Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the previous Labor Government introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations in five and a half years and as a consequence, Australia:

  (i) ranked 128th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation according to the 2013 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index; and

  (ii) came second last in a 2012 ranking of productivity growth by the Economist Intelligence Unit;

(b) the Government has a deregulation agenda to cut $1 billion in green and red tape each year;

(c) on 26 March 2014 the Government held the first ever red tape repeal day, removing over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation saving over $700 million in compliance costs; and

(2) commends the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for his effective management of the Government's deregulation agenda.

Bureaucracy and regulation: these are two words that most Australians hate as an individual, as a family or as a business owner. We hate these words, yet every one of us is responsible for either creating more unnecessary red tape and regulation or for implementing it. I am sure there are plenty of people outside this place who would question that claim, as the general belief is that it is only government that creates unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation while it is the business owners and families who are forced to deal with that burden.

The reality is that if it were only government who created unnecessary regulatory burdens, then perhaps Australia would not have come second last in the 2012 ranking of productivity growth by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Instead, as identified in the Deloitte Access Economics latest productivity report, Get out of your own way: Unleashing productivity, which was released in October last year, the cost of complying with self-imposed rules created by the private sector is double that associated with government regulations. The self-imposed rules of the private sector cost $155 billion a year, $21 billion to develop and administer and a stunning $134 billion a year in compliance costs. I do, however, note that the report went on to say that not all compliance is bad, and much of it is necessary. The issue is that many of the rules that are put in place either overcompensate or carry a heavy burden that is not justified on a reward-risk basis.

I am the first to admit that government does play a significant role in creating red tape as well, but I do highlight that, despite the public perception, this is half that of what the private sector does with an estimated 94 billion. The key difference here, though, is that this coalition government has recognised the impact of those unnecessary regulations on the economy and has introduced a systematic deregulation agenda to not only stop further burdensome practices being introduced but also remove those pieces of legislation that have already been passed by this place and the other where it is appropriate to do so. This need to remove the regulatory burden on our economy is something the coalition has recognised for many years, including the 5½ long years we were forced to look on as the former Labor government introduced 21,000 additional regulations—regulations which hinder business and hurt the hip pocket of every Australian.

Members know that the mining tax and the carbon tax were two of Labor's biggest contributors to reducing Australia's international competitiveness and two of their most monumental policy failures. Members would also know that, thanks to this coalition government, both of these onerous taxes are now gone and their burden removed from business and government. This was not just a financial burden at a grassroots level either; it was also a significant red-tape liability that constituted 29 different acts and 1,625 pages of additional burdensome regulation and legislation. While those opposite created regulation which led to this great country embarrassingly being ranked 128th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation, according to the 2013 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index, this coalition government is instead doing everything we can to scrap it in the same way we scrapped the mining tax and the carbon tax.

Unlike those opposite, we have also systematically managed and implemented this policy initiative. We are not just closing our eyes and putting a cross through some legislative practices—which, dare I say, is about the level of competence those opposite showed while in government. Instead we are methodically looking at every government portfolio and are working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure every decision is weighed and measured. I have done the weighing and I have done the measuring, fellow colleagues, and I must say that a $1 billion annual red-tape reduction target is a lot of regulatory weight to remove from government and, by extension, from business. This is a lot of weight but the coalition government is not one which shirks such tasks, which is why last year we exceeded this target by more than $1 billion, taking the total reduction in compliance costs to $2.1 billion.

I am also pleased to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Christian Porter, the member for Pearce, last week announced an additional $305 million in net red-tape reduction, putting us on track to meeting that $1 billion target again this year. I commend Mr Porter for his commitment to and effective management of the government's deregulation agenda, along with the former parliamentary secretary, Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong, for implementing the first two repeal days last year. Each of these red-tape reductions is supporting businesses and supporting every individual by making their interactions with the government less complex and costly. An important example of this has been achieved through creation of myGov—a one-stop shop for a range of services, including Medicare and MyTax. I support this motion and I look forward to hearing from the other speakers.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

Let me start by saying to the member for Swan, who is a thoroughly decent fellow, that a good place to start on this motion would be with some reality, some truth and some facts. This might help those members opposite who continue to just regurgitate the same old tired lines—which are just not true.

