Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dev says the English language requirements are punishing for multicultural employers. Today I say to Dev, 'We have heard you.' This government is reforming the 457 visa program by streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications; reforming sponsorship requirements to reduce the time and cost to businesses; increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses; and providing greater flexibility in relation to English-language testing and skill requirements. These measures are good for business, good for employers and good for the country, saving $29.9 million per year in compliance fees.

Tourism is an industry that Leichhardt strongly relies on and there are huge benefits, looking ahead. Firstly, we can expect more tourists now that visitors from half-a-dozen new countries can apply for their subclass 600 Visitor visas electronically. Visitors from the Philippines, Kenya, South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina can now go to the Australian immigration website and apply online. Secondly, we know that Chinese visitors are a major contributor to the tourism sector. In the last financial year Australia welcomed more than 700,000 visitors. We want to make it even easier for them to visit. We are giving Chinese business visitors access to a single visa that will allow them to visit Australia multiple times over a three-year period.

China is among eight countries to trial the SmartGate passport processing system along with eligible citizens of Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Japan. This SmartGate passport system is already available to eligible travellers from Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. It substantially reduces queue waiting times as travellers enter Australia to work or holiday and greatly enhances the 'welcome' experience.

Tourism Tropical North Queensland has praised the federal government's initiatives to cut red tape. CEO Alex de Waal said it will greatly enhance Australia's ability to attract tourists. He said it was wonderful to see the federal government proactively investing in tourism growth; however, he cautioned that still more needs to be done. Alex said that Australia's competitors are finding new ways to remove barriers and attract guests, so Australia needs to continue to innovate by aggressively tackling barriers to tourism growth in this country. I wholly support Alex's views here, and I can promise him that this government will not be resting on its laurels.

Finally, we have removed provisions in the Aged Care Act 1997 that forced providers to notify the Department of Social Services within 28 days of any changes to key employees. We have removed some certification requirements from the Building Code of Australia that relate to aged-care facilities. If the requirement is duplicated in state building regulations, there is no need for federal government oversight.

We have streamlined the forms for the Aged Care Approvals Round, reducing the size of application forms by half. One project this will assist in Leichhardt is the Mossman District Nursing Home. For 20 years, members of the Mossman District Nursing Home Inc. committee have been trying to build themselves a nursing home. They have been doing an outstanding job in their efforts. Over the years they have been successful, first of all, in having the local hospital converted into a multipurpose facility, which allowed them to get access to eight nursing home beds. They then went ahead and were able to successfully organise a plot of land, thanks to council support, and they have been seeking additional bed places through our annual Aged Care Approvals Round. Since 2011, the committee has been completing very comprehensive annual applications for these bed places. The applications are a massive endeavour and very time consuming, costing upwards of $30,000 in consultants' fees on each occasion. I am pleased to say that the committee formed a partnership with the Salvation Army Aged Care Plus, and this organisation has been able to drive the more recent ACAR applications. Nevertheless, as the president of the committee, Marj Norris, told me:

Anything the Government can do to reduce the burden of these applications for community, non-profit organisations is very welcome news.

After these 20 years of effort, in the last round Marj and her team, with the support of the Salvation Army Aged Care Plus, successfully attained another 42 places in the 2014 ACAR. Only a matter of weeks ago, the Douglas Shire Council agreed to transfer freehold on the land that they had reserved for this facility to the Salvation Army. So we are now looking to the next round to get about $6 million, with the Salvation Army putting in a similar amount, so that they can build a facility. After 20 years of effort, there is a real possibility of Mossman attaining their aged-care facility. I will certainly be supporting them in their efforts and I can tell you that there is not a more worthy community. For the years that they have been working on that project, I think they deserve all the credit they get and the success that they are able to achieve.

We know how frustrating it is to have to update personal information at a multitude of agencies—sitting on hold on the phone or queuing up to be served. The new myGov website takes advantage of the technology we have available today and links together Medicare, the tax office, Centrelink, Australian JobSearch, our eHealth records, Child Support, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The extra features mean that every Australian can update their important details in one place. Cameron Murphy, a resident of Kewarra Beach, told my electorate officers how time consuming it is to have to go into a Medicare office to change his personal information. At a national level, this move reduces $5.4 million in annual compliance costs across the country.

In conclusion, today's $305 million cut in red tape builds on the $2.1 billion reduction as a result of decisions we have made since October last year. The previous government created around 21,000 new regulations, further clogging up the pores of our system. With the passing of this legislation, the coalition will have repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and 2,700 acts of parliament, relieving $2.45 billion of unnecessary expenditure for Aussie families, organisations and businesses. That red tape has been building up like a boil since Australia's government began in 1901. Now we are lancing that boil, getting rid of the pain and the pressure, and working to build a robust economy that will support growth and prosperity into the future. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

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

We have seen some extraordinary events in this place over the last two days. In an act of desperation, the Liberal Party last night tore down the member for Warringah, the man who has led them through almost four years of opposition and two years of government. The Liberal Party has changed its leader and has changed its style, but we saw in question time today that this Liberal government is not going to change its policies. The new Prime Minister has not yet revealed a sliver of difference in policy substance between himself and the member for Warringah, whom he so unceremoniously deposed on Monday night. The new Prime Minister supports all of the unfair budget cuts that he voted for in 2014 and 2015. The new Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on marriage equality. The new Prime Minister supports all of this government's failed climate change policy. We stand ready to work with the new Prime Minister on these and on other issues, but first the new Prime Minister needs to show that he is ready to deliver on what Australians thought that he believed in.

Proceedings in this chamber today have an air of the surreal about them. We have heard some lofty rhetoric from the new Prime Minister, but in this place this evening we are still condemned, it seems, to trudge through more of this government's discredited policy agenda.

I will speak to two of the three cognate bills before the House this evening: the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. The first, the amending acts bill, repeals 870 Commonwealth acts spanning from 1980 to 1989 which amended or repealed other pieces of legislation. As these amendments or repeals have already occurred, the operation of these acts is spent. In repealing these acts, this bill will have no actual effect on the operation of any law. I repeat: this amending acts bill has not one iota of legal effect—and yet three times in this parliament the government has introduced a bill like this. They did not deal with all of the amending acts on the statute book in one go. No, they wanted to string it out. And so we are forced to traipse back here time after time to deal with these bills which, I repeat, have no legal effect.

