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

It gives me absolutely no pleasure whatsoever to speak on this bill, because this bill abolishes the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, CAMAC, which is a longstanding committee that is efficient, thorough and has provided essential advice and service to all governments and the community for a very, very long time. It plays an integral and critical role in the proper functioning of our markets and corporations.

I cannot believe that this bill is before us. It beggars belief. It is just another example of the government shooting itself in the foot—not understanding its role, not understanding the importance of markets, and not understanding the work that this particular committee does and how it does that work. This is a perfect example of a government that has no idea about itself, about its own agenda, about the economy, about Australians, about how markets work or about efficiency. This is a government that is rolling from one crisis to another, and this is a perfect example of that.

This bill abolishes the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee for no good reason. There is not one good reason for abolishing that very, very fine committee, made up of quality Australians, who provide, almost on a voluntary basis, a critical advisory service to the government. Governments—previous governments, this government and other governments; not only governments but also the community—have made enormous use of and benefited greatly from the work that is being done. To get rid of this committee really does beggar belief.

I will be very interested to hear what government members have to say in defence of why they would want to get rid of this committee that provides them with quality advice—that frank and fearless, quality, nonpartisan, non-political advice that is so essential to decision making when it comes to very important issues about our businesses in this country—small business, big business, small and medium enterprises and corporations—and the way markets work and the way that we interact with them.

The explanatory memorandum has some explanation, though. It explains and states that the cessation of CAMAC is expected to have a positive impact. I take that word with some irony, because there is nothing positive about abolishing CAMAC. It says it has a positive impact on the fiscal balance of $2.8 million—that is it: $2.8 million—and on the underlying cash balance of $3.1 million over the forward estimates. I am not talking about per year; I am talking about over the next four years. So for much less than $1 million a year we have a fantastic committee, made up of quality, eminent Australians, who work almost voluntarily in the time that they give of their own knowledge, their own intellect and they work much, much beyond anything that the committee requires. To have this government for a few measly coins—this number, this so-called saving of $3.1 million over the forward estimates, would barely register in budgetary terms on any fiscal position of the government or this country.

Labor absolutely opposes the abolition of CAMAC. CAMAC, as I have said, is an apolitical committee. It is made up of corporate and business experts who have been a very, very valuable resource to government for many years. In fact, when the former parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Moncrieff, introduced the bill to the House he said:

This bill fulfils a commitment … to achieve a smaller and more rational government footprint.

I do not see how making things smaller by getting rid of a key advisory body actually helps anybody. I do not think it really can help the government's budgetary position. There is nothing rational about it either because it does not achieve the government's own goals. Maybe the government does not understand what it is here for. Maybe the government does not have a program and an agenda. Maybe the government does not know why it is in government. Maybe it is just in government because it thinks that winning power and winning government and sitting on that side of the House is it—that is the goal and the goal has been achieved and it is just about staying there as long as possible rather than looking at what things it can do for the country.

The former parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer said it 'fulfils a commitment', but a commitment to whom? The question would be to whom is the commitment to have a smaller footprint, a smaller government. I do not know to whom. I will ask that question many, many times—to whom does this fulfil a commitment? It would not be the business community, because the business community would have an expectation, if anything, that the government would enhance CAMAC because of the great work it does not that it would get rid of it completely.

This commitment does not have a rationale from our markets because our markets rely on good, efficient processes and good information. When there are reviews to be done or critical issues that need to be debated in this place, who do we turn to? We turn to CAMAC, because CAMAC has the resources and expertise. When Labor want to seek the advice of business people, the business community of experts, and ask their view and opinion, we turn to CAMAC. But this Liberal government does not need any advice, apparently. When it is faced with critical decisions, who does it turn to? Apparently it is nobody. It turns to itself. It is inward-looking.

We have seen this. We have seen this in the rolling crises that are before the government today. There are things happening with the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and there is a lack of confidence from his own backbench. We know this in absolute terms because there was a recent poll—not a newspaper poll or phone poll but a poll of the government's own party room—and it emphatically demonstrated that there is no confidence in the Prime Minister. This is just another example of why. Their own people have no confidence in the Prime Minister. Who else would have any confidence in this government when they are getting rid of a key independent advisory body? Getting rid of it would save them such a small and trifling amount that you would barely notice it anywhere. Certainly you would barely notice it in the budget papers compared to the value that it brings.

So rather than treating CAMAC, this expert advisory committee, in a non-political way, by doing this they are actually politicising it. They are politicising this advisory body and the good business people and experts who are on this committee. Somewhere deep in the back of my mind I thought there was a chance or an underlying theme from the Liberals that they are somehow pro-business and pro-market. But I cannot figure out what they stand for. I cannot see it in any of their actions. I cannot see how they are pro-business.

Let me tell you that the business community do not agree with the government on this. The experts do not agree with the government on this. They think the government has got it really wrong. They think the government is making a big mistake. If the government wanted to gain some confidence from the business community it would drop this bill altogether and say, 'Sorry, we have made a mistake here.'

But I think they have a bit of form on this. There is something happening here. I have only picked it up in the last couple of weeks or months—or maybe a bit longer. There is a bit of form from the government and the Prime Minister. They do not like experts. They do not like independent bodies. They do not like business people, for that matter. They do not like anyone who has maybe a different view to theirs, as small a difference as that might be. I think I have it.

Mr Chester interjecting—

You can like me or dislike me; it does not really matter! I think I have worked it out, though. If somebody does not agree with them on something in particular then they get rid of that person if they can. But if it is somebody like the Human Rights Commissioner then they cannot get rid of that person because that person has a mandate for five years. If they cannot get rid of them, what do they do? They vilify, attack, character-assassinate and do everything they can to bring that person or body down. That is what they have done. We have seen that.

The government and the Prime Minister might think that is really clever and that, by character-assassinating or rubbishing an independent authority or people who have more expertise in an area than they do, somehow that puts them in front and they win with the public. I do not think that is right. I can almost understand why the government would go down that path if the Human Rights Commission had a different view to theirs, but in this case here it seems to me that they are just attacking their own people. If we are to believe the government that they support business then we have to ask: why are they getting rid of one of the very, very good-quality advisory bodies that provide the frank and fearless advice that is needed? That is not just something you desire in government; it is actually something you really need.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of CAMAC, because I think it is important for people to understand. Since 1978 the Commonwealth has had an independent research based reform body focused on corporations and financial markets. It started with the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee and was followed by the Corporations and Securities Advisory Committee and is now known as CAMAC. It changed name in 1989 and in 2002, following the referral of corporations powers from the states.