In 2013, I did an examination of the number of annual interactions with government by jurisdiction. Some would call this red tape. What I found was that local government was responsible for 25,234 of those interactions. The states were 2,641 and the Commonwealth was responsible for about 382. This may surprise the government, who identify the federal government as being largely responsible for all excessive red tape, all regulation and all burdens. I would say that they are just as responsible as anyone else. None of us like red tape, but we should not take advantage of that without acknowledging that many pieces of regulation are designed to protect people—be it in food, on roads or in other places—to enhance our lives, to protect and enhance small business, or to level the playing field.

What this motion does highlight is the importance of continuing to work through the Coalition of Australian Governments, COAG, with the states and local government to keep a focus on removing unnecessary regulation and duplication across jurisdictions—which is exactly what Labor did in government. We did this through our Seamless National Economy reforms, the first 17 of which reduced business costs by an estimated $4 billion per year.

I say to those opposite that their claims are in no way a true reflection of the regulatory environment in which small business operates. It is misleading to suggest that regulation has a direct and negative impact on small business or a particular sector. In fact, in many cases it is the exact opposite. Of the so-called 21,000 pieces, for example, 3,400 of these were air worthiness certificates to keep us safe in the air. What should we do about those? Should we get rid of those? I should also point out that of the 21,000, 4,200 of those were tax concession orders to help small business. They wanted these 4,200; small business wanted them. Labor repealed 16,794 acts and legislative instruments when in government as a part of the ordinary routine business of government. We did not have bonfires and set whole libraries on fire and burn the books just because we thought there might be a few people who might enjoy a burning of the books; we just did our job.

This government cite some interesting examples in their Cutting Red Tape glossy brochure, such red-tape cutting examples as Commercialisation Australia. They cut Commercialisation Australia and called that a red-tape reduction, so small business have nowhere to go when they want to commercialise. Investing in Experience—my God, we have to get rid of that through red-tape reduction. That is what the Liberal-National Party did, the Tony Abbott government. They got rid of the National Workforce Development Fund, another red-tape cut. The textile, clothing and footwear Building Innovation Capacity program—how is that a red-tape cut and saving? And it goes on and on with all of these great small business programs around innovation, productivity.

If the member for Swan wants to learn something about productivity and economic growth, he should maybe have a look at why these programs were put in place in the first instance because then he would have a better understanding of why a Labor government put them in place—that is, to address the very concerns that he highlights. But what will happen under the Liberal government? Getting rid of these innovation programs, the mechanisms of productivity and growth and helping small businesses, means small businesses will not thank you because small businesses are finding it very, very difficult. Every survey and report that I can find says business confidence in this country is at its lowest ever. Small businesses are hurting. Talk to any retailer on high street and low street, and every other street you can find, and you will see. This is a trumped up, worthless motion based on completely irresponsible government behaviour.

They are just trotting out the old regurgitated line of 21,000—21,000 widgets, 21,000 things that happen—but the real problem here is if you are serious about the economy and productivity and growth and innovation, then you back it and you support. If you are serious about small businesses, you give them tax concession on the things they invest in—people, assets. You invest in them and they co-invest and the economy grows. This simplistic, idiotic regurgitation of red-tape bonfires does nothing for small business or the economy. (Time expired)

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

That was a bit harsh. There is a great movie I watched once with Mel Gibson in it. It was called What Women Want. Now we certainly have not got enough time today to explore that, but I ask the question today: what do businesses want? What they want is for government to get out of their way. It is a pretty simple response. They want government to get out of their way. They absolutely want government to break the ongoing increase of regulation and compliance. They want to see government stop breaking their backs with regulation and compliance. They want to be efficient. They want to see regulation and compliance issues addressed and removed. The previous speaker made a very good speech—it was quite entertaining actually—but whatever way he wants to spin it, and he can spin it all he wants, whatever way he wants to try and play out his response to this motion today, businesses are not buying what he is selling over there. They know that the Labor Party is absolutely synonymous with more regulation, more compliance, and more red tape. They know that, and you know they know that. The fact of the matter is that we are getting on with the job of cutting red tape, because that is what is important.