In early 2014, as part of the Liberal government's first 'repeal day' stunt, they passed a bill dealing with amending acts passed between 1901 and 1969. But now they have slowed down the pace, now they are asking the parliament to go through this charade decade by decade. Earlier this year the parliament passed a bill dealing with amending acts between 1970 and 1979. And now the eighties are upon us. No doubt, when the government holds its next 'repeal day' stunt they will move on to the 1990s. That will certainly be a sight to see—government members railing heroically against the dead hand of Howard government regulation. Each time the government piles on speakers. Speaking to the last bill in this place, in October last year, the member for Bass actually boasted of the huge number of speakers on the government side—on a bill like this one. On that occasion the government consumed an entire parliamentary sitting day debating a bill which, by the government's own admission, has no legal effect whatsoever.

The parliament has procedures for dealing with non-urgent, non-controversial legislation. When the last bill came before this place the opposition sought to have it referred to the Federation Chamber—surely, the appropriate place—but the government refused. And so they had the House of Representatives, the highest legislative chamber in this country, spend an entire day debating the repeal of inoperative acts from decades past. It is hard to believe that we are again being asked to consume what should be scarce parliamentary time for important pieces of legislation debating bills like this. I will repeat it again: this bill has no real legal effect because when an amending act comes into force it ends another act of parliament and its work is done. The only possible effect of this bill is to remove a number of lines of titles of acts from the Commonwealth statute book—acts that no-one would ever think to refer to or need to refer to because we now have a consolidation process where all acts of parliament, after being amended, are consolidated. This is the kind of trivia, this is the kind of stunt, that this government has resorted to, pretending they have some sort of policy agenda when in fact they have none.

The second bill that I wish to speak to, the statute law revision bill, is the third of this kind of bill introduced by the Liberal government in this parliament. The parliament has passed such bills with regularity since the first of them was introduced to the House of Representatives by Sir John Latham, as Attorney-General, in 1934. I have commented in the past on the first of the Liberal government's statute law revision bills, but for the government to seek to dress up a statute law revision bill as some kind of vast act of deregulation is simply absurd. It is not in any way a matter of deregulation, it is not in any way a matter of removing red tape; it is a matter of housekeeping. These bills correct drafting errors, update cross-references and remove spent or obsolete provisions. Of course, these bills serve a worthy purpose: they maintain the tidiness of the statute book. This is an ongoing task for this and other parliaments. This is not bold regulatory reform, it is routine work undertaken by all modern governments. Among other things—and this will give all those in the chamber some idea of the importance of this bill—this bill corrects the spelling of the word 'division' in the Sex Discrimination Act, which presently lacks its third 'I'; re-letters a section of the Personal Property Securities Act, which currently contains two paragraphs 'B'; removes a misplaced quotation mark in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act; and corrects the spelling of 'of' in the Surveillance Devices Act, evidently a particularly typo ridden statute that was also amended by the government in both of its previous statute law revision bills. The bill inserts gender-neutral language into two acts. It makes clear in relevant legislation predating ACT and Northern Territory self-government that the legislation binds the territories. This does not change the law. The ACT and Northern Territory self-government acts already provide that acts which expressly bind each of the states also bind the territories.

All of this is worthy. Lest it be suggested by those opposite that I am perhaps saying that any of this is not worthy of action by the parliament, of course it is all worthy. But none of it is groundbreaking. And this bill, as with the amending acts bill, is not in any sense deregulation. Neither of these bills will reduce in any measurable way the regulatory burden on any Australian business. That the government would again try to dress these bills up into a grand political gesture—as it has done on previous occasions—shows this government's complete lack of substance.

On Monday afternoon, as he made his public pitch for high office, the now Prime Minister indulged in some particularly lofty rhetoric—even by his standards. He told us that what this country needed was economic leadership. When we dealt with the last iteration of these kinds of bills, in October 2014, government members told the House that they were delivering economic leadership. They told us that these bills, which by the government's own admission are of no real legal effect, represented a bold reform agenda. They said some quite extraordinary things. The member for Macquarie described the government's charade as 'an unprecedented initiative'. The member for Deakin said the government was 'taking a giant pair of scissors' to red tape. The member for Grey, most incredibly, described the passage of the last set of bills as 'an Empire Strikes Back moment'.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I hear the member for Kooyong baying on the other side of the chamber, continuing with the pretence that there is some serious deregulation and continuing with his false and an unsubstantiated figure of the suppose savings achieved by this kind of legislation.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Isaacs has the call.

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

Well, we are back dealing with yet another set of these bills. The same members, and many more besides, are back, including the Assistant Treasurer, spouting nonsense about the supposed economic effects of these pieces of legislation. The Liberal government is back once again going through the motions.

I would invite members opposite in their speeches today to explain to the House just how the repeal last year of amending acts passed between 1970 and 1979 has affected individuals and businesses in their electorates. I want to hear just how much money has been saved by repealing legislation that has not been in force for as much as 45 years. Before we vote on yet another bill of this kind, let them explain what the effect of the last one was. They will not, of course, because even they know what a charade and what a farce these bills are. Is this really the kind of economic leadership the Liberals are offering the Australian people—the repeal of long dead statutes, the correction of typos, the renumbering of regulations? We are supposed to be in the sunlit uplands of the Turnbull prime ministership, but here we are still wading through the detritus of this failed, discredited Liberal government.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

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

I call the honourable member for Forrest and I ask the member for Kooyong to let the member for Forrest speak in silence.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across seven portfolios. The bill brings forward a range of measures to reduce the regulatory burden for businesses, families, individuals and the community sector that are not the subject of individual stand-alone bills. The bill also includes measures that repeal redundant and spent acts and provisions in commonwealth acts and complements the measures included in the Statute Law Revision Bill (No.1) 2015 and the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015. In total, this bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No.1) 2015 and the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 will repeal 890 commonwealth acts. Repeal of these acts helps to ensure that regulation is easily accessible, continues to deliver on policy outcomes and only remains in force for as long as necessary.

Making regulation easily accessible means that business, individuals and community organisations spend less time trawling through regulations and dealing with compliance. This is especially relevant for small business. I look back to the small business campaign Too Big to Ignore. It said:

At every level of government, regulation is suffocating small business. The costs and time involved in complying with those regulations is bad enough, and the unnecessary duplication makes it even worse. Let's cut the red tape and give small business a break.

The government continues to do exactly that with our continuous deregulation agenda. The reasons are definitive. It is very clear that small businesses do not have the same administrative resources as larger businesses. A small business with just one owner, a single operator, or perhaps a couple running a business finds that every additional compliance requirement simply adds to the challenges of trying to work in, as well as work on, their business. Every hour spent on compliance—every wasted minute—is time away from customers, time away from innovation and time away from actually operating their business.

The 2013 Productivity Commission report said:

For small business, supplying information to the regulator can be the most burdensome aspect of complying with regulation.

  …   …   …

… data requests should be the minimum necessary to allow the regulator to perform its function effectively, and, as far as possible, be tailored around data that is already collected by business.

