member for Goldstein. Every now and then, one of them would get up and make a contribution. I went through the contribution of the member for Goldstein actually referred to one item which he believed needed to be repealed. He said:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you an example of regulation gone mad …

He said he wanted to talk about—

a secret directive to our top financial services companies requiring them to complete an 800-question audit—800 questions.

One of the questions I would like to ask is: where is the piece of legislation today in this House to repeal the item that so offended the member for Goldstein? I would like to see the member for Goldstein's wishes adhered to in this bill.

I will go onto the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh, who started talking about some items in telecommunications regulation. He said the standard form of agreement determination changes resulted in a number of savings. The only reason those changes could be made is that Labor enabled the Telecommunication Consumer Protections Code to be enacted under part 6 of the Telecommunications Act, which removed the requirement to have these legislative processes in place. While the current minister goes and prances around with CEOs in suits, Labor, in government, consulted with industry and consumer groups to make this happen. That is the only reason it is able to be repealed.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will talk about a classic one that was just mentioned by the member opposite about the universal service obligations. Part of the repeal of these items in the universal service obligation relate to the really successful Howard government initiatives for universal service contestability, which even the International Telecommunications Union concluded was an absolute, utter, 100 per cent dud. So we are actually repealing legislation that the Howard government put in that was not serving any purpose whatsoever.

There is one more question I want to ask the parliamentary secretary. I have gone through the Australian Government Guide to Regulation. As I went through, I thought, 'A lot of this sounds very familiar.' So I went back and had a look at some of my other regulatory best-practice books, including the Australian National Audit Office Best Practice Guide of March 2007 Administering Regulationand the Legislative Instruments Handbook put out by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. All of these look extremely similar. For one of them, I thought, 'This sounds very much like the Office of Best Practice Regulation handbook 2013.' Last night, I went to the Office of Best Practice Regulation's website. There you can click on a link for the Best Practice Regulation Handbook. What happens? You do not get the Best Practice Regulation Handbook; you are automatically referred to this document, the Australian Government Guide to Regulation, despite the fact that, in this document, it explicitly says that the Office of Best Practice Regulation is independent from government. This division is located in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and maintains day-to-day independence from government in its decision making. How is the member for Goldstein's request contained in the legislation before the House, considering he was one of the only ones who bothered to speak on this legislation in the 43rd parliament? Where is the Best Practice Regulation Handbook 2013, or has that been censored because some people might be a bit sensitive about plagiarism?

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

I call the honourable member for Wright.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was on my feet!

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

No, you weren't.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not look in my direction, Madam Speaker.

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

Oh, shame! We call from either side, in case you hadn't noticed.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Don't argue with the chair.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are three cognate bills before us: the Statute Laws Provisions Bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill and the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Bill. It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, the member for Greenway. In the opening parts of her comments, the member alluded to members of the House on this side who had spoken on previous debates on statute bills and appropriation bills, when they were putting them up. Luckily, I have with me my copy of the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your humbling dell tones do soothe me. I think it is farcical to have those on the other side make those soft allegations that we were missing in action, or unable to contribute to the debate. I remind the House that this debate is on a non-controversial bill. You, for all intent, will be supporting this part of the bill.

I also want to help the House understand that this is the first step of many in our government's plan to reduce over $700 million worth of legislation. This is step one. This is roughly around $17 million worth of savings in this legislation. You are not going to find the whole $700 million in here—that would be like getting the draw at the beginning of the football season and wanting to find out who has won the grand final. You need to understand the procedures of this House. This is step one. We advocate for small business, because most of us on this side of the House belong to small business—we have either come from small business or we own small businesses—and we understand what a BAS looks like. The other side of the House come from unions, they belong with the unions and they are intrinsically linked at the hip to the union movement.

Put your money where your mouth is with reference to this bill. It is generally a housekeeping bill, as most statute revision bills are. I acknowledge the commentary from the other side of the House, but step-one revision bills are predominantly housekeeping bills. There will be bills that come before this House which we will also be looking for the opposition's support on. If the opposition truly believes in getting rid of red tape and assisting small business, as the member for Greenway alluded to, then when we introduce bills such as the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of the Future of Financial Advice) Bill into the House, you should give your support. If you truly wanted to help small business we would expect your support on that. We will also expect support on the agricultural and veterinary chemicals bills, when they come. We will ask for your support on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Repeal Bill. All these bills will come to the House in the near future and that is where the money will be saved. We will also ask for support on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill when they come to the House. At that point, feel free to stand at the dispatch box and squawk—but not today, as this is a non-controversial bill.