The key reforms that we are pursuing as a part of this government are quite simple, really, when you bring it all down. They are that we want to minimise and simplify interaction with government. We want to get out of their way. They are working hard enough in their businesses. They have got enough work to do trying to actually pay the bills, keep on top of sales and keep on top of human resource issues. They just want us out of their way.

The second key reform theme of the regulation and compliance reduction is reducing regulatory obligations and reporting. Why is it that they have to fill in a form for local government, and then, two days later, a form turns up from the state government and a couple of weeks later another form turns up from a department of the federal government? We want to reduce the regulatory obligations and reporting mechanisms that are currently in place. It is not hard to do; you just need a commitment to do it. Labor will say, 'Well, we had a commitment to do it,' but what was their record? Do not look at what they say; look at what they do. Kevin Rudd, elected Prime Minister, said it was going to be one in, one out. One regulation or one act in and one out. He got confused. I have said this before. He was confused. He thought they said one Prime Minister in and one Prime Minister out. That is what he said. He got confused, which was not hard for Kevvy. The fact of the matter is, the Prime Minister of the day, Kevin Rudd, said, 'We are going to take the scissors to red tape, compliance and regulation.' The scissors got lost, but guess who found them? The current Leader of the Opposition found the scissors, and they ended up in the back of two Prime Ministers, and it was certainly 'one Prime Minister in, one Prime Minister out.'

But I digress; the third key reform area is to fuel economic growth. You do not fuel economic growth by getting in the way of business, overloading them and breaking their back with reporting and compliance issues. We want to get on top of that.

The fourth key reform in the area of regulation and red-tape reduction, is common-sense reforms. Let us put the common-sense reform test and filter everything we do through that. That is what this government is doing. All ministers are committed to doing this, because they have been instructed to do so from the very top. Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, wants to see this as something that is not just talked about but in fact enacted by every minister of every department.

Getting out of the road of business is the most important thing that I think government can do. Yes, we need to stimulate the economy by the way in which we work with the levers that we have available to us as a government. But at the end of the day, the last thing they want to see is us intervening in their lives, continually putting our footprint in their front door, continually sending them another form to fill in, another fee to pay. They are over it and they want us to break the back of that environment in which they try and do business. This is an important matter that has been raised by the honourable member, and whilst we may have a little argy-bargy and a little bit of theatre and some humour in this, it is a very serious matter. Our approach to regulation is one of a very positive nature. (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with one thing that the previous speaker said, and that this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue because this government has tried to use the stunt of red-tape repeal day to hide some pretty nasty attacks on good working people, including their own cleaners. What we have seen from this government since they got elected is three fabulous stunt days, where they have stood up in the parliament and said that they are making it easier for business. What we have actually seen in the paperwork that they have tabled, in the bills we have seen before the House and in the regulations that have been put forward by various ministers is that the bulk of it is about trivial things—like changing full stops and commas, correcting misspelling of words—which they claim are great red-tape repeals. That has been the bulk of their work. But what have been hidden in those thousands and thousands of pages are some pretty nasty attacks on low-paid workers.

The first example that I would like to expose and talk about is the government's own cleaners—the cleaners that work here at parliament. Prior to this government's red-tape repeal day, its very first, the cleaners were paid in accordance with the Clean Start guidelines and principles. What this government did on that first red-tape repeal day was, basically, abolish those guidelines. It abolished those guidelines for all of its cleaning contracts, so then the contracts of cleaners who were being paid in accordance with the Clean Start principles had to go with cleaning companies that were paying the award. What it meant for some of the hardest working people in this building, yet the lowest paid, was that they would have pay cuts of up to $7 an hour. That meant that these low-paid workers would struggle to be able to pay their bills.