Many of the over 12,000 small businesses in my electorate tell me repeatedly that it is the cumulative burden of local, state and federal regulations—the layer upon layer of regulation—that literally ties their hands and their profits. If they have workers, it consumes the otherwise productive time of these employees. If you have done this sort of work yourself, you will know that it is time consuming and often repetitive, and dealing with what is required by each level of government is complex. This adds to the cost of running the business and adding to the frustration of owners and employees both.

In 2013, the Productivity Commission estimated that reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation could potentially generate an additional $12 billion in gross domestic product each year. Respondents to a recent ACCI survey said that regulation prevented their businesses from growing, with some spending 11 hours a week or more on compliance. What really worried me was that over half of the businesses surveyed said that they cannot pass on the increased cost to consumers, so they have to absorb the cost of compliance themselves. For almost 30 per cent of businesses in the survey, the cost ranged from $10,000 to $50,000 a year. Frequently, depending on the type of small business, many small businesses are actually price takers, with perishable products in their supply and value chains and in their markets—for example, dairy farmers and horticultural growers. These businesses have no choice but to absorb these costs themselves. They literally cannot pass them on.

In the survey, I read that the commonwealth agencies that businesses found complicated to deal with were the ATO, the Department of Employment and the Department of Health. State regulatory agencies businesses found complicated to deal with were local government, the safety regulator and industrial relations. A simple example is that 34 per cent of the businesses in the survey were providing the same or similar information to government agencies. It is no surprise that 57 per cent of the businesses would have a reduced red-tape burden if government agencies shared information.

A recent Deloitte survey, Get out of your own way: unleashing productivity,encouraged businesses not only to calculate the costs of compliance with government regulations but also to calculate the costs and constraints of self-imposed rules—those that perhaps have been around forever in the business and never looked at independently, objectively. These are the rules that add to unproductive working hours and are also a major cost to business. One of the issues I was pleased to see covered in the survey is the very real issue of businesses managing information security. Information security is a pressing issue facing business. In the survey, 54 per cent of those who responded said that their boards understand cyber risk, but nearly 40 per cent were actually neutral on the question of how well cyber risks were being managed within their business. Deloitte said that most organisations are focused on prevention as opposed to detection, noting that currently:

The average cost of a data breach per Australian organisation is more than $2.5 million per year … and rising.

And:

Financial losses, intellectual property theft, reputational damage, fraud and legal exposure are all at risk when it comes to cyber and information security. Vigilance and resilience all need the full attention of executives and company boards.

This is yet another reason for business to be freed from red tape to be able to focus on the practical issues impacting directly on their businesses.

Schedule 1 will repeal seven redundant acts administered in the agricultural portfolio, abolish the Australian Landcare Council and make minor consequential amendments to update references in four additional acts. It is important that we minimise the regulatory burden on our nation's farmers and food manufacturers. It is also vital that we maintain our reputation for producing high-quality, safe food that is the envy of the rest of the world and sought after by the rest of the world. This is, without question, our greatest advantage in the international food marketplace and it is how Australian families can have confidence in the quality of the food they consume. The gross value of Australia's farm production is worth an estimated $47.9 billion a year, with an export value of farm commodities of around $38 billion. What we do know—and I know it from my electorate—is that agriculture keeps so many rural and regional communities alive. And although the nation may no longer ride on the back of the sheep industry, agriculture is still the lifeblood of the bulk of the Australian landmass.

Schedule 2 will amend and repeal provisions in the acts administered in the environment portfolio, making minor technical amendments to streamline regulatory arrangements. And of course the Holy Grail of environmental management is to make good decisions about environmental approvals rapidly. We want to protect the environment and also stimulate development and the economy to create jobs and to support communities. Now, some might consider that achieving both of those in a timely manner is impossible, but that is the ideal that we should always be aiming for. Minimising red rape in environmental decision making should never put the environment itself at risk, but changes can be made that do not increase environmental risk.

Schedule 3 will make minor amendments to and repeal provisions in one act administered in the health portfolio. Health administration—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—is always an involved and very technical exercise, and anything we can do to simplify the process should be welcomed. Health is often the most difficult of portfolios, because the entire population at all times has a vested interest in health policy. It is therefore a portfolio in which removing self-interest is all but impossible. It is also a portfolio that has an ever-increasing expectation of outcome and thereby an ever-increasing demand whilst retaining a far too commonly held belief in entitlement. That is, as a community we are demanding constantly improving health outcomes at no personal cost. And of course those selling health outcomes, whether they are drug companies, health firms or medical professionals, have ready-made supporters for ever-increasing demands on public expenditure.

It has always been quite easy for any opposition to make cheap political points when some section of the community may not be having their expectations met. In health, fixing this is no easy task. But limiting the growth of health expenditure will be vital to the economic wellbeing of Australia and thus, by default, the general wellbeing of the future populations that we are demanding pay for our health outcomes of today.

Schedule 4 will repeal redundant legislation in the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Schedule 5 makes minor amendments and repeals provisions in acts administered in the social services portfolio. It is always hard to enact change in social services, but for the sake of future generations this work is essential. The Intergenerational report has highlighted the growing demand for welfare in Australia. In 1961, US President John F Kennedy said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.' Somehow in Australia, along with the large group who need some assistance in retirement or in poor health, we still have a section who believes that our country owes us a living. Let us not as a parliament join them in asking future generations to pay for the welfare of the current one. That is what we have seen through the accumulation of debt that we saw under the previous Labor government.

Schedule 6 will repeal redundant acts and provisions in the Treasury portfolio. The greatest threat to the standard of life in Australia is the risk of our own economic complacency. The economic prosperity that Australia has enjoyed has come at a time of massive global expansion, especially in Asia. That is especially so in my home state of Western Australia, and the figures are plain. According to the World Bank, from 1995 to 2005 annual economic growth in China was running at 10 per cent. The figure for the past decade is lower but still a massive 7.7 per cent. In the same period, Australia's annual economic growth was recorded by the World Bank at two per cent and three per cent. But in the past five years, since 2008, the World Bank has recorded European Union growth at 0.5 per cent, minus 4.4 per cent, 2.1 per cent, 1.8 per cent, minus four per cent and 0.1 per cent, which says that European growth is stagnant. Countries like Greece have not seen positive growth in decades. The US has seen a return to growth, but it is still modest.

So what has driven the high growth in the 1990s and early 2000s, and how have governments basically responded to the slowing of growth? It has been by debt, as we have seen in this country with the previous Labor government. The media outlet The Economist runs a very useful debt clock on their website that I recommend members have a look at. It identifies total government gross debt globally at over US$55 trillion. A quarter of that total, $15 trillion, belongs to the US, 87 per cent of GDP, at a staggering $46,000 per American. Germany is similar; it has 85 per cent, as does Canada. Countries with bigger issues as a percentage of GDP are France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Greece at 150 per cent.