Who is best served to implement over $700 million worth of savings? Look at the record of those on the other side of the House and then look at ours. Looking at the history of Labor saying one thing before an election and doing another after, the words 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' will haunt them for many decades to come—it will be the Achilles heel of credibility for the opposition.

There are more bills to come before the House and I encourage those in the House to support them all, but I now remind them that this one is a non-controversial bill. I encourage those on the other side of the House to support the measures that will have many millions of dollars of savings linked to them so the coalition government can reduce the shackles and burdens that currently impinge on our small businesses and Australia can return to some level of prosperity.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the member for Kooyong. By way of preface to that question, I feel I should point out that I have had occasion to look at several of the 1,120 amending acts that are to be repealed by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, one of the three bills before the House. One of those acts, No. 180, is the Statute Law Revision Act 1934. This act happens to be the first statute law revision act ever put through this parliament. As the member for Kooyong's great predecessor, the then Mr Latham, the Attorney-General, said in his second reading speech introducing the bill, the practice of using a statute law revision bill had been in place and had been actively pursued in England since 1861. He referred to no fewer than 37 occasions where similar acts had been passed by the British parliament. He also said, on the first statute law revision bill passing through this parliament:

The object of this bill is merely to cut away the dead wood on the statute-book. It is not a consolidation of the statutes, but a Statute Law Revision Bill. There are various circumstances which make acts no longer useful, and which justify their removal from the statute-book. This bill is designed to remove obsolete and useless matter, and will correct a few mistakes that have been discovered in the legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament during the last 34 years.

He went on to say that it was an 'entirely routine action', saying, again:

It is the purpose of this bill to repeal such obsolete and unnecessary acts.

There was not, in the long list of acts that one sees in the Statute Law Revision Act 1934, anything that had continuing effect. The same applies to the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, before the House now. Not one of the acts in this bill has the slightest effect, because all of them are spent, all of them are obsolete and none of them have the slightest legal effect. The only effect removing the more than 1,000 acts will have is to liberate some pixels from the duty of representing, in digital form, the names of these spent and obsolete acts.

Nothing in the speech of the former Attorney-General and member for Kooyong, then Mr Latham, suggested savings to the people of the Commonwealth. It did not suggest in any way that red tape was being eliminated. They were perhaps simpler times, but there were none of the circus tricks and stunts that we have seen in the exercise here today, on repeal day, when the government pretends that the repeal of these 1,120 acts—let alone what is in the Statute Law Revision Bill, which is also before the House and which is all about the removal of hyphens and commas—will save money. There was not the slightest suggestion made in 1934 that the routine housekeeping exercise was going to save anybody any money.

I ask the member for Kooyong, who is apparently the member of the executive responsible for this stunt of repeal day, to identify a single cent of savings to any Australian business or any individual in our country derived from the Statute Law Revision Bill or the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, both of which are the bills under debate. I am not asking a question about the omnibus bill. I am not asking a question about any of the other bills that have been spoken on, none of which are before the House. I am asking the member for Kooyong to identify any savings and specify what those savings are—not to speak in generalities and fluff, which is all we have heard from the member for Kooyong up until now. I ask whether he can identify, with precision, what are the savings for an Australian business from the Statute Law Revision Bill—concerned with removing hyphens and commas and correcting the spelling of 'committing' in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. I would also challenge him to do the same for any individual in the community. I challenge him to explain to the House how these are to be properly regarded as some massive exercise of removing red tape or implementing savings for the Australian community.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to speak about these repeal bills in detail. The honourable member who just resumed his seat is allegedly a QC. I do not think he is real smart, to be quite frank. I think he should give his QC back.

You just do not get it. You have sat here with your colleagues today in this place and mocked everything that we are trying to achieve. You just do not get it. The Productivity Commission themselves said that there are billions upon billions of dollars to be saved when a government with courage stands up and deals with red and green tape. You just do not like detail.