What we had from the Prime Minister at the time was a denial that this would happen. The Prime Minister denied that these changes would strip between $172 and $250 from the pockets of these full-time cleaners. The Prime Minister said it was not going to happen and that it was a Labor scare campaign. The Prime Minister stood up in the parliament and said he wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay would be reduced as a result of these changes. The Prime Minister either lied on that day—he either lied to the parliament; he either misled the parliament—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will not use that unparliamentary language and will withdraw.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The Prime Minister either misled the parliament or does not understand how contracting works, because what we have seen since this government has repealed the Clean Start guidelines is that the contract cleaners working in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection have received a $2 an hour pay cut. Their wages have been cut because the contract went out for tender, and the cleaning company, to get the contract, tendered on the award, which undercut the Clean Start guidelines and principles. That is the result of what this government did through its red-tape repeal day. Hidden in the pages and pages that it put before this place is a tax on working people.

Another example of what this government did on red-tape repeal day, as recent as last week, is an example around 457 visas. The minister responsible, the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, went out and said to the community that they are going to streamline 457 visas, to make it easier for companies to bring in people on these temporary work visas. What the minister did not say when she was out there was that there would be a budget save of about $30 million in compliance costs through the introduction of flexible streamlining arrangements. What concerns me is that we already know, by media reports, that there is currently exploitation going on within the temporary visa system.

In my own electorate, in Bendigo, there was a young couple that were here on a temporary work visa arrangement and they were not paid wages for 12 months. They took their claim to the Fair Work Ombudsman, who is now investigating this particular case. They are now owed $85,000. What concerns me is that the minister has not come out and said how she is going to stop this from happening. Instead, mixed up in the red-tape repeal day was a suggestion that we are going to make it flexible and easier for this kind of exploitation to occur. This is a very serious issue because people are being ripped off. (Time expired)

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

I thank the member for Swan for moving this motion, because it allows members on this side of the House the opportunity to remind members on that side of the House of just how badly they failed to reduce red tape. Australians were promised—as was alluded to by the member for Braddon—by the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Labor would have a 'one regulation in and one regulation out' approach to legislation. Instead, we were burdened by an avalanche of new regulation—21,000 additional regulations in just 5½ years. That is 10 regulations for every day Labor were last in government. Unfortunately, Labor's commitment to ramping up the regulatory burden was felt by every Australian. Shamefully, the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index ranked Australia 128th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation. Australia also placed second last in a 2012 ranking of productivity growth by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Fortunately, this government has fulfilled its commitment to cut $1 billion in red and green tape every year. In fact, to date, the government have delivered $2.45 billion worth of deregulatory savings, and this is more than double our $1 billion annual target that we promised to deliver. Under Labor, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion annually, an astounding 4.2 per cent of GDP. Members opposite are committed to regulation; regulation is in their DNA. When we held our first-ever regulation repeal day on 26 March 2014, Labor dismissed it as a joke and they still continue to dismiss it as a joke. They continue to dismiss the task of reducing the regulatory burden on Australia businesses and families.

For the first time in Australian history, a federal government has undertaken a thorough and accurate stock-take of all federal regulatory costs. We are continuing to measure and reduce the cost of government red tape to Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals. The Assistant Treasurer, Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Hon. Christian Porter MP, should be commended by all members for their success in reducing the regulatory burden.

