Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014. This is the headline bill of a set of 12 bills introduced by the government as part of the 'cutting red tape agenda' and 'Repeal Day' that some senators might recall from many, many months ago. We heard much rhetoric from the government about the significance of this legislation—about how we needed this bill to put a halt to the 'avalanche of regulation that is impeding investment and innovation and the creation of new jobs', as the parliamentary secretary, Mr Frydenberg, told the other place on its introduction.

I checked the date on which Mr Frydenberg made this speech, and it was, indeed, Wednesday, 19 March 2014. That is appropriate, as the bill is called the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill. Today is Monday, 22 September 2014, six months later. The only place where it is autumn is in another hemisphere. The fact that the government has taken six months to bring on debate on this bill in the Senate—it passed the other place on 26 March 2014—makes a lie out of the claim by the government that somehow this bill would be turning back the tide of red tape. The legislation that is in front of us repeals a series of legislative instruments that no-one has looked at for years, that have no impact on anyone, that have no effect at all. But we keep hearing from those opposite that this legislation is going to make a big difference for business.

As the shadow minister for finance, Mr Burke, said in his contribution to the debate in the other place, it is rare in the parliament to have so much hype over so very, very little. This is legislation that says very little—arguably, close to nothing. It is no surprise that, when the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquired into the bill, it made one unanimous recommendation: that the bill should be passed. The explanatory memorandum to the bill claims that repeal or amendment of the legislation affected is required to 'reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector', to 'ensure regulation is accessible' and to reduce the time it takes to find and access regulations. The vast majority of the items that are being repealed or amended in this bill have no impact—they relate to legislation that has already ceased or is redundant, or has no impact on current measures, or is innocuous.

Labor challenges those in the government, when they are referring in their speeches to the difference that this will make to small businesses, to refer to one section of the bill, just one, where that difference can be highlighted. I think we will hear broad-ranging contributions about regulations being bad. They will give examples of too much legislation and things like that. But will government senators be able to demonstrate a single link in their speeches—and I challenge Senator Seselja to do so when he makes his contribution—between a single word within the legislation that is before the Senate and a positive, meaningful difference for small business? I doubt it. Maybe there are small businesses in the mule and bullock trade that have been anxiously waiting for this to be clarified on the statute books—unlikely—but to hold this legislation up as being a serious example of economic reform is one of the strangest, most creative arguments we have heard in this parliament.

Labor ensured that this bill was referred to a Senate committee inquiry to make sure, through the ordinary Senate inquiry process, that there was a Senate check on these issues. It was no surprise that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee found nothing in this bill that was offensive—indeed, it reported back in autumn too. It reported back in May that there was no offence in this legislation. But the reason that it was not able to find anything offensive in it is that, essentially, there is nothing in this bill. There is absolutely nothing before us that makes a difference to anyone in the world today. It does not make a difference to anyone.

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 repeals or amends the provisions of a total of 81 pieces of legislation in the portfolios Agriculture, Communications, Defence, Employment, Environment, Finance, Industry, Prime Minister, Social Services and Treasury. It is claimed that the bill will reduce the regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector. We will vote for the bill, and I again challenge anyone to find a reason to be passionately in favour of or against the bill, because this legislation is simply a clean-up of issues that were already largely irrelevant.

The clearing of regulations that are already redundant does not make a big difference. It is a good thing to do. It is not worth anyone getting excited about opposing and it is not worth anyone getting excited about pretending that here is a test of being an impressive government. This is not. This is something that is routine, not the basis for a grand hurrah around repeal day back in last autumn. Rather than take meaningful steps to increase prosperity in the economy, this government thinks that the way to deal with red tape is to get rid of the regulations that are not having an impact on anyone at all and put them in a big bonfire and ramp up the rhetoric. This is a government that is horrifically out of touch. The rhetoric around repeal day demonstrated nothing.

In government, Labor had a greater deregulatory agenda that was aimed at reducing costs for business in complying with regulation that actually did make a difference—for example, the seamless national economy—and the benefits of those reforms were significant. Those opposite should note that that is what regulatory reform is about. The COAG Reform Council reported in its final report on the seamless national economy in early February 2014 that the completion of most of the reforms had happened by the end of 2013, and that meant cost savings to Australian businesses worth billions of dollars per year. The Productivity Commission estimated that completion of just 17 of the seamless national economy reforms was estimated to lower business costs by $4 billion a year. The Productivity Commission also estimated that full implementation of the seamless national economy reforms would increase GDP by improving productivity by $6 billion per year. That is $4 billion a year in savings and $6 billion a year in productivity gains. But what did the government do in its May budget? It slashed funding for the COAG Reform Council.