This is not some trifling little body that we can do without or ignore. CAMAC has produced dozens of reports, too many to list them all here. It is a busy committee. It does a lot of work. If you want to talk about rationales, efficiency and smaller government, this is what delivers it. It is CAMAC that delivers it. The government does not deliver any of it. This is the body that delivers it, and it has done some very, very good work that has led to essential reforms that save consumers money, protects our markets, and provides the efficiency that underpins what we call this great country. If we are going to have good markets then you have to have the right sort of reforms in place. You would want to at least seek some advice—you are not just turning to yourself for advice in these areas.

They have done some great work in terms of continuous disclosure, company restructuring to avoid liquidation, executive remuneration and directors' liability. This is the real red-tape reduction. This is the real work of government. This is the stuff that actually makes a difference on the ground, not that bonfire of red-tape rubbish that we saw from this government when it says it is going to burn 18,000 pages of red-tape. They forgot to tell you that the 18,000 pages-worth are dating back from 1901 and 1905 that nobody had used for about 90 years—some of them were actually blank pages with a line.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get rid of them!

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

I am happy to get rid of them. In fact, we support getting rid of them—some of them. We did it in government when we removed thousands and thousands and thousands. We did not just have a national day off for the whole of Australia on bonfire red-tape day! When people add up the individual savings, it amounts to a big, fat zero. Some of the efficiency red-tap reduction went so far as getting rid of a comma on a page. They forgot to tell you how much it cost to get a bureaucrat, or somebody in the department, to find where that comma was—'Find me a lot of commas and get rid of those!' This is the sort of rubbish—a waste of time and taxpayers money. If it is going to get rid of anything, this government ought to get rid of itself. That would make smaller government. It would make it really efficient too. Get rid of yourselves. No, hang on—you are working on it. Sorry, I just missed the last couple of weeks. You are working on it. You are getting rid of yourselves. Well done. It would make a lot more sense than having this bill here, which actually gets rid of some really good people and a really good organisation.

Perhaps, because CAMAC is so independent and made up of expert members who use proper research and verify what they do when providing those quality reports, there is a pattern building here that this government does not want independent advice. It does not want frank and fearless advice. It wants something else. It wants a whole group of people that just say, 'Yes. Yes. Yes. Anything you want. Whatever you say.' The world does not work that way. People will stand up and speak out, and there will be a price to be paid for getting rid of CAMAC.

Not many people listening to this will have ever heard of CAMAC; I do not expect them to have. I do not expect people up in the galleries to know what CAMAC is, the work that it has done, or how important it is. It is one of those quiet, expert, independent bodies that costs taxpayers a trifling, tiny, little bit of money from the government but provides so much value and so much expertise. So much, that if you add it up—the value and the savings to the taxpayer, or the efficiency measures to our markets, or the reason why we are held in such regard around the world for some of the thing that we have reformed in this country—then you would appreciate the real value of this body.

Obviously, this is a government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. They have no idea what value is compared to price. Anyone can work out $3.1 million over the forward estimates. They will roll that off as if it means something. But, what of the value here? The value that we have lost is enormous. Next time the government might need some advice, do you know where it will turn to? It will pay more than $3.1 million for a report from a friendly consultancy firm who will be told, 'This is the results page with the results we want. Write 500 pages that backup our view.' They will charge that to the taxpayer and it will cost the taxpayer several million dollars.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't be so cynical, Bernie.

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

I am not cynical. I am just thinking about experience and history, particularly this government's What does it do? If it needs advice, it goes and seeks advice and says, 'Here is the outcome, now provide us with the 500 or 600 filler pages—whatever the number of pages. We will pay whatever amount of money.' Because, that does not count. Red-tape, bureaucracy and inefficiency do not count as long as they get the outcome that they want. I would not come in here and say all of these things unless there was something behind this supporting it. I have all the evidence that I need in this retrograde step to abolish a fantastic committee that does really great work, and I am looking for reasons here. I think, 'Well, it can't be the dollar saving because it is so small that it makes no difference.' If this government thinks it is going to turn around the economy and create jobs by getting rid of CAMAC, I would like to hear that. That would be of interest. I would like to hear how they are going to do that.

I am not sure about other people, but I remember Joe Hockey, the Australian Treasurer, saying that he would deliver a surplus in 12 months—

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

That is right—

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

and every year thereafter. Now, that is something I would like to see. Apparently, he was different to everyone else and he was going to. I remember another very important promise, something that is even closer to my heart, and that is jobs. I remember the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Oxley and those gathered continue to enjoy themselves like this, the Australian public will get a different view of this parliament.

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

They might do. They might find it quite interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I remember just before the election that the Prime Minister made a very specific promise. He promised a million new jobs. I might not be great at mathematics, but a million new jobs would be a million more, and that would mean that the unemployment rate would have to come down. I think that is simple maths. But, the unemployment rate has only gone up, and is now 6.4 per cent—a terrible figure. So, I had to look it up. I wondered when we last had an unemployment rate that high. It was in 1992. Guess who was the industrial relations minister and the minister for employment in 1992?

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

That was 2002.

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

Sorry, it was 2002. Thank you. In fact, you are right—it was 2002. That just makes my point even stronger, because it has been a while.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was on the grassy knoll as well!

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

Yes, he was on the grassy knoll. But, guess who was responsible for trying to create jobs in 2002? It was Tony Abbott. It was the current Prime Minister. He was responsible for it back then. So, when I hear that there is going to be a million new jobs and that there will be a surplus every year—you hear all this rubbish and you think that that is part and parcel of what is before us here. What this bill for the abolition of CAMAC actually does is completely different from what the government says. It says anything. It promises anything. It does not care. A promise a day, a promise an hour—it does not really matter.