No-one would dispute that business regulation is essential in ensuring that the rights of employers, employees and the general public are protected. However, regulation that is inefficient or unnecessary unfortunately imposes undue costs on businesses and individuals. Labor either does not understand or does not care about the regulatory burden on Australian businesses. In regions such as the Central Coast, small business is collectively our largest employer; therefore, it is essential that the environment in which they conduct their business is free from unnecessary, time-wasting regulations; and, as I previously said in parliament, the cost of compliance is a major barrier to growth. The average Australian business deals with eight regulators in a given year, spends close to four per cent of its total annual expenditure on complying with regulatory requirements and spends approximately 19 hours a week on compliance related activities. This is precious time that could be better utilised growing the business and delivering more jobs.

It is astounding that Labor do not even have a plan to combat unnecessary red and green tape. They criticise, they object, they block, they say no—all the while without an alternative plan to support Australian businesses and households. In fact, their centrepiece policy for the next election is to the reintroduce the world's biggest carbon tax. We repealed the carbon tax because it was contributing to $194.4 million of unnecessary red-tape costs to our business community. Our goal will always be to make life easier for Australians and make it easier for businesses to invest and create more jobs.

Significant progress is being made to help free up the time spent by small businesses dealing with red tape. An estimated 447,000 small businesses will benefit from administrative changes to entry thresholds for pay-as-you-go instalments. Of these, 45,000 small businesses that have no GST reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge a businesses activity statement where, to date, lodgements have been made only to report pay-as-you-go instalments. The remaining 402,000 small businesses with modest or negative incomes that are required to lodge a BAS will no longer have to interact with the pay-as-you-go instalment system. Thanks to our efforts and measures such as the ones discussed today, Australia now has its most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape to the Australia economy.

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

I will give this to them: the government talk a good game on red tape. Unfortunately, we need more than talk—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:59 to 17:14

As I was saying, this government talks a good game on red tape, but it takes more than talk to have an impact on regulatory growth in this country. As someone who worked in the ICT sector before entering this space, I have firsthand knowledge of the experience of sifting through page after page of regulation implemented by parliaments and regulators across this country. So it is presumably people like my former self that the member for Kooyong was trying to impress when he set up his website cuttingredtape.gov.au, now being lovingly maintained by the member for Pearce. The 'Track our Progress' section on this website purports to be a running measure of red tape reduction under this government and claims that the Abbott government has saved business $2.45 billion in deregulatory savings since they took office. Unfortunately these savings have been more stunt than substance—changing the word 'facsimile' to 'fax' and removing the hyphen from the word 'e-mail' in all government legislation. It truly puts the micro into microeconomic reform.

The website cuttingredtape.gov.au elevates spin over substance, and it seems that people are seeing through it, too. The Sydney Morning Herald revealed on Sunday that 99 per cent of the comments left on the website in its first 3½ months in operation were left by spammers and that nearly 50 per cent of all the traffic on the page had come from public servants in Canberra. It is also interesting to note that the government's deregulation PR campaign only seems to move the metre one way, in that the extra regulation the government has implemented during its term is conspicuously absent from its press releases. The truth is that, just like the Howard government before it, this government is addicted to regulation.

The motion before us claims that the previous, Labor, government introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations in 5½ years, but it fails to mention that the Howard government introduced more than 40,000 pages of regulation between the years 2000 and 2006. And I will do the maths for you: that is an average of 6,000 pages of new regulation a year through the term of the Howard government. This government, like the Howard government before it, has a 'regulate first, think later' attitude. Many of the government's policies introduced just this year impose extra burdens on business. In the field of policy where I spent the majority of my career before entering this place, the ICT sector, we have seen a suite of new regulatory burdens on business. The metadata legislation we have been debating this year put a greater burden on telcos by demanding that they retain certain types of their customers' data for two years. The Children's e-Safety Commissioner creates regulatory obligations with respect to bullying on the internet and the response of social media companies to these claims. The online copyright enforcement code of practice and an upcoming website-blocking regime to be debated by this parliament in coming sitting weeks will create similar burdens. These are clear examples of regulatory growth—not that you would see them on www.cuttingredtape.gov.au.

