Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. There are a number of measures that I want to speak to, each of them separately. They are all important and make some important changes, in particular to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, to repeal the pay slip reporting provisions.

Schedule 1 deals with the pay slip reporting provisions in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which requires employers to include information prescribed by the regulations in the pay slips of their employees. People would be familiar with this when they look at their pay slips and see a number of things that are included, including their superannuation entitlements and payments. It was intended that regulations be made so that employers had to report on pay slips the superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. This has not occurred.

There were existing requirements in the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 for employers to include in pay slips the number of superannuation contributions they are liable to make. It is important to note that these regulations are not changing. The requirement for superannuation guarantee payments to be made within 28 days of the end of a quarter is also not changing. The provisions—that this bill is removing—were enacted in legislation but never became a practical reality for business, because the regulations that were a requirement to give practical effect to them were never put in place.

There is no doubt that the intention of the original changes was good. The reality for employers, though—particularly small business—was increased cost via software and other upgrades. Labor believes it is arguable whether the requirements being repealed would have any effect at all on those negligent, unscrupulous employers who intend not to pay superannuation. In light of that, these changes have been brought forward.

Employees will still be able to check with their superannuation fund whether payments have been made by their employer. That is critically important. Labor will closely monitor the issue of unpaid superannuation payments, as should the government, because this is an important part of an employee's salary and payments. It is just what ordinary people are paid. The same as anybody else, we expect that when we get a pay slip and it details how much we are paid it also includes superannuation contributions. There is, of course, an expectation that those payments have been paid into our respective accounts, wherever they might be. We will monitor that, and we expect the government to do the same thing, particularly in light of the importance of superannuation in boosting people's retirement savings.

There is no political party in Australia that has done more to boost the retirement savings of Australians than Labor has. Going back many years, Labor has recognised that ordinary people need to have a mechanism available to them through the superannuation guarantee to set aside money for their independence and financial security in retirement. As noble a cause as it is, it is an important cause for individuals and families. What it also means is a huge saving to government, the budget and the bottom line. This is a good measure.

Last financial year alone, some $6 billion was saved from budget expenditure on social security payments because of superannuation savings held by ordinary Australians. They are people who, because of their retirement savings, either do not rely at all on the pension system or other welfare payments or rely only in part on government payments. The growth of retirement savings is something that should be encouraged. It should be nurtured. It should be assisted and not hindered by government. The government should do as much as it can to ensure that growth in retirement savings continues to occur and to ensure the stability of the system. This first schedule is important in making sure that we understand the basis of what is contained in people's pay slips.

I would like to remind the Senate that, unfortunately, this government has let down many Australians through changes to superannuation legislation. Most strikingly, in September last year, we saw one of what we know have been many broken promises from this government, this Prime Minister and his arrogant Treasurer, and that was the promise not to make any adverse changes to superannuation. We know what happened: a freezing of the superannuation guarantee contribution for over eight million Australians. If that is not an adverse change, I do not know what is.

This government attacked working Australians in its budget. The issue of retirement incomes is a significant one for people across the country and it is no different in my home state of Tasmania, especially in a seat like Braddon

But there were the Liberal members in the Abbott g overnment that were attacking retirement savings. But where were they? Missing in action. Standing up for your constituents takes a lot more than standing in the background at a press conference. This government has made it particularly harder for low- and middle-income Australians to save for their retirement. In addition to the delay in the increase in the superannuation guarantee, it also removed the low-income super contribution from 1 July 2017. What this government is saying to low-income Australians in particula r—particularly to cleaners, factory workers, manual labourers and clerical workers a round the country—is this: ' We're not going to give you any support to save for your retirement. We're not going to give you any tax concessions but we are going to ensure that high-income earners continue to get large tax concessions.' This is in the context of the previous government putting in place a policy that ensured that we would give low-income workers in this country some tax concessions and pull back the tax concessions for high-income e arners in a very modest measure— just a little bit to ensure there was equity in the system. Those of us on this side of the chamber say s hame on this Treasurer and s hame on this Prime Minister for treating low-income workers of Australia with such contempt and such arrogance. The government that said they do not want any adverse changes in superannuation has made an adverse change if you have ever seen one: a tax hike for people on low incomes in Australia.