If it were only my view, I could understand that people might be cynical. I could understand why government members might get upset and say, 'Well, that's just your view; you're on the other side.' If you have a look around, you will see it is not just one voice. We know that it is not just us saying these things; there are a whole heap of stakeholder groups who have made their views and submissions public. I inform the House that, if you want to take the time to read them, there have been many good comments and submissions made.

I turn, for example, to Professor Ian Ramsay, from the University of Melbourne law school. He was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald as saying, in relation to the abolition of CAMAC:

"It's very regrettable that for the saving of three salaries a committee that has worked long and hard over decades to basically facilitate business has been cut,'' he said. ''It's been cut with little thought and little understanding of its role.''

That is the problem: little thought and little understanding—no idea. Professor Ramsay also said:

''That's the complete irony of this,'' … ''It cuts directly against the government's own philosophy and position about facilitating business.''

You would have to question that philosophy.

In a letter to Senator Cormann, the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia said:

CAMAC has delivered a substantial quantity of first-class reports and discussion papers very economically. … We submit that if CAMAC is abolished, the Government will not be able to secure access to this level of expertise and experience at comparable cost.

They are saying that it will cost more, and that is exactly what will happen. It may save a few coins over here—'Everyone look at the shiny coins; here you go, look at what we're saving'—but then it will cost you three times more somewhere else. Again, there is no thought, no rationale, no purpose. That is what happens when you have no purpose in government other than to stay in government. The only thing I can think of is that they just want to stay there.

In an article by George Durbridge entitled 'CMAC to be abolished', published on the Herbert Smith Freehills lawyers website—not regularly known as supporters of our side—he writes:

If CAMAC did not exist, we would have had to invent it. If it ceases to exist, we will have to reinvent it.

That would cost a lot more, but that is exactly what will happen, because government cannot do without this committee.

In an article on the StartupSmart website, Judith Fox from the Governance Institute of Australia pointed out:

"There’s a lot at stake in losing CAMAC," Fox says. "Corporations and the financial markets are the lynchpin of Australia’s economy. If they do not function efficiently, there will be detrimental consequences for business, investors and the capital markets.

You would think that a Liberal government might just acknowledge or understand that a little, but it is pretty obvious it does not. Maybe it has another agenda or maybe—even worse—it does not have one at all. Judith Fox continued:

Having an expert, research-focused, consultative and independent body like CAMAC to develop and advise the government on best practice policy has made a significant contribution to the strength and efficiency of our corporate and financial institutions. … CAMAC convenes a part-time panel of corporate law luminaries who for all intents and purposes volunteer their time. It is supported by three staff at an annual cost of $1 million," Fox says. "It's a small body that punches well above its weight and delivers economic benefits that greatly outweigh its funding costs, such as our high standards of corporate governance and a stable and efficient environment for corporate activity. These things are easy to take for granted but will be deeply missed when they are gone."

Further, in a letter to Treasury responding to the draft legislation, John Winter, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association, said:

It is the view of ARITA that the abolition of CAMAC is a retrograde move …

ARITA urged the government to reconsider. So would I: reconsider.

Finally, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, in their submission to Treasury, said:

As the Government tries to reduce red tape, we are of the view that the Government's decision to dismantle CAMAC is likely to increase red tape in the long term.

It will actually make matters worse. That is why we do not understand what this government is up to. The submission further states:

Company Directors strongly opposes the abolition of CMAC and we recommend that the proposed abolition not proceed.

The quotes from all these stakeholders set out the concerns and bewilderment of the sector and quite accurately highlight the government's error in abolishing CAMAC. But I do not think we are going to get a turnaround. I do not think this is a government that will think about this in some sort of rational, small-government footprint way. It will go ahead regardless, oblivious to the cost to business, oblivious to the cost of additional red tape and the work it will create in other areas, oblivious to the cost of not listening to that frank and fearless advice and oblivious to the value lost.

The government made a number of arguments to justify abolishing CAMAC, and they are all pretty poor—simple as that. I will be very interested to hear if government members have anything further to say. The main arguments have been about cost and smaller government. As I said earlier, they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. They have no comprehension of what this means for our markets. They have no comprehension of some of the things that are right now on the table that need to be done. But getting advice, particularly from experts and from the business community, is not high on this Liberal government's priority list, and we see that in a whole range of ways, with a recent newspaper story saying 'big business gives up on Tony Abbott and the government'. I wonder why that is! If small business have not already given up on this government, they will very shortly because they are realising that what this government did was give them the old nudge-nudge, wink-wink, 'We're on your side; it's in the ether somewhere,' while at the same time ripping out of the small business community around $7 billion in direct assistance, efficiency measures and a whole range of other things that Labor did in government to promote small business and make sure that small business—whether it was in the global financial crisis or in other tough economic times—had the support you would expect to keep people working and keep the small business community growing.

Mr Chester interjecting—

The government uses the excuse: 'Well, those were tough years.' Of course they were. Globally, it was very tough for everybody. In Australia we managed to ride that out because Labor took tough decisions; but not one of those tough decisions was to abolish independent advisory committees that actually provide the sort of advice you need in government.

Whether we look at the Law Council of Australia's response to the government's argument or we go over those cost arguments again, it is just a repeat of all the same stuff. It is about cost—a few little dollars here, a few little dollars there.

The government's first argument was that the abolition of CAMAC would streamline the shape of government. I am not sure what shape it thinks it has got and whether we need to streamline it, but you do not get rid of a value-for-money entity—in other words, not get any good advice—in order to streamline. To counter this, of course, the Law Council stated that the abolition of CAMAC will not result in any reduction in duplication, because it is the only body that does this work. There is no other body. If you had three of these, you would go: 'Fair enough, let's merge them. Let's do something.' That is the challenge. Who else will do this? Who else will provide this particular work and advice? Who will provide the sort of assistance that Treasury needs, that ASIC needs and that professional associations need?

I know that some government members will see that ASIC can do this. How? The government has cut ASIC as well. Our regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, has $120 million less. At the same time that we want more from the regulator what does this government do? It says, 'We want you to give us twice as much but we're going to give you half the amount to do it.' Of course ASIC, as the regulator, says that it is up to government to decide what level of funding it will give it as a regulator, but there is a price to be paid for that.

