Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Today, the third repeal day, is another milestone in the government's commitment to rid the community of unnecessary and costly red tape. It is now more than a year since we started our concerted plan to reduce the regulatory burden on our society. We set about changing attitudes towards regulation in government, in business and in the community. For too long Australian society suffered poorly designed and excessive regulation. This imposed unnecessary costs on businesses, community organisations, families and individuals. It sabotaged the productivity of Australian businesses, deterred investment and undermined jobs and growth. Australia needed change and this government made a commitment to deliver that change—and we are. We are instituting a cultural shift in thinking about regulation.

There is no doubt that cutting red tape is a challenging task. The government's focus is now on striking the right balance between the necessary regulation that supports markets, innovation and investment in our economy, while protecting the community and removing the duplicated or unnecessary and excessively costly red tape. The red tape reduction program which the government has instituted has meant significant transformation across the Australian Public Service. Every cabinet submission must now be accompanied by a regulation impact statement to assess the costs and benefits of a variety of policy options.

Deregulation units—tasked with identifying and driving red tape reduction across the Commonwealth—now exist in every portfolio. The Australian government guide to regulation and a regulator performance framework have been developed to assist policymakers and regulators with their policy design and implementation process. We are further committed to work with the states and territories to reduce red tape across all levels of government, and the Commonwealth has a clear and measurable commitment to reduce the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulations by making new decisions to cut red tape totalling at least $1 billion net annually.

Since September 2013, ministers—along with their ministerial advisory councils—have been working to deliver on a range of the government's red tape commitments. Today, as a result of those efforts, in education we will deliver the platform for a national assessment program for literacy and numeracy online from 2017. In health, we have removed requirements for psychologists to maintain two sets of records of their continuing professional development activities. In agriculture, we are improving the regulation of stock and pet food products of well-defined risk, reducing the need for these defined risk products to be subject to the same intensive assessment process as high-risk agvet chemical products.

In telecommunications, companies are no longer required to provide repetitive information about mobile premium services. This will lessen the regulatory cost for telecommunications service providers. We are also making identity checks even easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing a new prepaid mobile phone, including the ability for retailers to visually check identification documents.

For individuals, myGov services have been enhanced so that customers can now update their details in one place, using the myGov 'tell us once' service, and link Australian JobSearch online accounts to their myGov account to obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. Students who receive payments for youth allowance are now able to advise of multiple changes to their details in one transaction online without needing to contact a call centre or attend a service centre.

We are removing the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices. These devices were shown to increase costs but provide no additional safety benefits. The government has expanded use of personal electronic devices in all phases of flight, provided the operator can ensure the aircraft is operated safely. This now allows passengers to use electronic devices for the full duration of flights, providing improvement in productivity time for passengers, in particular for business travellers.

In response to a review of skills programs by the former council of Commonwealth, state and territory training ministers, we are reducing the number of existing mandatory reporting obligations. As part of the government's industry innovation and competitiveness agenda, launched in October last year, we adopted a new principle that Australian regulators should not impose additional requirements beyond those that already apply under trusted international regulations unless it can be demonstrated there is a good reason to do so. As part of these changes, Australian manufacturers of medical devices, for instance, will be able to choose to have a conformity assessment conducted by either the TGA or an alternative conformity assessment body, such as a European notified body. What this means in practice is that Australian manufacturers of all but the highest risk products will be on an equal footing with those from overseas. In many cases, this will allow locally made medical devices to get to market more quickly.

These are just a handful of the hundreds of examples, and the government's efforts have not stopped yet. We have set a target of removing $1 billion worth of regulation each year in 2014, 2015 and 2016. To underpin this clear and measurable approach to reducing the cost of red tape, upon coming to government we set about the task of undertaking a stocktake of the Commonwealth government's total regulatory footprint. Remarkably, this is one of the few times that any jurisdiction in the world has engaged in a rigorous and consistent process which allows for an accurate assessment of the total cost national government regulation imposes on an economy. For the first time in Australian history, a Commonwealth government has undertaken a complete and accurate stocktake of all Commonwealth regulatory costs. We are also consistently measuring and reducing those regulatory costs to reverse the growing burden of red tape on the Australian economy.