The problem with those opposite is that they detest detail. They are impatient and they will always skim over the detail. Concepts like methodical and considered are foreign to these people opposite. You only have to look at their track record to see that. They have opened the debate on detail, so let us talk about the detail that they continue to look over. Maybe we should look at some of the transcripts from the royal commission currently underway into the pink batts scheme, which demonstrates that these people opposite have no idea about detail. They rush to the endgame with no consideration about the impact. We consider the impact. We are working methodically through the savings that need to be found for this nation's future. Whether it is pink batts, superclinics or the NBN, you know nothing about detail. It is all a sweeping dream for you over there—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Nothing of what this member has said is relevant to the debate before the House. He should be drawn back to the subject matter.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member. He should definitely give the QC back, because he still has no clue. You would not know what detail was if it fell down and hit you on the head. The bottom line here is that we are going about what we said we would go about—that is, to save business, to save communities, to save charities, to save everybody in this country from red and green tape and to deal with the regulation issues that face this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Koorong—Kooyong, rather—recently penned a very good piece in the Herald Sun

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. One would expect members of the government to know the seats of members—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Next time you should stand up. I could not see you.

The Parliamentary Secretary wrote a very good piece for the Herald Sun. It was entitled 'We must loosen the ties that bind'. Nothing could sum up what we are about better than that title. Those few simple words sum up what this government is about: loosening the ties that bind our nation. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you lot over there had six years and you bound up this country in 21,000 additional regulations. Well, in six months this parliamentary secretary is going to do more than you ever dreamed of.

The legislation that we are debating today will save us over $700 million. The opposition has an attitude of mistrust in the ability of individuals in our society to go about their business without constant intrusion by the state, and it is this attitude that has led to an unprecedented unwillingness on the part of Australians to trust their own government. We get in their way each and every day. It is time to get out of the way. Regulations that overreach send a message to our citizens that we do not trust them. They send a message that bureaucrats in Canberra are the answer, rather than those people actually running our businesses on a day-to-day basis, the people that employ workers in this country or volunteer their time and money for charities. There is no doubt that we need processes in place to guard, but we have to do what we have to do to deregulate in this economy. We must find ways to save business time and money. We must take on board recommendations from the Productivity Commission and take on board the fact that these sorts of regulations are standing in the way of our economy. They are costing us billions upon billions of dollars. This government is going to do something about it. You might not like the detail, but you should catch up.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard a familiar refrain from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and those opposite about how we are going to cut red tape, how we are going to save costs for small business and how we are going to save costs for big business. This is rhetoric that we have heard from every government for the last 20 years. We saw similar statements under the Howard government in the responses to the Bell report in 1997 and the Banks report in 2005, a report that the parliamentary secretary may be familiar with, given his professional role at the time. The Banks report projected that there would be 55,000 additional pages of regulation by the end of the noughties. That was a figure that was extrapolated from the level of regulatory growth that we saw in the period between 2001 and 2004, when the Howard government was in office. Clearly regulatory growth is not a partisan issue in this respect. As Gary Banks, the former chair of the Productivity Commission, acknowledged in his 2005 report:

Most regulation did not just happen… Each got there because a problem or need was brought to government’s attention, to which it responded.

In fact, the Banks report cited the knee-jerk regulatory response of the Howard government and gave it a title. It called it 'Alan Jones syndrome'. It stretches credibility to think that the Abbott government will be any less susceptible to the Alan Jones syndrome, identified by Gary Banks, a former chair of the Productivity Commission, than the Howard government. Does anyone here seriously believe this?