I know this is stirring up a few of the souls opposite, because they know this bites in deep. They know that not everybody out in the community might understand this, because they do not have to deal with CAMAC every day or they may not be in the markets on a daily basis, but I can tell you that is a whole heap of people to whom the Liberals and the Liberal government give the old 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we're on your side' who will be looking at these guys and saying, 'Whose side are you really on?' According to everything I can find, every quote, every statement, every review—by eminent people such as the Law Council of Australia, which is not a small, insignificant organisation—is telling the government: 'You're wrong on all counts.' When that happens I think you have a problem. If we look at some other things that the Law Council of Australia has said about abolishing CAMAC:

… in these circumstances it is highly unlikely that there will be any cost saving, unless the task of corporate and market law reform is substantially downgraded or weakened.

That is the view of the Law Council of Australia, but maybe the government just does not care.

The government's final cost reduction argument is that this will ensure greater value for taxpayers. I think I have already made that point: there is no value in doing any of this. But I will go one step further: the question you have to ask is what is the rush on this bill? You would think there were higher priorities. Remember the debt crisis? Apparently it does not exist anymore and it never did. That is a revelation! I thought that was the case anyway. What is the rush? The bill is currently being examined by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, who are due to issue their report on 16 March. We are just a couple of weeks away from one of the government's committees delivering a report, but they want to abolish the body before the committee delivers its report. Maybe they already know what is in the report. Maybe they already have a view as to what the report is going to say, that CAMAC is a good committee and should be retained. The only rush I can see is to get rid of this before they are given some more advice from people on their side.

What absolutely beggars belief in this is that it is completely antibusiness. This government is antibusiness. It is antimarket. It is anti-efficiency. It will go to any length to get rid of anyone who disagrees with it or produces quality advice, independent advice, fearless and frank advice. We are seeing it in everything it does. We are seeing it in this bill. It should not be supported.

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

I rise today to contribute to the debate regarding the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment (Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee Abolition) Bill 2014. As the member for Oxley departs, I have to say that I expected to hear far more intellectual input from him, as did members of the gallery. When he started there were floods of people up there. They disappeared after a few minutes, and it is no wonder; there was very little evidence. The speech given by the member for Oxley was full of generalisations, rhetoric and heady statements. He talked about markets and who understands markets. We could reflect on the last 15 months, as the member for Moreton stated. We could talk about the free trade agreements and how they benefit business. We could talk about removing taxes. I would have thought that maybe the mining tax might have assisted his good state of Queensland.

Importantly, we are here today to remove unnecessary regulation, red tape and compliance. This bill will cease the operation of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, or CAMAC. The cessation of CAMAC will result in the formal termination of CAMAC's legal committee, which was established in 1991. The decision to abolish CAMAC is a result of the federal government's broader smaller and more rational government reforms. This is a very small piece of the puzzle. It will drive greater efficiency and effectiveness. Unfortunately, we did not hear much about efficiency or see much efficiency from the member for Oxley in his presentation—it could have been done in 7½ minutes rather than 30 minutes—but we know that the opposition are not that efficient, productive or effective anyway.

This bill will involve the abolition or merger of government bodies where possible to eliminate duplication, remove waste, streamline government services and reduce the cost of administration for taxpayers. CAMAC and its legal committee are two of the 36 government bodies the Abbott government has committed to abolishing as part of our smaller government reforms. These reforms are expected to deliver net savings of about $500 million over the forward estimates, no small amount. In recent years the number of government bodies has grown out of control, which is why we have taken affirmative action on this front. The National Commission of Audit estimated that there were around 900 bodies. Further research prepared by the Department of Finance for the 2014-15 budget found the number to be closer to 1,000 different government bodies. Obviously things have become unwieldy and need to be changed. With so many bodies and agencies, many with overlapping responsibilities, lines of accountability become blurred and action can too often be uncoordinated. All of this is unnecessary and confusing for many, resulting in costs for the community.

The first phase of the Abbott government's smaller government reform agenda was implemented after the 2013 election and reduced the number of government bodies by 40, making a good start to our commitment to help government efficiency. CAMAC and its legal committee are two of the 36 government bodies the Abbott government has committed to abolishing as part of the second phase of our smaller government reform agenda. These actions and the savings associated are absolutely necessary so that the government can repair the budget and strengthen Australia's economic future.

The move to abolish CAMAC and its legal committee is also part of what we are doing in terms of cutting hundreds of millions—in fact, billions—of red and green tape each year. Why is this important? That is because bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity, deters investment and innovation and costs jobs. After essentially flatlining for a decade, total factor productivity fell in 2013. This is one of the many challenges that our country faces in terms of lower productivity growth. In 2014, Australia ranked 124 out of 148 countries for the burden of government regulation in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index. Obviously, things need to change and improve. While we improved four spots on last year, we are still immediately behind Colombia and Spain and just in front of Iran. They are not exactly the OECD nations that we compare ourselves with more regularly.

The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. When our economy is challenged, little things like this matter. The government's efforts to reduce unnecessary costs and increase efficiency in how public funds are used to deliver services to the community are vital. The government believes an additional layer of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy is not required for industry to put its views on corporate regulation reform to government. This is about common sense.

We have heard of Labor's efforts. In little more than five and a half years, Labor introduced an additional 21,000 regulations. This is despite Kevin Rudd's promise in 2007 of one regulation in and one regulation out. I put this to the member for Oxley; the member for Isaacs, who is sitting here; and the member for Moreton: how many additional regulations did you put on the table and how many did you remove? I imagine that there were thousands added rather than removing any.

This question has been asked: how will the government regulate corporations law, financial products and the services industry? Part of the answer is the Treasury's Markets Group, which will continue to advise the government in relation to corporate law, financial markets and financial services. The advice of Treasury will continue to be informed by regular engagement with relevant experts and industry. While the government recognises the contribution that CAMAC has made to the development of corporate and financial services law reform over the past 25 years, the business environment has changed from 1989 when the agency was first established.

The government is committed to good policymaking processes. Where any significant regulatory changes are proposed, the government will engage in genuine consultation with stakeholders, including through the quantification of the cost of any new regulations in a regulation impact statement. That is an important initiative of this government.