We know that Australia's gross debt is currently listed at 27 per cent of GDP, with $425 billion in gross debt and nearly $245 billion in net debt predicted as the outcome for this financial year. But debt is manageable if you can pay it back. It is foolish in the extreme to simply compare debt levels like some schoolyard measuring game. Acceptable debt is that which you can repay, and to repay it you must have budget surpluses That is exactly what is the intent of this government. I recommend the Intergenerational report. It is a wake-up call for everyone. We are committed to reducing that debt and deficit.

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

It is a great pleasure to be speaking on the colt from Kooyong's bill, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, which includes such great achievements as the repeal of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974. We saw the colt from Kooyong sitting here with Mr Tudge, who reminds me of Thumper in George's Orwell's Animal Farmhe is off to the knackery next.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Boxer!

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

It is Boxer, is it? I thought it was Thumper. But thanks for correcting me.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thumper is the rabbit in Bambi.

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

Thumper is a rabbit! It has been a very humorous and topical 24 hours. I had asked one of my colleagues whether it was Thumper. I said, 'What's that horse's name?' And he said it was Thumper, but it is Boxer. It is Boxer who is off to the knackery. We know this very important piece of legislation, the omnibus repeal legislation, will perhaps stand as a testimony to the colt from Kooyong's ministerial career. He has gone all quiet; he is on the phone. They have not just repealed the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974, which was standing in the way of every business in the country. We know what a terrible and onerous regulatory burden the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 was! That was stopping so many businesses! I could not walk down the centre of the Munno Para Shopping Centre or the Elizabeth Shopping Centre without someone stopping me and saying: 'You know Nick, I'd open a small business but for the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974. It's standing in my way.' And I would say to them: 'Don't worry. The colt from Kooyong is onto it. It's going to be split up into many repeal day bills. They'll be spread out along the year, but I'm sure the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 will be in there and you'll be off and running.'

We know what they really repealed yesterday. They repealed a prime minister. We started off the day with Prime Minister Abbott—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

The colt from Kooyong could not help himself, could he? I dangled the hook in the water and out he came, just like a big fish. You know you will have to give up all of that rhetoric about leadership now, because all of you promised the Australian people—this was the great promise—adult government and stability. We heard you going on and on every time I went on AM Agenda with Kelly O'Dwyer, who I think is getting a promotion—maybe to the colt from Kooyong's job. That would be a bit sad, wouldn't it? She has her eyes on you, mate. I used to go on these programs, and they would just lay into you about leadership instability. They elevated it to such a level and then continued to talk about it—on and on and on. And then we roll up and what have they done? They have necked poor old Mr Abbott and replaced him—

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

Order! The member for Wakefield will withdraw.

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

I am happy to withdraw.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've repealed him!

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

They have repealed the Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. We do not know where he has gone. He was not here for question time and he had sort of gone missing there for a long time. The press had to send a helicopter up to find his car and follow him around. What a spectacle! What a spectacle from these people who promised us stability. I remember being here and vividly hearing the Shakespeare that was launched at us, like Macbeth. We used to hear about Lady Macbeth and all the rest of it.

I have a quote from Hamlet that might suit the new Prime Minister:

That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain; …

And be a villain. That was from Hamlet.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of your best, Nick!

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

I was saving that up! I have a fan up there, from Townsville. He has been very helpful to me.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

At least he has a sense of humour!

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Et tu, Brute?

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

I had a bit of Julius Caesar, but I am saving that for another time! I am saving that for another repeal day speech. We know they will come along. I am sure this government's grand achievement at getting rid of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 does not end there! There are more redundant acts to be repealed. They will free Australia from this regulation! But having repealed a Prime Minister—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about all the blokes who are going to be repealed on Thursday?

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

Well, I am getting to that!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a significant, substantive debate about an important bill and deregulation. So far, all the member for Wakefield has done for all the Australians listening to this broadcast is nothing but taint the reputation of the former Prime Minister.

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

I call the member for Wakefield back to the bill.

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

To be fair to the Assistant Treasurer—the colt from Kooyong—he is also getting rid of five acts from the Treasury portfolio, all of which are spent and redundant. When I was in the Salisbury town centre the other day, a would-be small businessman came up to me and said, 'Nick, I would have started a small business if it wasn't for the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959. That's standing in my way.'

We know they have repealed the Prime Minister; it is a sore point, so I will not labour it that much. But if only we could repeal the effects and policies of this Prime Minister. I have seen them in my own electorate, because they turned their backs on a billion dollars of investment from the United States of America in the car industry. They just turned their backs on it. We know the consequence of it: 50,000 jobs. And many people are saying that this will be the cause of recession-like conditions in my state and in the state of Victoria.

We know that submarines featured so strongly in the failure of this Prime Minister. If only we could repeal his commitments to the Japanese prime minister, perhaps they are one of the things that will be repealed. According to The Advertiser, the member for Sturt is going to be the defence minister. And, of course, the member for Melbourne Ports reminded me that on Thursday so many of the current frontbench—and this is a farce, when we have people sitting here who are ministers—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dead men walking.

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

Dead men walking, on the green mile. That might be one that we roll out for question time, I think. If only we could repeal the cuts to GPs—the cuts to the Medicare benefits schedule. If only we could repeal this pseudo-GP tax, which is going to hack into every GP clinic in the country.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the total destruction of the automotive industry?

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

If only we could repeal these things. There is the $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education—to doctors and nurses, and to teachers. If only we could repeal the low wage growth and the smashed business confidence. If only we could repeal the fact that they have doubled the deficit and pushed unemployment up.

Mr Danby interjecting—

And now, as the member for Melbourne Ports so kindly points out, the Australian dollar, which was at US$1.08, is now at US$0.60. There is all of this going on.

Of course, we know about some of the other things the new Prime Minister has repealed. He repealed his commitment to the republic. He repealed his commitment to marriage equality. He repealed his commitment to climate change. These are the things that were repealed in the quest to get the crown. He has repealed his commitment to water reform in this country by giving the River Murray to Barnaby Joyce and the National Party.

This is the greatest act of vandalism to John Howard's legitimate commitment and reforms in this area—the greatest act of vandalism to that legacy that one could see—giving the River Murray to the irrigators. We know the effect of that downstream in Adelaide. We know the effect of that. The river's mouth is almost closed up as it is, and we are heading towards drought-like conditions. It has been a very dry winter, and we are headed for a very long, hot summer. And we have a Prime Minister who was water minister when Howard handed down his reforms, and what have they done? They have given the River Murray to Barnaby Joyce. And if anyone thinks that is going to be popular in South Australia or with Australians who care about the environment you have another thing coming.