The reality is that reducing the impact of unnecessary regulation on our citizens and businesses is not easy. It requires tough choices, sometimes offending stakeholders or media outlets in the name of best practice regulation. It requires a government willing to make the tough choices necessary to make it happen. The Abbott government seems to think that it can make this happen without making tough choices. The parliamentary secretary made this clear when he stated that previous governments had promised deregulation and failed to deliver, but this time the government is serious and the reforms are real—very real. This time is different

Unfortunately, the substance of these bills does not match the member for Kooyong's rhetoric. In fact, the government has delighted in making the most trivial of changes in these bills. After all, I am sure we all understand the importance of the Statute Law Revision Bill's vital changes to legislation—changing 'facsimile' to 'fax' and 'e-mail' to 'email'. For too long have unnecessary hyphens existed in our legislation! For too long have the Australian people suffered while these hyphens impeded the nation's economic progress! Small business owners in my electorate are rejoicing at being freed from this tyranny! I only ask why the bill under consideration did not wade into the controversy of the Oxford comma. What is the government's position on the use of semi-colons, colons and ellipses? This is to say nothing of the bonfire of inanities that is the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill. This bill makes the vital step of repealing 1,000 acts which were used to repeal other acts, but no longer have a substantive effect.

Unfortunately, overarching all this triviality is a superstructure of hypocrisy. The Abbott government claims to be genuinely interested in reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on everyday Australians, but, if you look at the overall actions of this government, you see a lot of noise over trivial regulatory cuts and silence over substantive regulatory increases.

Take the regulation in the communications sector that has come up in this debate. The member for Kooyong claimed, and I quote:

… we are determined to reduce duplicative regulatory requirements that exist between federal and state agencies and also between different federal agencies.

Some small cuts to the comms sector are included in these bills, I admit; yet, at the same time, other members of the coalition are proposing the introduction of an entirely new regulator in the comms sector, the e-safety commissioner. This commissioner would be empowered to order the removal of offensive content from social media sites should the operators not pull this content down in time. This regime would supplant a voluntary regime currently under operation between Google, Facebook and Microsoft, as signed with the previous government. Not only that but, as the IPA's Chris Berg has pointed out, this new proposal ignores the plethora of criminal law, defamation law, antistalking laws and harassment laws that already cover this area.

So, in the same month that we see these repeal bills, we see proposals from the government for new regulation that duplicates existing laws and usurps an existing voluntary scheme. The Abbott government is also proposing additional regulation of the comms industry to force ISPs to enforce copyright against end users and to retain customer data for national security purposes.

Labor believes that genuine red tape needs to be reduced. However, this takes hard choices—which brings me to a few accounting questions for the member for Kooyong. I went to his red tape website, which includes a handy track of the progress of the government in reducing red tape. It kicked off at $350 million of savings—and I am not sure how that started—but when the Prime Minister made his announcement on 19 March it surged to $700 million. After the speech, at 10.30 last Wednesday, the tally kept creeping up, to $720 million in savings, but, mysteriously, there was a false alarm at 11.30 and the coalition had apparently decided to cut too much and put it back to $700 million. My questions to the parliamentary secretary are: (a) is this tracking going to need to increase with the new regulatory burdens that the government is imposing; and (b) when are you going to take the FoFA reforms out of your progress tracker on your own website?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related bills. I, like most of my colleagues on this side, refuse to be lectured on deregulation by an opposition who, when in government, introduced more regulation. Remember one in, one out? The problem is that they suffer from relevance deprivation syndrome and have absolutely no understanding of holding costs or of business operational costs, because none of them have had skin in the game. They do not understand what it is like to actually put their money, their house and their lives on the line to employ fellow Australians and to provide business opportunities, because they have just suckled off the teat of the union movement. They have been delivered their income, day in and day out, without any hesitation. They can pull an entire workforce out on strike and not lose any money themselves, because they have no understanding and no responsibility. By reducing the amount of regulation red tape, we are delivering prosperity for this nation. They do not get it because they have never been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and worn it out.

What we want to do is create a business environment where the government is off the back of business and, in particular, small business. The major employers in this country are mum-and-dad operations who have the family house on the line—everything on the line—trying to create an opportunity and an environment to employ more people and provide prosperity for our nation. But the Labor opposition stand in their way. I have listened to the objections they have raised today, and their objections and their speeches broadly speak of no understanding of the business environment in which people have to compete and survive, because they have never been there.

Kevin Rudd stood up as the Prime Minister and said 'one in, one out'. The reality is that it was one out and thousands in. They do not understand the opportunities that they put in jeopardy as a nation. I say to members opposite: embrace the opportunity that lies before you. Join up to the cause and get rid of redundant regulations and legislation which are a burden upon the Australian people and a disincentive to business. I expect the members sitting opposite—and, of course, the leader of the Greens sitting over there—to never have had any exposure to the business environment, except in opposing everything they have done.