What other bodies can provide advice to the government on corporations law? The member for Oxley identified one himself: ASIC. That will retain the capacity to advise the government on matters associated with the administration and reform of corporations legislation, companies, segments of the financial products and services industry, and proposals to improve the efficiency of financial markets. The government will continue to obtain high-quality, independent advice in relation to the reform of corporate and financial services law by commissioning specific reports and inquiries that utilise market specialists on an ad hoc basis. This approach will ensure that the advice provided is practical and supported by evidence.

We do not hear much evidence from the member for Oxley until about 20 minutes through his presentation. Then we heard a few quotes from industry bodies. It was good to hear, but it could have been done earlier in the speech to identify the areas outlined. The government's approach will ensure that the advice provided is practical and supported by evidence and that the most appropriate specialist expertise can be utilised. The government can also refer matters regarding the corporate regulatory framework to other government research and advisory bodies, such as the Productivity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

It is anticipated that the bill will be introduced in the spring 2014 sitting period and CAMAC will be wound up early in 2015. The cessation of CAMAC will generate savings of $2.8 million over the forward estimates. However, ceasing the operation of small bodies and committees like CAMAC generates savings beyond merely the savings of annual appropriation in funding. The ongoing operation of small agencies absorbs resources across the broader Commonwealth public service; for example, there are oversight and administrative costs.

The majority of the provisions in this bill relate to transitional and saving matters. Many of these provisions are standard provisions that are included, in some form, in all agency abolition bills. They preserve rights that currently exist. In no way do they purport to preserve CAMAC as an entity. The transitional and saving provisions do things like continue CAMAC's assets and liabilities after cessation as if they belong to the Commonwealth and substitute the Commonwealth for CAMAC in relation to contracts and other instruments, in relation to things that CAMAC did or does before its cessation and in relation to legal proceedings that are on foot upon the commencement of the bill. They also provide for the continued protection of information.

In summary, this bill provides the necessary framework going forward in terms of the area of corporations and financial markets. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I speak today on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment. (Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee Abolition) Bill 2014. The member for Moncrieff, in his former capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, has told us that:

This bill fulfils a commitment made by the government in the 2014-15 budget to abolish CAMAC and its legal committee as part of the effort to achieve a smaller and more rational government footprint.

I must say, I am shocked that any member of this shambles of a Commonwealth government can utter the phrase 'rational government' with a straight face.

But the real problem is the member for Moncrieff's claim that this bill will achieve a smaller government. This government talks a lot about deregulation, about red tape and about 'smaller government'. I do not cavil with the principles underlying that kind of rhetoric. Of course, we should strive to regulate in the most efficient manner possible. Of course, we should restrict government to activities where we are confident that government intervention will serve the public good. Of course, it is the task of every Commonwealth government to find savings and efficiencies. Labor did all those things in our time in government.

But this Abbott Liberal government does not want to do the hard work required to achieve those ends. The modern Liberal Party, it seems, clings to an increasing doctrinaire view of the role of government. They think that any cut is a good cut—that every and any saving is justified. The past nearly 18 months of government has shown just how wrongheaded this approach is. Since its election, this government has pushed to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. This body, of course, has been publicly defended by those it regulates. The charities sector has rallied to the value and the usefulness of this agency, which was established by the former Labor government. It is an object lesson for the Abbott Liberals that not all regulation is to be opposed, and the government has now signalled a reversal on its foolish course of action in relation to the ACNC.

The government also sought to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. This is actually a great example of the wrongheaded approach that this Liberal government has taken to regulation and oversight. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is a very inexpensive office that, in fact, investigates whether onerous antiterror and counterterror provisions are justified. It is an oversight agency charged with reviewing and making annual reports to government and the parliament on whether or not counter-terrorism legislation should be continued in force. So it is right to think of it as a kind of deregulatory agency, but that was apparently entirely missed by this government in its rush to abolish and cut where ever it thought it could.

I was very happy to see the Liberal government back away from this measure, too, and that since realising the error of their ways have filled the vacancy they allowed to occur when the first occupant of the job of Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker SC of the New South Wales bar, ceased in his three-year term in April this year. The government allowed the position to remain vacant for several months because they were intent on abolishing the position, but, having seen the error of their ways, they have now at least appointed someone to act in the position pending security clearances being completed. And, of course, not only has the government reversed its decision to abolish this small agency, but has seen fit, appropriately, to give some new tasks to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in relation to legislation that passed through the parliament towards the end of last year.

Today, with this bill, we see yet another example of the Liberal government not being able to see the wood for the trees: yet another ill-considered cut, yet another time that the Liberal Party is wilfully blind to the demonstrated value of a particular government body—a value that is apparently inconvenient to this Liberal government's ideological commitments. This bill would abolish the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. Since 1978, the Commonwealth has had an independent research-based reform body focused on corporations and financial markets. This started with the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, in 1978, and was followed by the Corporations and Securities Advisory Committee, in 1989, which became CAMAC, in 2002, following the referral of corporations powers from the states to the Commonwealth, when corporation regulation became an entirely Commonwealth matter. In the time that it has operated under that name, CAMAC has produced dozens of reports, and while there are far too many to list all of them, some of the recommendations that members of this House might be familiar with in more recent times are reports and recommendations that CAMAC made in relation to continuous disclosure, company restructuring to avoid liquidation, executive remuneration, and directors' liability. All of them are core matters in relation to corporate regulation; all of them are matters of tremendous interest to the work of this parliament and to the corporate community in Australia; and all of them are at a particularly expert level, because that is the way in which CAMAC has operated now for many years.

CAMAC is a statutory body corporate, but it comprises part-time members appointed by a Treasury portfolio minister—we learn this from the explanatory memorandum—under section 147 of the ASIC Act. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, members of CAMAC are appointed in a personal capacity on the basis of their knowledge and experience in business, financial markets, law, economics or accounting. Then, we are told, CAMAC is supported by a full-time executive of three staff. That is where the supposed saving is drawn from—the abolition of the full-time executive of three staff is going to marvellously save a great deal of money for the Commonwealth. We are told that it is a couple of million dollars over the forward estimates, and for that the government is prepared to sacrifice the immense knowledge and the immense experience that it has been able to harness for the public good through the time spent by the part-time members of CAMAC for many years now in advising the government and the community on matters of importance in corporate regulation. It is an independent body and it is an expert body, and it brings to public discussion of corporate regulation a great deal more than might be possible from a full-time staffed body, because it harnesses the expertise of people working in the private sector; it harnesses the expertise of people working in academia; and it harnesses expertise of people who might have no wish to be full-time employees of the Commonwealth, but are more than happy to give up their time, experience and knowledge in the cause of an informed debate on matters of corporate regulation. The independence and the expertise of the members of CAMAC mean that it has been a resource utilised by governments and opposition alike in policy formulation. There is a very, very good recent example of this in the report CAMAC produced on crowdsourced equity funding, which my colleague the member for Chifley utilised in developing his excellent recent discussion paper on this topic.