Having an accurate measure of the Commonwealth regulatory stock means that, for the first time, ministers, departmental secretaries, regulators and policy officers have a detailed picture of the regulations that the Commonwealth government has instituted, through its many pieces of primary legislation, thousands of subordinate instruments and tens of thousands of quasi-regulations.

Today, in tabling the government's inaugural Annual Deregulation Report to the parliament, we now know that the situation inherited by this government was that, annual costs to business and individuals of complying with Commonwealth regulations is estimated to be around $65 billion per annum. Further, this is the first time in Australian history that a Commonwealth government has, with a very high degree of accuracy, publicly reported to parliament, the total amount and cost of Commonwealth regulation.

Australia now has its most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape on the Australian economy. Being the first Australian government to achieve a thorough, accurate and reliable picture of the stock and cost of Commonwealth regulation offers very significant economic opportunities.

In undertaking a thorough and consistent stocktake of all Commonwealth regulatory costs, the government has developed a map of the Commonwealth regulatory environment. This now underpins what is proving to be a very successful program of significant reductions to the regulatory costs imposed on the Australian economy. The stocktake-measuring process prompts a better understanding of well-designed regulation and poorly designed regulation. And further, the stocktake measurement process provides the opportunity for ministers, policy makers, and regulators to reassess regulation and to work with businesses, community organisations, families and individuals on how to best assist them.

The government is absolutely committed to the ongoing task of identifying unnecessary regulations, removing them and to make sure that necessary regulation is administered in the least burdensome manner. The reduction of red tape is not just about what we do within our own border. It is also about how other countries—potential investors or importers—view us in terms of the ease of doing business in Australia.

According to the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index, Australia's competitiveness ranking has declined over the last decade. In 2013-14, the Australian economy ranked 21st out of 148 economies. When questioned specifically about the burden of government regulation, the perceptions of those surveyed were that Australia was well behind in terms of global best practice. This is a perception that must be directly addressed for a country that is telling the world we are open for business.

Each repeal day is an opportunity to reduce or eliminate regulation and legislation that has outlived its usefulness or does more harm than good. It is also an opportunity to measure the cumulative effect of the many decisions to reduce red tape that the coalition government has progressed since the last repeal day, and since the start of our concerted plan.

Last year, the government identified an estimated $2.3 billion in net red tape and regulatory savings. This was more than double the annual target the government promised to deliver. Today, the government also announced that the total deregulatory saving since September 2013, is $2.45 billion. This is a significant achievement, and one that has real, positive impacts on businesses, community organisations and families.

The year 2015 marks a new year of making Australia more competitive and the commitment to work toward a new $1 billion deregulatory target by the Australian government. Today the government builds on the last two repeal days by announcing 890 acts and 160 legislative instruments will be scrapped as a result of this third red tape repeal day.

The core purpose of the government's red tape objective is to ensure that its deregulatory decisions, when implemented, will substantially minimize the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulations. To help achieve this outcome, this government is committed to continue to actively stem the flow of new regulations and to reduce the stock of regulations it administers.

I am also proud to table the inaugural Annual Deregulation Report today because it shows excellent progress towards this government's objectives to free business, community organisations, families and individuals of the burden of excessive red tape. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and express my gratitude to my predecessor, current Assistant Treasurer the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, and others for all the excellent work and the time and efforts that went into delivering the government's red tape reduction objectives over 2013 and 2014.

We will continue to reach into every corner of the Australian economy to find outdated and unnecessary legislation and policies which mean time and effort for business, but no value for them or for consumers. We are unshackling Australian business so they can innovate, grow and create more jobs for more Australians. Reducing regulatory burden is, part of the government's greater plan to build a healthy, resilient economy.