Today we have issues. There is a broad lack of confidence in the business environment driven by six years of a Labor government. Businesses need to be enthused and inspired to invest and create those jobs that many of us require. But what have Labor done? They will do everything they can to stand in the way of opportunity and enterprise. Why? Because they have had no exposure to or experience in the business environment. It is not their house on the line; it is always someone else's, and when it is someone else's you do not have that characteristic understanding of the exposure and the feeling in the hip pocket. Maybe more of them should have had a real job instead of going to school, to university and then to the union movement with no exposure to reality.

I will give you one example of getting rid of these regulations. Our position of having a one-stop shop for environmental processing will save hundreds of millions of dollars per annum for our national economy. There are so many examples of streamlining processes and getting government out of the way, and that is what is critically important. Labor's exposure to small business is explained today, when all they want to do is stand in the way.

I notice that the member for Brand or the Greens' leader in this House—one of them—is going to stand up and talk about how terrible this is for the environment. I have got to say to you: if you actually understood business, you would get out of the way and create the opportunities where people with money to invest can create jobs for our fellow Australians. You keep talking about fellow Australians, but you do not understand their basic, fundamental needs, and that is for jobs so they can create enterprise and support their families and fellow Australians with the taxes they pay. You live in a communist-socialist world where you do not understand the realities of life.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you do. I look at your brochures; I look at your advertising. You understand absolutely nothing about the business environment and investment. So get rid of these regulations, repeal all of these acts that are redundant and then create the opportunities for each and every Australian to achieve their maximum potential. Or don't you understand that, members opposite?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite seem to have trouble working out which decade or century in history they are landing on at any particular point in time. But I am pleased that at least there is one instance where the members of the crossbench have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate, because the government has treated this chamber with absolute contempt today. It is completely the government's right to bring this bill on and to ask for it to be considered. But, as far as I am aware, in the one day of debate that we have had, not one member of the crossbench has had the opportunity to contribute, despite seeking to contribute to the debate. And here we are now at five minutes to midnight with the opportunity to make a very small contribution and to ask a question of the minister. This is critical because the government has said that this is cornerstone legislation for it and that it has been working towards this for some time. The government has also said that there are some 10,000 regulations and some 50,000 pages of regulations that are affected. On my calculation—and I would stand to be corrected, and maybe the member for Kooyong can correct me on this—this House has had 1.7 seconds of debate per regulation. That is 1.7 seconds to debate each regulation that has come before it. The problem is that when you have 10,000 regulations and only a very small period of time to debate it, it is impossible to work out what the consequences of repealing each of those regulations is, without proper scrutiny from the parliament.

Some have said that one of the regulations in question may have the effect of reducing the take-home pay for cleaners who work on government contracts. This is a point that the Leader of the Opposition made, and it was made in public, but I note that the opposition is coming in here today saying it is all a stunt. Well, in the newspaper a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said that one of the regulations stank, because it was going to cut contract cleaners' pay; so I will be interested to see why the opposition is preparing to support that particular regulation. So my question to the relevant minister is this: given the reports and claims that have been made, and the fact that you have not allowed adequate time for debate here and that there has not been parliamentary scrutiny of this bill, can you guarantee that no person's pay will be affected negatively by any of the regulations or any of the elements of any of the bills, given the claims that have been made to the contrary?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be speak during this consideration-in-detail stage of the debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 and related legislation. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and his committee on deregulation for the good work they have done in introducing these bills into the parliament., because it is important in this place that we reduce redundant and unnecessary red tape and regulation. And at this point this is a down payment—10,000 pieces, 50,000 pages worth. Those on the other side ask why this is important—in fact, they belittle it. It is important because individuals, business and not-for-profits are all being strangled by unnecessary compliance costs and opportunity costs. And today we have the opportunity to make a down payment on reducing some of that—about $700 million in savings on compliance costs when you include the single biggest component of that, which is the reform of the future of financial advice, at about $198 million.