Apart from members opposite—government members and backbenchers—it is hard to find a single voice anywhere in Australia that supports the decision that this government has wrongly made to scrap CAMAC. I would start with the comment made by Professor Ian Ramsay from the University of Melbourne. Professor Ramsay is a person of long experience and great eminence in corporate regulation. He said: 'It's very regrettable that for the saving of three salaries a committee that has worked long and hard over decades to basically facilitate business has been cut. It's been cut with little thought and little understanding of its role.' And, despite that comment by Professor Ramsay, none of the speeches from those opposite have suggested that any understanding or any thought has yet appeared on the government side.

The Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia wrote to Senator Cormann about this decision. Their letter was very similar in effect to the sentiments expressed by Professor Ramsay, stating:

CAMAC has delivered a substantial quantity of first-class reports and discussion papers very economically.

…   …   …

We submit that if CAMAC is abolished, the Government will not be able to secure access to this level of expertise and experience at comparable cost.

George Durbridge, again someone of tremendous experience in corporate regulation, wrote an article titled 'CAMAC to be abolished', published on the website of lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills, which includes the statement:

If CAMAC did not exist, we would have had to invent it. If it ceases to exist, we will have to reinvent it.

The Institute of Company Directors—hardly known for their radical views—say that they 'strongly oppose the abolition of CAMAC' and that they 'recommend that the proposed abolition not proceed'.

It is incredible to me, and I think to people who are bringing any objective view to bear on this matter, that the current crop of parliamentary Liberals have gone so far down the rabbit hole of anti-government rhetoric that they now agitate to destroy institutions which Australian business insists are invaluable. I will repeat that: this is a government intent on destroying institutions which Australian business says are invaluable. For just a couple of million dollars of savings, they will destroy a body whose output supports the smooth operation of vast parts of our economy. It is a decision to be condemned. This legislation should be condemned. The government should be ashamed of itself for the way in which it is blindly pursuing its anti-government ideology.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment (Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee Abolition) Bill 2014, which delivers on this government's commitment of a leaner and more efficient government. This bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to cease the operation of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, otherwise known as CAMAC, and its legal committees. As a member of the coalition government, I support lean government. One of the key commitments of this government is to reduce the size of government and ensure that government services are as efficient and relevant as possible.

The CAMAC was established in 1989 to provide independent advice to the Australian government on matters relating to: the amendment, administration and reform of the corporations legislation; companies or a segment of the financial products and services industry; and proposals to improve the efficiency of financial markets. CAMAC is a statutory body corporate comprising part-time members appointed in a personal capacity on the basis of their knowledge and experience in business, financial markets, law, economics and accounting. CAMAC was established to advise the government in relation to reform of the corporations legislation following the efforts to bring about a national framework for corporations and security regulation throughout the 1980s. At the time the effort required to progress the harmonisation of state and territory regulation into a single national law saw little time for extensive consideration of how these laws should be reformed more broadly to promote economic development.

The formalisation of CAMAC provided the Commonwealth with an independent group to advise on how this unified law, or the manner in which it was currently administered, could be improved. The work of CAMAC has expanded from advising on corporate and financial market matters into areas of financial services and products as the Commonwealth has legislated on these issues through the Corporations Act.

Australian businesses have developed strong industry representation and no longer require a taxpayer funded committee to put forward their views. The government acknowledges the contribution CAMAC has made to the development of corporate and financial services law reform over the past 25 years. In consideration of the evolution of the business community over the last 25 years, CAMAC is now deemed obsolete. It has become an additional layer of taxpayer funded bureaucracy which is no longer required. The cessation of CAMAC will generate savings of $2.8 million over the forward estimates. The committee's abolition will not in any way prevent or hinder the business community from being able to engage with the government on issues arising in corporate law, financial markets and financial services.

The bill will terminate the operation of CAMAC by repealing part 9 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act and making a number of consequential amendments to that act. It also makes a number of consequential amendments to the ASIC Act as a result of the repeal of part 9 and provides for the transitional and savings arrangements that are necessary to reflect the cessation of that agency.

The reality is that business no longer requires a government body in order to express their views in relation to corporation laws. The government will continue to work with Australian businesses and carefully consider their views and opinions. The government is committed to open and transparent policymaking processes and, where any significant regulator changes are proposed, the government will engage in genuine consultation with the stakeholders. We will continue to quantify the cost of any new regulation in a regulation impact statement.

The Treasury will continue to advise the government in relation to corporate law and financial services. In addition, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will continue to operate under its enabling legislation to make recommendations to the government about any matters connected with the following: a proposal to make or amend the corporation legislation; the operation or administration of the corporation legislation; companies or a segment of the financial products and financial services industry; and the efficiency of the financial markets. Moreover, the government retains the ability to refer matters regarding the corporate regulatory framework to other government research and advisory bodies such as the Productivity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

The Productivity Commission has previously completed reviews on the regulatory burden on business in relation to directors' duties and liabilities in 2006 and executive remuneration in 2010. The government announced in last year's budget that we would abolish the CAMAC and its legal committee as part of our efforts to achieve a smaller and more rational government. The government believes that an additional layer of taxpayer funded bureaucracy is not required in order for business to present its views on corporate regulation reform to government.

Since the 2013 election, the government has reduced the number of government bodies by over 250. In the 2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the government announced the abolition of 138 government bodies; the consolidation of 15 government bodies into existing government departments; the transfer of two bodies out of the Commonwealth; and the merger of 26 bodies, while a further five will consolidate their offices with shared service centres or supporting departments. The abolition and merger of some government bodies—including the CAMAC—will improve coordination and accountability, reduce the costs associated with separate governance arrangements, and increase efficiency in how public funds are used to deliver services to the community.