I present the Australian Government Annual Deregulation Report 2014. I also ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Watson to speak for 12 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson speaking for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.

Question agreed to.

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

It is with pleasure that I notice that after some noise back and forth across the chamber that was carried unanimously! I acknowledge that. How these days have changed. When we came to parliament today I thought it might be like the old repeal days with all the fanfare. We even had a thunderstorm. The elements were coming together to bring about the death of red tape! The previous ministerial statements on this were given by the Prime Minister, the galleries were full and we were told that they were going to be an extraordinary part of the deregulation agenda of this government. I think the parliamentary secretary has probably given a more honest presentation than we have had previously on what these days involve in that there was an acknowledgement, which I was pleased to hear, in the ministerial statement that we need to distinguish between well-designed and poorly designed regulation. The concept that you measure regulation by the kilo, which is how these arguments have been presented previously, holds no public policy merit at all.

I note that since the last red tape repeal day we have had changes from the government announced, for example, on product labelling for food, on the purchase of foreign land and on data retention. All of these involve significant changes and increases in regulation. All of these are supported by the government. I make no negative comment here about those particular measures but will simply say that the argument that you measure by the kilo how many acts and regulations you are getting rid of in order to claim whether or not you are doing something good for the nation is absurd. I hope that with the more measured response we have had from the parliamentary secretary today it means we are nearing the end of the absurdity of how these days have been conducted in the past.

Let's face it: there has never been a government from either side of politics in the history of the Commonwealth that has done anything other than made sure that, as they do annual cleanouts, old regulations get taken off the books. We all do it. The difference is that this has been the first government that has wanted rounds of applause for doing the ordinary work of government. We are told on this occasion that there are 890 acts and 160 legislative instruments that will go. When we were in office, we got rid of 16,794 acts and legislative instruments, and I take no comfort at all in the number. Yes, 16,000 was a bigger number than what we are talking about today, but who cares? The number of regulations and acts is not the point.

In previous red tape repeal days we have had acts that were clearly irrelevant and had absolutely no impact on the rest of the nation being taken off the books for reasonable housekeeping purposes, but they did not warrant the fanfare that occurred. We were told at the first red tape repeal day that the number included the abolition of a previous regulation that allowed the Commonwealth to take control of a mule or bullock for military purposes. It was some time since that had been used. There were not too many owners of mules or bullocks who were counting the cost to their business of that regulation still being around. It was reasonable to get rid of it, but absurd to get excited about it.

Similarly, we had the abolition of state navies, which had not existed since something like 1913. It was around that date since states had made any use of those provisions. It was sensible to get rid of them. Maybe there was a time, when he was a state politician, when the member opposite may have considered it, but it was not something that was making any difference at all to businesses in Australia. It was not making any difference at all to the cost of compliance in Australia. This is why the total numbers are so completely unhelpful. We need to distinguish between so-called red tape that makes a difference and the ordinary cleaning and housework of government.

There is a announcement in the ministerial statement—I concede that I have had a chance to go through the report—of a total deregulatory saving since September 2013 of $2.45 billion. I do not dispute the figure. I have not been able to find it in the report. If the figure is as it is presented then I presume the government is not including those savings that have not been implemented. The minister statement is worded:

Today the government also announced that the total deregulatory saving since September 2013, is $2.45 billion.

On page 19 of the report there is a table that shows a figure for 'decisions taken' of $2.315. If this figure is simply an addition to that—as to what has happened since the date of the report—then it presumes those savings yet to be implemented have been implemented.

The reason I raise this is that $824 million of the figures that have been quoted around here have not be implemented. That is because the government is so passionate about this legislation that the last repeal day legislation still has not made it through the parliament. It went to the Senate. There was an amendment. The government says that they do not like the amendment, even though they did not divide on in the Senate, but they have never bothered to send it back. So it is just hanging around here, waiting for a day when the Leader of the House will decide to ask the Clerk to bring it on so that we can send a message back.