It is a significant thing we are doing in the parliament today. But listening to the member for Isaacs, you would not necessarily think that to be so. A number of times he stood up in the parliament and called this bill a routine piece of housekeeping. He has gone on to say that it is completely unremarkable and largely clerical, and he has talked about obsolete regulation not being all that important. Well, I have done a bit of digging on what the member for Isaacs said previously when it came to getting rid of redundant regulations. In the press release with Penny Wong on 24 July 2013 he said that it was important to reduce red tape and regulation. In fact, he talks about their legislation and says:

Reducing red tape and removing redundant laws, particularly in the customs portfolio, improves the efficiency of businesses engaged in importing and exporting and makes things simpler for all Australians.

That is a direct quote. But he seems to have forgotten this in his commentary in the House. He seems to have something of a faulty memory, as so many of those opposite do. The previous minister, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, also talked about the importance of removing red tape and regulation. She said:

By removing unnecessary regulations, we are reducing the burden on business and helping to lift business efficiency and productivity.

Well, I ask the question: why is it then that those opposite do not want to see it done, and done more effectively, under our watch?

You have to understand what we inherited from the previous government. I have some insight into this, because I was part of the coalition's deregulation task force, along with Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Senator David Bushby. In talking to business and not-for-profit organisations we found that during the time of the previous government, instead of living by their statement that they would bring in new regulations—having one in and one out—they introduced, at a conservative estimate, more than 21,000 pieces of new regulation. That is why it is so important that we not waste any time in getting on with the task of actually making it easier for business—particularly small business—to get on and invest in their business, to be able to grow jobs, and to be able to improve our economy and our nation. That is what we are doing here today. This is the first step in what will be a long journey. I am very confident that the parliamentary secretary will not just be coming in here and repealing a billion dollars of red tape and regulation every year. I am confident we will go even beyond this, because this government knows how important it is to enable business to grow jobs and invest in their business, and to be able to spend the time to do that.

There is a lot of detail in these bills that I will not have the opportunity to go through in the 20 seconds I have remaining. However, I would encourage members of the public to look closely at these bills and the benefits they will bring. It will be to the benefit of all Australians that we get rid of redundant and unnecessary red tape and regulation.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that the member for Higgins has such confidence in the economic outcomes of the deregulatory agenda the parliamentary secretary is pursuing. On the evidence to date there is no basis for any such confidence, given his answer to the question about the financial impact of the legislation that is before us. I think he pleaded to about $13 million today.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a public document!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. So, what a red-letter day this has turned out to be. All the hype and triumphalism of last week has just faded away. But, there still remains this discordance between the incredible language we hear in this debate, which sits so poorly next to the substance of the matters before us.

I think it is worth reflecting on this. All of us in this place are opposed to unnecessary regulation.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, Hear!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Bass.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not very genuine!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this side of the House—

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you do it over six years?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen for just a moment and you might learn something. I do not think so, but you might. On this side of the House we focus our attention on the question of necessity, not blind opposition to regulation per se. We recognise there are real choices to be made in this place, and rhetoric can be no substitute for those choices. As the member for Fraser said earlier today, it is not the number of regulations but their quality. That fact has become more and more true through the course of what has passed for today's debate on this subject.

It is interesting that before I came here I was—

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the union movement—

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

at an event in this House that showed the bipartisanship can take place in this House from time to time. It was a fantastic event. I was listening to a great trade unionist, as the member for Ryan can say. It was the president of the Australian Medical Association, the sort of union that gets some kudos—and I see the nods. That great unionist, Mr Steve Hambleton, was talking about very significant social issues relating to alcohol abuse, with a particular focus on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders—matters that I think are of genuine concern to all of us in this place.

What is really leading us as decision makers in this place? Is it blind faith in the market—that the alcohol manufacturers and the supermarkets are going to fix this great social problem? We are being asked to explore some regulatory solutions, as we should, as we must, and as I hope we will. As the member for Isaacs said, legislation of this type has a very long tradition in this place, going all the way back to a former member for Kooyong, who also had some other attributes in his public service.