We should not move away from the brunt of this motion, however. It is true to say that there were around 22,000 new regulations implemented under the Labor government from 2007 to 2013. A total of 3,400 of these were airworthiness directives—measures that were put in place to make and keep air travel safer. After the tragedies that have occurred in the last year, I doubt that anyone in this chamber would get up in this place and criticise measures of this kind. There are multiple other examples of necessary regulation that the previous Labor government implemented. However, it should be noted that under Labor from 2007 to 2013 a total of 16,694 acts and legislative instruments were repealed—without a flash website, without fanfare and a self-promoting assistant minister—just as a matter of course for a responsible government.

Labor introduced the standard business reporting to streamline business-to-government reporting. Labor also introduced the national business names registration service, which removes the requirement for business to register in each state and territory jurisdiction, significantly lowering costs and time for businesses. Schemes like the Superannuation Clearing House enable businesses with fewer than 20 employees to pay all of their staff super contributions into a single transaction rather than multiple super funds. These are tangible ways in which the previous, Labor, government relieved regulatory burdens on business—substantive ways, interventions of substance rather than spin, and without a flash website.

It is time to have a grown-up discussion about the rising levels of regulation in Australia. I do believe this. But I do hope that the government can leave its PR-driven, hype-filled, hyphen-busting approach behind and join Labor in a conversation about the substantive ways of reducing regulatory growth in this country.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really want to commend this motion on deregulation, because it speaks directly to residents and to businesses in my electorate of Robertson. As the member for Swan noted, the previous, Labor, government introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations in just 5½ years—not, of course, that the member for Gellibrand admitted this in his contribution, but these regulations left Australia down the bottom of two global indicators. The 2013 World Economic Global Competitive Index ranked us as 128th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation, and we were second last in a 2012 ranking of productivity growth by the Economist Intelligence Unit. In the last year alone of the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing us approximately $65 billion per year, a massive 4.2 per cent of GDP. That is why this government has a strong agenda to cut red tape by holding two repeal days every year.

I am pleased to say that after the first three repeal days this government has delivered more than $2.4 billion worth of red-tape reductions. In fact, on the most recent repeal day we repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament.

For people living in my electorate, red-tape reduction means we can help ease the burden on Central Coast businesses, community organisations, families and individuals. It means less time filling out forms, less time waiting in queues and less time searching for government information. We have also been really open about how we have done this so people on the Central Coast can be confident that there is a precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape on the economy. For individuals there are simple changes that make sense, like making identity checks easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing new prepaid mobile phones. That has an annual compliance saving of $6.2 million. On flights, restrictions have been lifted for using electronic devices so travellers can use them during all phases of flight. It is simple but it also has an annual compliance saving of $17.7 million. Students who receive government payments are now able to change their details online at a time that best suits them without being required to wait for hours contacting a call centre or attending a service centre. That is an annual compliance saving of $2.7 million. There are really benefits for industries on the Central Coast, so they can get on with what they do best without being weighed down by unnecessary paperwork.

One such area is aged cared, an important sector in my electorate. Our changes will result in millions of dollars in compliance savings for aged-care providers. For example, we have increased the proposed thresholds above which aged-care accommodation prices must be approved by the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. We have also proposed a simplified accommodation-pricing process, which removes the requirement for aged-care providers to follow a strict process in setting prices. This also ensures consumers receive clear information on accommodation prices. We have repealed provisions in the Aged Care Act 1997 that required approved providers to notify the Department of Social Services of any changed in key personal in their employment within 28 days of the change occurring. We have also streamlined the forms for the Aged Care Approvals Round process, reducing the overall size of the application forms by 50 per cent. This recently led to more than 70 new aged-care places being offered in Point Clare in my electorate, with the particular focus of every single one of these places on supporting people with dementia.