We know these things are repealed temporarily; they are a cobbled-together solution for a cobbled-together government. And we know that they are likely to be repealed themselves at some point, just like the Dairy Adjustment Act and the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959—these redundant acts—as will the redundant convictions of this new Prime Minister, with his cobbled-together, ramshackle and divided government. We know that these commitments given to the right wing of his party will be repealed in due course, when the subterranean conviction of this Prime Minister resurfaces later. We know it cannot be dormant for long, given his ego. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else he has ever met in his life. We know the consequences of that: it will be civil war in the Liberal Party.

The public may well be tempted to vote for Mr Turnbull. But if they vote for Mr Turnbull, they will get civil war in this government—a delayed civil war. It is delayed by his repealing his convictions to the republic, to marriage equality and to climate change. But that state of affairs cannot last and eventually there will be civil war in the Liberal Party and in the government. People may well vote for Mr Turnbull and get someone else. They may well get Scott Morrison, because we now know that the Liberal Party is capable of anything! They are capable of removing a sitting Prime Minister.

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

Order! The member for Wakefield will refer to members by their titles and not by their names.

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

The member for Warringah and the member for Wentworth—they are who we are talking about.

But that is the future of this cobbled-together, ramshackle arrangement that has been made. If people vote for this Prime Minister they may well get someone else down the track, such is the ruthlessness of this government. Such is the ruthlessness and the skittishness and the chaotic nature of its backbench. They are capable of anything. If they are capable of getting rid of Tony Abbott they are capable of getting rid of Malcolm Turnbull.

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

Order!

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

If they are capable of getting rid of the member for Warringah as Prime Minister they are capable of getting rid of the member for Wentworth.

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

I thank the member for Wakefield for referring to their titles.

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

That is what will happen.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going for deputy next time!

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

Next time, my friend from Townsville is running for deputy. And he would be a very popular deputy; I think he should put his hat in the ring! We know the defence minister put his hat in the ring—that was hardly a sign of good grace. Apparently—and you would not believe it—he went on Radio National and said it was because he wanted to work with the Prime Minister. You could not write a script like this for The Thick of It. You could not write a script like this.

I thought I had seen some farce in this place. I have been known to comment on that—fearlessly—in my own party. But let me tell you: the one thing that the Abbott government promised was an adult government, and stability and caution. They are the bywords of conservatism. And what have people got? Instability, chaos, confusion and division, and that is what they will get if they vote Liberal again.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to speak on this most important legislation, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, touching as it does on a very big difference between a government which is about less regulation—getting out of the way, letting Australians get on with their lives and not seeking to impose government in every corner of Australian life—and an opposition bereft of ideas and, indeed, judging government not by the quality of legislation but by its volume.

I looked around in preparation to speak on this matter and there were some really fascinating comments by very senior members of the previous government, who were in a rather self-congratulatory mood around 2013. They sought to comment not so much on the calibre of legislation that had been passed by the previous government but rather its volume. Senior members of the previous government, now opposite, were getting very excited and are pointing to the fact that they passed hundreds of pieces of legislation as if that were some sort of wonderful testament to their ability in good governance. The member for Grayndler was very excited one day. He said, 'We've now passed 307 pieces of legislation through the House of Representatives.' The member for Blaxland, my neighbour in south-western Sydney, said:

Despite all the negativity … this parliament has passed 482 pieces of legislation …

What an extraordinary reflection that is on the previous government. It was not about the calibre of the legislation but actually about the volume.

There may have been 482 pieces of legislation, but within those 482 pieces of legislation there was some really bad stuff. There was some really bad legislation in those 482 pieces, so it probably would have been sensible for those opposite to say, 'Let's not focus so much on the 482 number. Let's actually make sure that the legislation we pass is good for the country.' Good for the country—to me, that is the key point.

Within the 482 pieces of legislation there was of course the carbon tax bill—that was one of the 482, and not one to be proud of. There was the mining tax legislation—that was one of the 482 pieces of legislation and, again, not one to be proud of. It really is a very significant divide, that those opposite and their colleagues in public sector academia would seek to focus on the volume of legislation rather than its quality. As we know, there are many occasions on which governments both in recent history from those opposite and historically, going back decades, have passed legislation which might have been acclaimed at the time but which was actually incredibly destructive to the good will and economic success of their nations.

One of the most important areas to think about—and it is very topical at the moment—is free trade. Mr Deputy Speaker, think about what we are actually doing with free trade, because free trade—in a sense—is the ultimate act of deregulation. Free trade is a very big act of deregulation. What has happened over a period going back many decades is that governments around the world have sought to make trade between nations more difficult. That is the bottom line. Governments around the world have sought to make trade between themselves and other nations more difficult. That is what they have done. When you put a tariff on an item you make it more expensive for the other country to buy and that means they buy less. If you seek to impose tariffs on incoming goods and services—what do the other nations do? They sort of turn around and say, 'We don't like that very much. We're going to do the same thing to you.' You might think, 'We want to protect this particular category and we're going to whack a 20 per cent tariff on it.' But with negotiations being what they are and humans being what they are, other countries say, 'You do that to us and we're going to put a 20 per cent tariff on you.' And what is the ultimate result? Higher prices for consumers, fewer things being traded and lower standards of living.

If you look back over the last century, I think it is fair to say that there has probably been no pattern of government regulation across the globe which has been more destructive to the wealth and living standards of nations than the imposition of artificial tariff barriers. It was a terrible idea when it started back in the early 20th century, and it remains a terrible idea today.

If we go back to 1930, in response to the Great Depression in the United States there was a view that said, 'If we really just put a whole bunch of tariffs on incoming products that will make things a whole lot better.' That was of course the Smoot-Hawley legislation. Of course, what happened was that the United States suffered retaliation from other nations and that contributed significantly to the appalling economic circumstances that the world suffered in the 1930s.

Around the time of World War II, nations started to realise that this was counterproductive and gradually dismantled trade barriers. But there are still very big trade barriers today. What is the biggest opportunity here for Australia in the entire space of deregulation? It is to deregulate and reduce the trade barriers with our largest trading partner, China. That is the single biggest deregulatory opportunity that faces this government and our nation.

We know that there has been a massive increase in trade with China, despite the fact that we still have significant barriers, significant tariffs on Australian producers and significant complexities in getting into those markets. It really is very worthwhile just to reflect a little on how quickly trade with China has grown, what the opportunities are and the absolute wanton destruction of those opposite and their discredited allies in the CFMEU and other places who would seek to stand in the way of this fantastic opportunity for ordinary Australians.