The need for smaller and more efficient government is essential if we are to contribute to repairing the budget and ensuring the ongoing sustainability of government operations. Former President of the United States Ronald Reagan once said:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it

Members opposite adopted this approach and believed that government had an answer to every question. This is why Labor introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations that stifled investment and job creation. So much for Labor's 'one regulation in and one regulation out' policy.

This government wants to get out of the way of business, reduce needless bureaucracy and allow the economy to grow. This is why we are getting on with doing what we said we would do: cutting $1 billion in red and green tape each year. Since the election, the government has more than doubled this target, announcing over 400 measures and a net reduction of over $2.1 billion in compliance costs. Last October, the government removed approximately 1,000 pieces and over 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation. This was in addition to our first repeal day, where over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation, and over $700 million of compliance costs were scrapped. Members opposite were quick to downplay our achievement, as they fail to understand the importance of having a sustainable and efficient government. Unnecessary regulation hurts productivity, deters investment and innovation, and costs jobs.

Australia has the unenviable status of being ranked 124th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index. Alarmingly, the Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much four per cent of Australia's GDP. Despite members opposite dismissing these concerns, this government will continue to designate two parliamentary sitting days each year as repeal days to eliminate costly and unnecessary legislation and regulation. Not only will this result in more efficient government and productive business; it will improve our nation's competitiveness, helping to create more jobs while lowering household costs.

Our deregulation agenda has been welcomed by Australia's small business community. Last month I was fortunate to welcome our Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson MP, to Dobell to meet with stakeholders from our small business community. Minister Billson is a refreshing change for local small business operators, who know they finally have a minister who understands the challenges of running a small business. The minister heard firsthand from small business operators on how this government is strengthening the environment in which they operate.

We know that the cost of compliance is a major barrier to growth. The average Australian business deals with eight regulators in a given year. Businesses spend close to four per cent of their total annual expenditure on complying with regulatory requirements and spend approximately 19 hours a week on compliance related activities. This impacts on a business's capacity to grow and drive job creation.

The former Labor government left 200,000 more Australian unemployed, because they did not understand how business works. Their 21,000 new regulations put a handbrake on the Australian economy. Their gross debt, which was projected to rise to $667 billion, dried the well of capital and finance that was available to businesses looking to grow and expand. In contrast, this government has removed $2 billion of red tape and compliance costs and has commenced the difficult budget repair job. Every Australian understands the budget is under pressure. We were elected to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster and return the budget to surplus. We will succeed.

Measures proposed by this bill promote lean government and remove government interference from the daily operations of business. Measures such as this assist in growing the Australian economy. A stronger economy means a stronger budget. We have seen the opposition treat our deregulation agenda with contempt. Furthermore, members opposite appear to take pleasure in deliberately getting in the way of the budget repair job. The Labor party continues to block $30 billion of vital budget savings, even opposing savings it once promised when in government.

With declining terms of trade and more pressure being placed on budget revenues, it is essential that Australia have a government which takes responsibility for the budget seriously Let us not forget that Labor managed to turn nearly $50 billion in the bank into projected net debt of well over $200 billion. This was the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. This is why our government has methodically examined the role of government in the business community. We have looked at all workings of government and with bills such as this we are ensuring that government is as rational and cost effective as possible.

Lean government will lead us toward a sustainable future. The government's reform strategy clearly establishes criteria to introduce new regulation. It is important that we ask ourselves what is the purpose, cost and impact on productivity of proposed initiatives before regulating. Only after these questions are answered and only when it is absolutely necessary, with no sensible alternatives available, should government proceed to regulate. Since our election we have already implemented several substantial amendments to the regulatory process, including: requiring cabinet submissions proposing legislative changes with a significant regulatory impact to be subject to the regulatory impact assessment process; establishing designated deregulation units within ministers' departments; and finalising ministerial advisory committees to advise on deregulation priorities and opportunities for cutting regulation; where appropriate, linking the remuneration of senior members of the public service to their performance in reducing red and green tape; having the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet take over responsibility for deregulation and the Office of Best Practice Regulation; and establishing deregulation as a standing item on the COAG agenda, enabling federal and state governments to cut duplication and overregulation.

Unlike the former government we will ensure rigorous and mandatory post-implementation reviews to determine how effective new regulations have been. The Borthwick-Milliner review, commissioned by Labor in 2011, reported in 2013, in reference to the previous government, 'a widespread lack of acceptance of and commitment by ministers and agencies to the regulatory impact assessment process.' This government is committed to ensuring that we will not have an economy strangled by regulation and red tape. We are doing what former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would do, and that is to take a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that is strangling small business.

The government's key reform themes are to: minimise and simplify business interaction with government bodies; reduce regulatory obligation and reporting; fuel economic growth; and implement common sense reforms. Measures such as the abolition of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee demonstrate this government's success in simplifying government and deregulating the Australian economy. The government will continue to work closely with our business community to ensure that our reforms assist them rather than hinder them. The government must demonstrate confidence in the business sector and support them to work productively with us in implementing reform that will strengthen the Australian economy and lead to greater job growth. I look forward to ongoing deregulation and simplification of government and commend this bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How often is it that we have a government body lauded by business and professionals like this? This is what the Law Council has had to say about the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee:

CAMAC has delivered a substantial quantity of first class reports and discussion papers very economically.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors says:

Regardless of one's views as to the recommendations proposed by CAMAC on particular issues, it has played a critical role in identifying, explaining and analysing corporate law and market related problems.

George Durbridge, a consultant with Herbert Smith Freehills—Freehills, that big defender of anything to do with the public sector—says:

CAMAC has issued at least one substantial report in every year of its existence, often two or three.

Professor Ian Ramsay, University of Melbourne Law School, is quoted as saying about the abolition of CAMAC:

That's the complete irony of this. It cuts directly against the government's own philosophy and position about facilitating business

The Chief Executive of CAMAC says that the government is losing a valuable resource, and that:

Access to this brains trust cannot be replicated by Treasury.