There were other reforms instituted by the previous, Labor government that demonstrated our commitment to the deregulatory agenda. Better-regulation ministerial partnerships established with various ministers helped to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens. These partnerships were making tangible differences. For example, the partnership that resulted in the length of disclosure documents for financial products, such as superannuation, being reduced to a few pages made it easier for consumers to get information and less costly for businesses to produce. Those opposite should take note of this: you do not have to see removing red tape and removing consumer protection as things that need to work in lock-step; you can have regulatory reform where you improve the quality of information for consumers and make compliance easier for businesses. Another partnership resulted in the assessment process for new medical devices and procedures being changed so that patients could access new health technology sooner. We instituted policy measures that are making a difference to lowering business costs and improving productivity. These are tangible measures that are having an effect on the Australian economy.

But what we have here today is legislation that repeals things that already have no impact. The only circumstance in front of the parliament today is one where issues that already do not affect businesses as of today will not affect businesses. That is the achievement of the government on repeal day! I congratulate the government on their nerve at claiming that this is a big deal. I congratulate the government on the message development that has gone into the rhetoric around this! If you want to look at the politics, it is a pretty amusing investigation of spin.

In the other place, the shadow minister for finance moved a second reading amendment that set out Labor's record in this area as a stark comparison. I do not propose to move a second reading amendment here today but I will put on the record in the Senate the following points.

The former Labor government had a strong record of deregulation reform which significantly improved the competitiveness and productivity of the Australian economy. In particular, the former Labor government repealed 16,794 acts, regulations and legislative instruments during its time in office—without a repeal day—and, through its Seamless National Economy reforms, was delivering significant cost savings to businesses. Just 17 of these reforms were estimated by the Productivity Commission to lower business costs by $4 billion per year, with the full reforms to increase Australia's productivity and deliver a $6 billion boost to GDP per year.

I reiterate that the vast majority of the changes in this bill have no impact in terms of costs or regulatory burden on businesses, individuals and the community sector in Australia. Labor believes that the parliament should support sensible deregulation which removes cost and regulatory burden but does not support the removal of protections for seniors, consumers, workers and investors under the guise of cutting red tape. The government should not use deregulation as a thinly veiled guise to distract from cuts to protections for seniors, consumers, workers and investors. This is why the Senate inquiry ensured that, at least with respect to this bill, this would not be the case, particularly with the government's record in the recent budget.

Let me go briefly to the Greens' amendments. Labor does not support the amendments to schedule 5 of the omnibus repeal bill. Schedule 5 of the bill removes regulatory duplication in environment protection. Labor believes that, where there are opportunities to streamline environment assessment processes without weakening protections, they should be taken. Removing duplications and superseded legislation makes sense. We have in this bill, clauses to amend the Sea Installations Act, much of which is now covered by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act. We also have changes to the treatment of ozone-depleting substances—changes which make sense. We also have changes to the Water Act to remove provisions for the approval of mining activity in the Murray-Darling Basin, provisions that have been used just three times since 1987.

Under the previous Labor government, the water trigger amendment to the EPBC Act was passed, providing greater oversight of coal seam gas and coalmining activities. Along with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the water trigger provides the protections the Murray-Darling needs. The Murray-Darling ministerial council and the authority both retain the ability to intervene on any development in the Murray-Darling Basin. If the Greens political party is serious about protecting our environment, it should focus itself, we believe, on the delegation of approval powers to the states—this is where the danger lies, not in the repeal of duplicative and superseded legislation. And it should not be offering to do deals with the government on their so-called 'direct action' policy, a policy we know will not work and will give taxpayers' money to polluters for that privilege.

In conclusion, and to reiterate, Labor will be voting for the bill. What we have in front of us is a standard clean-up which is not worth getting particularly frustrated about but is also in no way worth the fanfare that was associated with the fizzer that was repeal day way back in the Autumn of this year.