But if this matters at all—if these days are meant to be important and are meant to be a centrepiece of the deregulation agenda of the government—you would think they could be bothered taking three minutes of parliamentary time to send a message back to the Senate. But they have never bothered to do so. So the legislation is just hanging around here with a message from the Senate that we have not responded to. As a result, I presume—given that the $2.45 billion figure does not appear in the report at all—that the figure is actually fictitious, because there is more than 800 million of it that the government has not bothered to advance, has not bothered to send back.

Maybe they are embarrassed about the fact that we have a dispute between the houses over a set of bills that are principally about punctuation—because that is what those bills dealt with. We have previously got excited in this parliament on our big repeal days—with statements from the Prime Minister—where there have been changes to legislation such as changing 'e-mail' with a hyphen to 'email' without a hyphen, and changing 'facsimile' to 'fax'. And then there has been the audacity to attach to those bills some hundreds of thousands of dollars of estimated savings to the business community by making those changes. It has never been explained to the public how you can quantify a saving to the Australian economy by the removal of a hyphen but if it can be done, good on the government for finding the way through to a punctuation-led recovery, because that is the absurdity of what we have consistently seen in these repeal days.

Sadly, in the repeal days we have had, there has been the occasional measure which has made a difference to people. And the worst of these what was done in the name of red tape repeal to the wages of cleaners working for the Commonwealth. Let's not forget: there was an amendment passed by the Senate, accepted reluctantly by the government, following the first repeal day, when they wanted to get rid of the Commonwealth cleaning guidelines. They wanted to get rid of them and, as a result, take away protections for cleaners. The first thing that happened was that the government accepted that amendment, and we had a discussion in the parliament, when it came back here, about how good it was that that amendment had been accepted. Within 24 hours, they found another way to get rid of the guidelines anyway.

Having done so, the Prime Minister stood up in this chamber and told us that no cleaner's wage would be cut as a result of that decision. But, the moment the first set of tenders to act on that regulation having been removed went through, cleaners' wages were cut. Today we have some of the most modestly paid people, who work as a result of Commonwealth contracts, finding themselves on $2 an hour less. I think it is wrong to cut their pay. I think it is wrong to get rid of the guidelines. But I think it is straight-out offensive to do it in the name of cutting red tape and to claim that deducting $2 an hour for a cleaner was a red tape provision after the Prime Minister stood up and claimed that there would be no cuts to cleaners' wages, thinking that people on modest wages might not notice when their wages went down by $2 an hour.

It shows two things. It shows the willingness of this government to do anything they can to attack the wages and conditions of people on modest incomes. Secondly, it shows the audacity of those opposite that they tried to pretend that that was a red tape measure. No-one on those sorts of wages regards their take-home pay as an example of red tape. It was nothing to be proud of. If the government wanted to deal with it, they should have done so head-on and honestly. I do not blame the parliamentary secretary at the table for this. He was not responsible for the plan that caused that. But the assistant minister, who he thanked in that ministerial statement, was responsible for that. The measure itself I opposed, but that can be part of genuine political debate. Tying it up as a red tape reform is straight-out offensive.

I welcome the fact that a deregulation report has been tabled. There remain a number of ongoing questions, including: how do the government deal with legislation that they are not willing to send back to the Senate and that they have not cared enough about to deal with at all? But overwhelmingly it deals with the fact that red tape is something that both sides of politics have attacked. In the order of $4 billion a year was saved through the seamless national economy reforms which were done when we were in government. There were no objections from those opposite when we made those reforms, largely. That is the sort of work that the parliament continues to do.

But let's not pretend that this government are only getting rid of red tape. There are times when they introduce it, and there are times when they introduce it with bipartisan support. We need to have a more sensible discussion than what we have had on previous occasions when we have tried to measure this by the kilo and claim that more is being done. In this parliament, it is always the overreach that gets you. It is overreach that has been the government's principal mistake on previous red tape repeal days. (Time expired)