We are all supportive of ensuring that the statute books are kept in order and up to date, in an efficient manner. This is appropriate and it is supported by Labor. But this time we are told that it is apparently different. We are having a bonfire. In fact, according to the member for Wright we are doing housekeeping and having a bonfire, which strikes me as a difficult combination. But it is more than that. In the second reading we also had this this sepia-toned homage to Sir Robert Menzies—and I think it is important on this day to note the honorific—a paean to the founding myths of the Liberal Party, accompanied by that great straw man of members opposite: the nanny state.

What we should reflect on, if we are interested in deregulation, is that Labor in government actually had a real deregulatory agenda—not ideological rhetoric dressed up as something more than what it is. The Seamless National Economy effectively did tackle the cost of inconsistent and unnecessary regulation. The Productivity Commission, as the member for Gellibrand was touching on upon in a slightly different context, quantified the impact of the Seamless National Economy reforms on productivity as having increased GDP in the order of $6 billion per annum.

I would like to make a more wide-ranging contribution to this debate, but obviously the government's confidence in it has meant that our consideration has been caught short. I would like to go back to two questions of deregulation for the parliamentary secretary.

I will start with knights and dames and the restoration of yesterday, which gives us to a very useful pointer to some necessary deregulation. I asked myself how unsatisfactory it is that Australia's Prime Minister needed the sign-off from the Queen to effect this signature reform of the government. I ask if there is any consideration on behalf of the parliamentary secretary to remove this imperial impediment to good governance and attend to this deregulation and end this unnecessary duplication. Perhaps this would also enable an Australian head of state. Perhaps he could also consider how the changing Approval of Care Recipient Principles to Approval of Care Recipients Principles— (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first thank all those members and colleagues on this side of the House for their terrific contributions over the course of the day. It has been an extremely important day in the history of the parliament, the first ever repeal day. It is a day that dedicated the minds of parliamentarians to the responsibility of cutting red and green tape, and therefore boosting productivity, investment and jobs.

Some specific questions have been put to me today. The member for Greenway has asked about the Australian Government Guide to Regulation. I can confirm this is a new guide. We needed this new guide, with new requirements on the public service, because we are now mandating that all cabinet submissions that have a regulatory impact require a regulatory impact statement. We needed this new guide because of the 80 examples of non-compliance by those opposite.

The member for Isaacs raised the question about the savings that are attributed to the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 and the amending acts. He obviously has not read the document, because on page 18 it refers to the $0.21 million in compliance costs that will be saved every year by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, and the $0.35 million in compliance costs that is saved by the Statute Law Revision Bill. As a QC he should pay attention to the detail. The member for Gellibrand referred to the IPA—that was quite unusual for the member for Gellibrand.

They made out as if all these regulations were uncontroversial. If the repeal of redundant regulation is so uncontroversial and the efforts that we are making on repeal day are so uncontroversial, I look forward to those opposite supporting the abolition of the ACNC. I look forward to those opposite supporting our reforms to FoFA. I look forward to those opposite providing support for us to open up the Comcare scheme to save business costs. And I look forward to those opposite ensuring that the Personal Property Securities Act is not a burden on small hire firms around this country. If it is so noncontroversial, why didn't those opposite come up with these ideas and why didn't they universally endorse them?

The member for Scullin wants some changes made to imperial honours and relevant honours. That is not going to happen. The Prime Minister has made a decision and we are very comfortable with that.

The member for Melbourne asked whether workers will be better off by the deregulation initiatives that we announced today. I can emphatically tell the House that they will be far better off because, as a result of the Green thumb and the blue collar, the last parliament gave us 21,000 additional regulations. Shame on you, member for Melbourne. Shame on you, member for Scullin. Shame on the previous Labor government, because it put a burden and a shackle on business and the not-for-profit sector. Through our changes, we will ensure that we will have more employment, higher productivity and more investment and, of course, we will spur on innovation.

Those opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say that this is a stunt, where the regulations mean nothing, and on the other hand accuse us of taking away protections. On this side of the House, we are about getting the balance right between risk and cost. On this side of the House, we want Australia to be better off in the world rankings for overall regulatory burden than the pitiful 128th out of 148 countries which was the legacy of the previous government. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)

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

Pursuant to the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for debate on the detailed stage has concluded. I now put the question that the bills be agreed to.

Question agreed to.