If you go back to 1998-99, not that long ago—about 15 years—Australia's trade with New Zealand was larger than its trade with China. That is an extraordinary statistic. In 1998-99 there was two-way trade in goods and services, worth $11 billion, between Australia and China. And trade with New Zealand was worth $13 billion. So we had a bigger trading relationship with that very small nation New Zealand—great friends, though, they are—than with this enormous place with more than one billion people living in it.

Things changed over time and, by 2003-04, China was our third largest trading partner but still a long way behind Japan and the US. By 2008-09 China had become our biggest trading partner, at $83 billion, just a little bit bigger than Japan. But by 2013-14—the year for which we have the most recent figures—the relationship was worth $160 billion, it was two to one in Australia's favour in the sense we exported twice as much as we brought in, the relationship was twice as big as that of our second-biggest trading partner, Japan, and accounted for more than 24 per cent of our entire world trade in goods and services. So one in every four trade dollars of our nation, across the entire world, is with China. This is a massive economic partner. What did this government do?

Under the experienced leadership of the Minister for Trade and Investment we took negotiations, which had gone nowhere under those opposite and which had sat idle for six years after being started by the Howard government, and we got a deal done. We got a deal done, which is the best deal that China has done with any developed nation. It is a phenomenal opportunity. It is estimated by the Centre for International Economics to add $4½ thousand to GDP for the average household so that is, effectively, $4½ thousand of wealth per household in Australia. The various free trade agreements will create 178,000 jobs and are expected to lead to huge increases in the export of our services and goods into China.

It is absolutely self-evident that if you care about Australia, if you care about the future, you back this agreement—you really do. If you are going to put politics aside on anything, and say: 'This is in the interests of our nation. We're not going to be petty about this and seek to divide and confuse and scare, we're going to do the right thing by the nation.' If those opposite were going to do that on one thing, this is the one to do it on because there is nothing more significant than this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement for the economic future of our country.

But those opposite would seek to maintain a regulated environment, with tariffs between our nations, that is wealth destructive and that will hurt Australian families and thousands of Australian businesses that want to do business with China. It is a terrible reflection on those opposite and it absolutely demonstrates their lack of fitness to govern and, in particular, the lack of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, who, should he purport to be up to the job of Prime Minister, would surely put politics aside on this most important area.

I mention that important issue because we are talking about deregulation today and, under the leadership of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, we have built on the many acts of deregulation that have already occurred under the government over the past two years. One of the most noteworthy acts of deregulation has been the establishment of a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Previously, if you had a major project, environmental approvals are required. That is appropriate and we need to ensure that environmental issues are protected. But you basically had to talk to a whole bunch of people—state authorities, local authorities and federal authorities. It was very complex, time wasting, value destructive and no good for anyone. So we said: 'Let's not do that anymore. Let's have a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Still assess the environmental issues, still ensure appropriate compliance is there but take out a whole lot of irrelevant time-wasting activity.' And as a direct consequence of the establishment of that one-stop shop under this government there has been $1 trillion worth of approvals for major projects. And that is trillion with a 't'—$1 trillion is a lot. That is $1,000 billion of environmental approvals, a very significant development.

There are so many other changes as well in these deregulatory measures. The 457 visa program plays an important role in filling skills shortages. We should never walk away from that factor; it does have a role to play. Streamlining the process for 457 visas has resulted in compliance savings of about $30 million.

If you went to the ATO website a couple of years ago it would, frankly, not have been a very pleasant experience. It was very complicated and very difficult to navigate and work out what you needed to do. By streamlining that site, by making it more effective, we have produced annual compliance savings of close to $50 million in terms of that lost time and effort. The MyGov site, similar to the theme of the one-stop shop, is a very useful development. In the education area, the NAPLAN national system is a very popular and sensible education policy which ensures a degree of consistency across the nation. We have made the assessment platform for that a lot simpler by making it an online tool, with compliance savings of about $10 million there.

So we have had a whole range of deregulatory measures. The reason we do this is that we believe in it. We absolutely believe—in the marrow of our bones, in our DNA and absolutely everywhere—that government should be limited. Government should act when it needs to, but government should not act for the sake of it. It should not purport that it has the solution to every problem, because it does not. No government in history has had the answer to every problem and no government will. We should be absolutely clear that the power to build this nation ultimately resides with the Australian people. Our job is to create the fair rules of play and to get government out of the way so as to allow Australians to be their best. The free trade agreement with China is a fantastic example of that philosophy, and it is an indictment of those opposite that they seek to divide and confuse on this issue. They should get behind this very important legislation and, indeed, all of the measures in this omnibus bill that we discuss this evening.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. With the announcement of this legislation, the government has come up with total deregulatory savings since September 2013 of $2.45 billion. This is a significant achievement. It is one that is real. It has a positive impact on business, community organisations and families.

For the first time in Australia's history, a federal government is undertaking a thorough and accurate stocktake of all federal regulatory costs and is consistently measuring and reducing the cost of government red tape for Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals. For the very first time, a federal government has, with a very high degree of accuracy, publicly reported to parliament a downturn in the total amount and cost of federal regulation. Australia now has its most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape in the Australian economy. The coalition's goal is simple. It is to make life easier for Australians and to make life easier for businesses to decide to invest and to create more jobs. After all, we must never forget that governments do not create jobs; it is successful private sector businesses that create jobs. Our job is to give them the opportunity and a clear, level playing field. Often when we interfere with that, all we do is destroy jobs.

Deputy Speaker, I can give you an example of that. We are now seeing for the first time in a while a clear distinction between the states of New South Wales and Victoria. In Victoria we have a rather left-wing government with rather socialistic ideals that believes in central planning and more red tape and more regulation for businesses. In New South Wales we have a government that believes in deregulation. We can do a lot here federally, but we still are a Federation and we still have state governments, so it is very interesting to look at the ABS statistics when they come out every month and do a bit of a comparison—almost a state-of-origin comparison—in relation to job creation. We may in New South Wales be defeated by Queensland, our northern neighbours, when it comes to State of Origin rugby league, but the state-of-origin competition in job creation between New South Wales and Victoria tells a very different story.