For each resident in these aged-care homes there is a great need for people to care for them and slashing red tape helps makes their job easier. For example, Andrew from Terrigal was telling me recently with experience working in an aged-care facility on the coast. He spoke about his desire to build a positive experience based around real friendships and relations with the people who live there. He said his role was not just task focused but was also about supporting our local residents who make aged-care facilities their home. The coalition government recognises that with an aging population we need to ensure aged-care providers are able to get on doing what they do best without being weighed down by red tape. That means that people like Andrew can focus on doing their job well and local residents in aged-care facilities in Robertson get the best possible quality of care.

Time does not permit, but I could mention similar case studies and examples in small business, the health sector, tourism, finance, building and construction, and many, many other industries. But by tackling this burden we are putting into motion a stronger, more prosperous economy. I commend the motion to the House.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is an embarrassment for the government. They have got an addiction to chanting slogans, telling tall stories and simply making it up as they go. What that really means out in the real world is that all they manage to do is to talk down our economy and, in particular, business confidence, which is having a real impact on business and our wider community. We see it surfacing now, in particular in a rising unemployment rate.

The government talk about 'repeal day' and give themselves a pat on the back for getting rid of outdated and unnecessary regulation, something that governments have done for years. Of course there is a need to get rid of outdated regulations—to change them from time to time and throw them out if they are not working. They pat themselves on the back because this legislation gets rid of a regulation which abolished state navies, something that had not existed since the First World War, and gets rid of mule control, something that is seriously out of date as well. I give them a pat on the back for doing that, but it will have no impact on the real problems in the real economy in the suburbs and towns and country districts of our great country. All of this, of course, is done in the name of increasing our competitiveness and productivity. How delusional can you get?

The fact is that the data that is cited by those opposite to claim that there is something wrong with our competitiveness and our productivity is simply all twisted—part of the tall story they are telling, which runs our country down. Australia is the 10th-easiest country in the world to do business in. That is according to the World Bank. It is the seventh-easiest in the world to start a business. Of course, all of these things combined amount to the fact that Australia is a good place to do business and a place where people want to invest, and that is why Australia has a triple A credit rating, reaffirmed last week by one of the major rating agencies who gave us that status, the third rating agency to endorse the strength and competitiveness of our economy.

They are trying to pin this story on Labor and say that there is a problem with productivity in Australia which has to do with outdated regulation. The truth is that it is always a challenge to drive productivity growth in our community. What is so absurd about the critique we are hearing from those opposite is that they are taking the axe to the drivers of productivity growth in our economy—hacking into education, hacking into skills and training, hacking into research and development, hacking into innovation, and hacking into first-class, economic capacity building infrastructure. They are the drivers of productivity in our economy. Despite all of that, stand back and look at the Australian economy, the 12th largest in the world. It is 20 per cent larger now than it was at the end of 2007.

We have challenges in our economy, but we are a First World economy with first-class economic settings, which do need to be updated from time to time. It is just that the drivers of that growth in productivity in our economy are being attacked by this government in the name of competitiveness. It is simply obscene, bizarre, for them to tell this tall story, which is not accepted by the rating agencies and not accepted by most credible economists but somehow is the truth. It is the parallel universe in which the Abbott government lives.

What does the government feel it necessary to tell these tall stories? I think it is really about trying to score political points, which, in itself, is having a dramatic impact on productivity in our economy. We now have a dramatically lower exchange rate and we have record low interest rates—so why is business confidence 16 per cent below what it was at the last election? It is because we have a government that is simply out of control, addicted to slogans, putting politics before policy and trying to score political points all of the time. It is a government that has in fact doubled the deficit over the forward estimates. Of course, the consequence of this is that we now have an unemployment rate with a six in front of it, not a five—all on their watch. The poor performance of this government and its handling of the economy is pretty bad news for a lot of people in Australia, so what we get are tall stories.

Of course, what we get is really their agenda, and their agenda is to roll back the size of government and to roll back the interventions of government in the economy which provide the essential protections that small business requires. If they were really serious about small business, they would not have got rid of the instant asset write-off and they certainly would have applauded us tripling the tax-free threshold. But what do we hear? All this stupid language about regulation. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.