You have all these people who have reflected in such strong and positive terms about CAMAC, and what is the government's position? The government's position is to kill it off—it will just wipe it out, having just come to office, and for what reason? The reasons offered are, frankly, bizarre. One of them is, 'Well, the National Commission of Audit told us to do it, so we are doing it; they said that there would be an efficiency made in doing this, and so we are cutting it.' Really? How much is being saved by getting rid of the three officers who work in CAMAC or support CAMAC's work—a body that has been around in various forms and that in one way or another has been providing this type of independent and impartial advice since 197? It has been re-formed and reshaped until its more modern version, which came about in 2002. What is the grand saving from getting rid of an impartial body like CAMAC, with its three people—it is $1 million. And the government tells us it is doing this because the National Commission of Audit told them to do it. The National Commission of Audit also wanted to take a fairly significant hammer to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, and that is billions of dollars being directed to certain parts of the country. What happened? That was left alone. When it comes to CAMAC and the enormous $1 million strain it is putting on the budget, it is being got rid of. This is the mentality of efficiency and streamlining that would suggest that if you ripped your car aerial out you would be more aerodynamic. This is the type of thinking we see from the government in the abolition of CAMAC. It is bizarre.

We heard the last speaker, the member for Dobell, being asked to defend this, and he could not actually get to the substance of the matter. Instead, we heard the mantra that comes out of this government—which only ever focuses on what happened in the last three years and cannot think about what should happen in the next three. And, when they put forward ideas that are as useless as this one that is being put forward now, they cannot defend themselves. There is no ability in this government—in anything they do—to put a cogent, logical, substantive and defensible position forward as to why they would put these types of reforms on the table. CAMAC has demonstrably been seen to provide independent and fearless advice in corporations reform. So why would it surprise me that a party which is responsible for deforming FoFA—and which is doing whatever it can to bend itself to the will of major financial interests—takes this position? And of course, that is the only logical consistent position that this government could have: 'Well, we do not want anyone independent giving us advice on how to manage the Corporations Law or markets advice.' Look at their track record: when it came to doing the right thing on financial advice, or on corporations reform, what did they do? They listened to the big end of town on FoFA. And they have—

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They tapped the map.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Lalor rightly says, they tapped the map. They have failed to do the right thing by the broader community; they do the right thing by a powerful section of the community—a section of the community which has enough resources to defend itself instead gets defended by this government. And obviously, this is why we say that the kind of thing we are seeing here with CAMAC is not about reform, it is not about efficiency, and it is not about deregulation; it is about getting rid of someone who provides frank and fearless advice. You do not just have to be Gillian Triggs in this country to feel the heat of a government that refuses to acknowledge frank and fearless advice. This is their modus operandi. Their modus operandi is to get rid of anyone who stands in their way by having independent thought and frank advice. In this case, it costs the economy—as has already been identified by the Law Council, who say that for every year that CAMAC has been in place, CAMAC has provided a substantive report that is well-thought through, and that can advance the case for reform—that is every single year. And so, this is not a demonstration of efficiency; this is the most superior demonstration of cutting your nose off to spite your face. And it is all being done to save $1 million. Why would you do that? The argument advanced by coalition is: 'Well, we will just wrap them up into Treasury. We will be able to get this advice. When we consult with the private sector, they will give us this advice'—as if the private sector, and the type of talent that would drive the type of advice that CAMAC would normally provide, were just going to do it gratis. The idea that the private sector will be a charity to the federal government, and that they will just provide this advice for free is rubbish. They will not. They will, understandably, do what is in their own interests in advancing their own case, when they consult with Treasury in the future on the types of matters that would have been dealt with by CAMAC. But, if Treasury wants the type of advice that was once provided by CAMAC, they will not be getting it for free. They will have to pay for it. Imagine how much in consultants' fees—and we will be watching!—Treasury will be racking up to get this advice. And you know what? It is going to be more than $1 million in total.

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

That is just for one report!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly; as the member for Kingsford Smith rightly points out: they would probably get that for one report in one year. CAMAC, which is able to attract talented people from across business and academia who have done this work; CAMAC, which would sit within the government, will now be abolished. And as a result, we will now see this amount of money used to support, no doubt, a plethora of consultants' reports—to support the work that CAMAC once did quite efficiently. It is simply bizarre. You cannot justify what is going on: here. It has been rightly pointed out—and this has been raised with the government—that trying to replicate CAMAC's role within Treasury is going to be a hard ask. During the consultation process, the Governance Institute of Australia has said that: 'Treasury cannot replicate the independent research and stakeholder consultation undertaken by CAMAC due to its charter of responding to government policy.' So if you want CAMAC to provide the independent advice, and if you want people to give it in a frank and fearless way, and if you want them to do it in a way which provides a much more rigorous and robust way to determine policy, then you set them up as independent. You do not set them within Treasury. Everyone gets that when you set them within Treasury, they going to do what they believe is right for whoever is in power at whatever stage of government. They will do what Treasury does, and which it is their task and their responsibility to do, to provide advice in that way. CAMAC was deliberately set up in another way. These are the types of comments being made—the one that I have just quoted, and this one, also from the Governance Institute: 'We also are of the view that Treasury will not be able secure access to the calibre of expertise represented by the members of CAMAC in any ongoing and timely fashion or at comparable cost.' Again, I would respectfully say that for the $1 million you save now, you are going to pay way more for that type of advice down the track. It makes no sense. This is not about efficiency. This is not about making government work smarter.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have blundered it.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow treasurer is absolutely right: the government has blundered in this, because it will find that, in some way shape or form, it will have to resuscitate this. It will be compelled to. It cannot sustain itself by doing this within Treasury. In time, the corporate sector of this country will also want that to happen—because they will want to see independent advice being put forward. This is the insanity of what we are seeing right now. The other point I would make is in terms of the quality of CAMAC's work: I would commend, as many have done, the work that CAMAC has done in investigating a critical policy area that will drive innovation into the future—that is, the financing of innovation through a platform known as crowdsourced equity funding. They were tasked with this job by Labor when we were in government. They brought down their report in May of last year. The government, saying it would respond, delayed and delayed and has now put the reform process into hibernation, because, apparently, we will not see any legislation put before the House until Spring. The CAMC work in this area was widely recognised as being well researched and well thought out and it is something that is certainly worth discussing further.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks then.