The ABS figures that came out just a week ago show that, since the start of this year, in New South Wales there has been a total of 122,000 new full-time jobs created. That is not a bad effort for the state of New South Wales: 122,000 full-time jobs since the start of this year. In comparison, let us have a look at Victoria. How many jobs, Deputy Speaker, do you think that they might have created during that time? You might think that, if New South Wales had 122,000, maybe Victoria created 100,000. You would be wrong. With 80,000 you would be wrong. With 60,000 you would be wrong. Maybe 50,000? You would think that, if New South Wales created 122,000 new full-time jobs, maybe the state of Victoria could have created 50,000. Deputy Speaker, if you guessed that, you would be wrong. You would have to go lower. If you guessed a duck egg, if you guessed that, since the start of this year, there had not been one single new net full-time job created in Victoria, you would be wrong. In fact, the number has gone backwards. They have lost 4,800 jobs, compared to New South Wales gaining 122,000. When it comes to the state-of-origin contest in job creation, New South Wales is putting the central-planning left-wing government of Victoria to shame. This should be a stark and clear warning, because the people that control the strings of that government in Victoria are the same people that control the strings of the Labor Party in Canberra. It is a clear and stark warning of the threat to job creation that the Labor Party pose.

An important element of this government's red tape commitment is dedicating parliamentary sitting days each year for repeal of regulation. These repeal days are for the purpose of repealing counterproductive, unnecessary or redundant legislation and consequently removing associated regulations. I would like to give an example of a piece of counterproductive and unnecessary legislation that we have repealed: the carbon tax. The idea of the carbon tax, if I remember the debates here, is that it was actually going to reduce pollution. That was what they told us. If they could pump up electricity prices, they somehow thought that that would reduce pollution.

As an example of unintended consequences and bad central planning, let me explain to you how that made air pollution significantly worse for residents in Sydney—particularly Western Sydney. As you put up the price of electricity and make it harder and more costly for people to turn their electric or gas heater on during cold winter nights in Western Sydney, people look for alternatives. One of those alternatives that people have in Western Sydney is simply to burn wood. You can get wood and burn it in a fireplace, and I think that, for the first time that I can remember, during the previous winter and the one before, I heard on Sydney radio firms advertising to sell firewood. Any petrol station that you go to in Western Sydney has piles of firewood packed up in bags for sale. The anecdotal evidence is quite clear: as you put up electricity prices, people look for alternatives to keep their houses warm and so burn wood.

We have a specific issue with air pollution in Western Sydney. The topographical nature of Western Sydney is that the air gets trapped in there and can recirculate, so we can have levels of air pollution for both coarse PM10 and fine PM2.5 particulate matter above the recommended standards from the World Health Organisation. This is a significant issue because particulate matter pollution actually kills people. Already I have seen some estimates of over 1,000 deaths in Australia because of air particulate pollution.

So what happens? The biggest single factor in fine particulate pollution in Western Sydney—around 45 per cent of it—is wood fires. What have we seen as the carbon tax put electricity prices up? We have seen an increase in the amount of wood being sold, an increase in the amount of wood being burnt and, the statistics from our air monitoring stations tell us, a significant increase in air pollution in Western Sydney.

Another example of what happens when you get a government that becomes overcentralised and tries to control things, of course, was the old Soviet Union. This week marks the 26th anniversary of probably one of the most significant events in world economic history. It occurred in September 1989 when Boris Yeltsin, then an up-and-coming member of the Soviet Politburo, made his first trip to the USA. When previous Russian leaders had gone to America, they had been taken on tours of American supermarkets to show them the produce and how a free market system where you reduce red tape actually produces more goods and services for the average person, but other Soviet leaders thought this was all put on for show and so simply did not believe what their eyes told them. In this case back in September 1989, Boris Yeltsin was driving around Houston and made an unscheduled stop. He was with his cars and said to call into a Randalls supermarket at random. One of the speculations is that he may perhaps have wanted to buy a bottle of alcohol. But he went into a typical, everyday Western supermarket.

He said in his autobiography:

When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people. That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.

There is the most famous picture of Yeltsin in that supermarket, looking over the produce in the frozen food section with his hands up in the air, simply saying, 'I cannot believe this.'

In fact a lot was made of this. There was a book called Down with Big Brother: the Fall of the Soviet Empirewhich recorded quite a bit of this unique event in history. I would like to quote from it. It says:

A turning point in Yeltsin’s intellectual development occurred during his first visit to the United States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him.

…   …   …

It was impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without standing in line for hours.

Lev Sukhanov actually wrote of this in his book, Three Years with Yeltsin. He said:

I think it is quite likely that the last prop of Yeltsin's Bolshevik consciousness finally collapsed after Houston. His decision to leave the party and join the struggle for supreme power in Russia may have ripened irrevocably at that moment of mental confusion.

The book, Down with big brother: The fall of the Soviet Empire, says of Sukhanov's book:

Sukhanov devotes an entire chapter … to describing the wonders of the Houston supermarket. He records Yeltsin's amazement at being told that the store stocked 30,000 separate items. (The average Soviet store stocked fewer than 100 and many of these were usually "unavailable.") Every aisle was an eye-opener for the visitors from Moscow. Scarcely had they recovered from the shock of the cheese section, where they saw "red cheese, brown cheese, and lemon-orange cheese," than they were "literally shaken" by the quality of produce in the vegetable section.

It goes on:

On the plane, travelling from Houston to Miami, Yeltsin seemed lost in his thoughts for a long time. He clutched his head in his hands. Eventually he broke his silence. "They had to fool the people," he told Sukhanov.

This is what happens when government employs red tape on the business community. It simply means that our business community cannot be as efficient as it otherwise would be. We need to realise that we rely on the private sector in this country to drive the economy. We rely on that entrepreneurial spirit, the spirit of Australians getting out there, having a go and starting their own businesses. But far too many times we have governments employing red tape, adding costs and lowering our living standards. I can remember years ago when my father built a small factory, and some bureaucrat sitting in some building decided that for that building they would need to have four showers. That was over 40 years ago, and today I do not think anyone has actually ever used one of those four showers. The coalition is doing everything it can, determined to reduce red tape in this economy. It is important. We want to free the hands of our entrepreneurs—free them to get out and to create jobs for this country.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. This is an important bill which will have a significant impact on reducing red tape across a range of portfolio areas. In the time available to me I would like to highlight firstly that unnecessary red tape is a serious problem facing our nation and our economy. Secondly, I would like to emphasise the determination of the Turnbull government to reduce red tape. Thirdly, I want to speak about the work being done in the communications portfolio to reduce red tape.

Let me start with the first proposition that we have a serious problem with red tape in our economy. If you compare Australia's performance against other nations in the world, in 2014 we ranked 124th out of 148 countries for the burden of government regulation in the world competitiveness index. The simple fact is that the cost of doing business in Australia relative to other nations is too high. For example, the Productivity Commission estimates that regulatory compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. That is a staggering number.

Let me pause to acknowledge the outstanding work done when the coalition was in opposition by our red tape reduction task force, chaired by Senator Arthur Sinodinos, with deputy chairs, the member for Higgins and Senator David Bushby. In particular, I would like to quote from something that Senator Sinodinos said in a speech in 2012:

Unnecessary red tape is a contributing factor to Australia’s productivity challenge. The Productivity Commission estimates that reducing red tape will boost national GDP by $12 billion a year. Across industry, it’s believed red tape accounts on average for four per cent of business costs.

One of the defining characteristics of the problem we face with red tape is the fact that red tape tends inexorably to grow. If government does not take decisive action it is an unfortunate reality that red tape is ever expanding. Reporting obligations which are in place, which often have been put there for all of the best reasons, tend to grow and grow and grow. That is why it is necessary for government to take conscious and deliberate action, pushing in the other direction with a view to reducing red tape. That is why we came to government with a commitment to have two repeal days a year. On those days we have a systematic and continuing focus on the growth of regulation and whether there are opportunities to remove regulation which has outlived its usefulness or where the costs exceed the benefits. And while we target our specific legislative efforts around those days to which we have committed, we have a broader, ongoing focus throughout the year on areas where we can reduce regulation.

A specific factor which this government has inherited is the fact that we succeeded the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the government which showed an extraordinary enthusiasm for adding to the regulatory burden which lay upon the Australian economy. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government added over 21,000 new regulations and repealed 105, notwithstanding the promise made by former Prime Minister Rudd in 2007 that his government would have a one-regulation-in, one-regulation-out policy. I confirm that that was Mr Rudd in his first incarnation. We might call him 'Rudd the first' in that scenario. But the promise of 'Rudd the first' was never honoured, and in the brief—

Mr Champion interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield!

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and undistinguished tenure of 'Rudd the second', he never quite got around to delivering on that promise.

There is ample evidence of the pressure that this incremental regulatory burden was imposing on participants in the Australian economy. The October 2012 National Red Tape Survey was conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This was a survey of 870 businesses across all states and territories, which found that 73 per cent of businesses believed that the overall regulatory compliance burden had increased in the previous two years and that 60 per cent of businesses spent more than $5,000 per annum directly on costs related to regulatory requirements.

There is a very long list of regulatory burdens that were in place at the time that the previous government came to an end, burdens which had been incrementally imposed on Australian business thanks to the work of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. To pull out a few examples: the national childcare law of 180 pages was supplemented with 345 pages of regulations and 1,149 pages of guidelines. In Indigenous service delivery at the time that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office, there were more than 200 Indigenous related programs administered by 17 Commonwealth agencies. Each program had its own application form and processes. In the resources sector, one particular project required 4,000 meetings before approval was granted, and ultimately 12,000 state and 300 Commonwealth conditions were placed on that project. Under the previous government, there was a relentlessly enthusiastic set of regulators who added substantial new regulatory burdens to Australian business on a continuing basis every day they turned up for work.

On this side of the House, we approach these issues with a very different perspective. We want to carefully look at the laws and regulations that are in place and ask: are they still fit for purpose? Are they still delivering benefits which exceed their costs? That brings me to the second proposition that I want to put today: the determination of the Turnbull government to reduce red tape, to have a process which acts as a corrective to the institutional factors which drive red tape to increase. That is why we came to government with a commitment to repeal $1 billion worth of red tape per year. As part of this commitment, the government dedicates two parliamentary sitting days as repeal days each year. I am particularly pleased to be in the chamber with my good friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who has responsibility for the deregulation agenda.

In March of this year, the government announced that the total deregulatory savings since September 2013 had reached $2.45 billion, a very significant achievement and one that is having a real and positive impact on businesses, community organisations and families. On the third repeal day, in March of this year, the government had made decisions to decrease the regulatory cost burden by some $2.45 billion, and to date over $1.5 billion of those measures have been implemented, with some $880 million yet to be implemented.

Let me take a moment to touch on some of the key measures in the bill which is before the House this evening. The bill amends or repeals 14 acts across a range of portfolios, some of which are spent and redundant and have remained on Commonwealth statute books long beyond the date of fulfilling their purpose. Other acts contain provisions that have been superseded by other legislation that took effect years ago. Also included in the omnibus bill before the House this evening are a range of amendments to legislation which will reduce complexity and reduce compliance costs.

In particular, there is a measure that will result in over $41 million of deregulatory savings. The proposed amendments to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 will remove the requirement for compensation recipients to separately submit a statutory declaration when submitting a claim for benefits provided under Commonwealth programs for Medicare, nursing home services, residential care services and home care services. Presently, there is a requirement for a statutory declaration to be signed and witnessed for every compensation claim. This results in a process that could take several hours per claim in correspondence and in phone calls through legal representatives to obtain a valid declaration. It is already an offence in these cases to provide false or misleading information to the Commonwealth, so having separate statutory declarations is unnecessary.

The result of the amendment contained in the bill before the House this evening will be to reduce the regulatory burden on both compensation payers and around 50,000 claimants per year and allow automation of certain compensation recovery procedures by the government. Compensation recipients will save time by being able to declare that the information provided is true and correct, using existing forms. The legislation that is affected by this bill is the responsibility of the Department of Health, but the services are delivered by the Department of Human Services. I want to acknowledge that here we are seeing a collaboration between different departments and portfolios on cross-portfolio reforms to reduce red tape.

Another example worth highlighting is the Meat Export Charge Act 1984 and the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964, both of which are now redundant. The inspection of meat and meat products for export was overhauled in 2011. The Commonwealth no longer employs any domestic state meat inspectors, and cost-recovery arrangements are now set out under the Australian Export Meat Inspection System, with fees being collected under other Commonwealth legislation.

In the brief time available to me before we conclude this debate this evening, I want to come briefly to the third point I want to make, which is the active program of deregulation measures that have been pursued in the Communications portfolio under the guidance and stewardship, until very recently, of the former Minister for Communications, the member for Wentworth, now of course the Prime Minister. The Communications portfolio has achieved significant deregulatory reform since the coalition came to government. In 2014, cumulative annual savings of over $94 million and a removal of some 3,400 pages of unnecessary regulation were achieved within the Communications portfolio.

There is continuing work to reduce the regulatory burden in communications, and I want to note particularly a decision taken recently to repeal the legacy retail price controls. These formerly applied to the retail prices that Telstra charges, but, following independent analysis obtained from the centre for independent economics, the government concluded that the price control regime no longer had any impact on the prices Telstra actually charged—in other words, they were below those that would have been required by regulation—so the regulation has been removed. That is one of the many ways in which we are lightening the regulatory burden in the Communications portfolio.

More broadly, across every aspect of government, the Turnbull government is working to reduce the regulatory burden on business. This is a very important part of the government's economic agenda, with a view to reducing the burden on business, increasing efficiency, increasing productivity and letting business get on and generate the prosperity which is so important for jobs and for Australians.

Debate interrupted.