I return to the text of the b ill at hand. Schedule 2 makes mechanical and non-controversial changes to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and consolidates duplicated provisions. It also repeals redundant laws and moves longstanding regulations into primary law. Labor supports these measures. They are good measures and measures that in government we were also moving towards. This is often the situation with legislation like this, and I have made Labor's case on a number of other tax and superannuation laws amendment b ills in this place. Regardless of how long a party is in government, it is not possible to do everything all in one day or all in many days. Like all governments towards the end of a term , there is always some unfinished business. This is part of that unfinished business.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 so that persons who do not hold a direct control interest in a financial sector company will no longer be deemed to have a stake in that financial sector company solely as a consequence of their associate's direct control interest in the company. Under existing law, a person must obtain approval from the Treasurer to hold a stake in a financial sector company of more than 15 per cent. A ' stake ' is defined in c lause 10 of s chedule 1 of the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act as the aggregate of the direct control interest held by that person and the direct control interest held by associates of that person. 'Associates' is widely defined in c lause 4 of s chedule 1 of the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act to include a person's relatives, partners, related companies and other parties. Where a person acquires a direct control interest in a financial sector company of more than 15 per cent, the associate of the person is required to also obtain approval to exceed the 15 per cent shareholding limit. This can be despite the associate hol ding no direct control interest or , indeed , any interest in the financial sector company. This imposes a burden for associates to reasonably comply with the law, particularly where associates are not aware of the requirement to seek the Treasurer's approval .

The measures in this b ill mean a person who does not hold a direct control interest in a financial sector company will no longer be deemed to hold a stake in that company solely as a consequence of their associates' direct control interest in the company. Only where a person holds a direct control interest of any size would the interest be aggregated with that of the person's associates to determine the total stake held. For an associate holding a direct control interest in a financial sector company, the associate's stake is equivalent to the aggregate of their own stake and that of other associates, including the person acquiring the actual direct control interest. The ass ociate is required to seek the T reasurer's approval where the aggregated stake exceeds the 15 per cent shareholding limit. It is important to note that these changes will ensure that there is an appropriate examination of a shareholder's controlling interest. But it will take away the trap of associates who have no control inte rest in having to apply to the T reasurer in order to comply with the law. Labor supports removing this unnecessary burden.

Further, schedule 4 rewrites provisions from the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to unify the definition of 'Australia' for tax purposes. This is a non- controversial mechanical change with no fiscal impact. Labor supports this change as well.

Labor is prepared to support fair and reasonable amendments and changes that improve the management and structure of our financial services sector, or other measures that improve consumer protections and also improve the ability of business to d eal with regulation properly.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 and foreshadow that I am going to be moving amendments that will omit schedule 1. As outlined by Senator Brown, the Greens also have very strong concerns about schedule 1 because this schedule would remove the pay slip reporting provisions in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, which requires employers to include in employee pay slips information prescribed by the regulations.

These provisions are very sensible provisions. They came from the Super System Review, the Cooper review, which recommended that employers be required by legislation to provide significantly more detail in pay slips of contributions, including a breakdown of contributions by type—that is, superannuation guarantee, salary sacrifice, after tax et cetera—and that the timing of the contributions should be improved to coincide with pay slip cycles. So this bill would remove protections for employees whose employers do not pay their superannuation. According to the Inspector-General of Taxation, the employees worst affected tend to be low-income, casual or part-time workers. I think this affects young workers as well. When you are 20 you do not pay much attention to your super contributions, super contributions that you are not going to be able to access for another 40 years. It is not a high priority. Imagine that you are not paying attention to your superannuation statements, and you would not have the information on your pay slip. Months or years could go by before you realise that your super has not been paid.

The benefits of repealing this regulation for employers are marginal compared to the significant disadvantage that employees could experience if they are kept in the dark about their super contributions. They could find out years later that they have been underpaid. Recouping this money will be a very difficult task for the employee and could result in a huge burden on employers if a lump sum then has to be paid to cover an extended period of underpayment.

Repealing this regulation shows the absurdity, unfairness, short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness of repealing regulations which are there for good reason—to create a sensible suite of measures that get good outcomes that serve the interests of the whole community. Put simply, the benefits of repeal are tiny and the consequences of it could be enormous.

(Quorum formed)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased today to be speaking in support of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. As I made clear yesterday in a number of contributions, there are a number of important achievements of this government in the last 16 months. The repeal day and the repeal of unnecessary regulations are a part of that. I will go through some of those achievements before I go into the detail of the bill and the reasons why we in the coalition actually believe in getting rid of unnecessary regulations. I know that there are some other parties in this place who believe that. I think it is fair to say that Senator Leyonhjelm and the Liberal Democrats support getting rid of unnecessary regulations. I think it is fair to say that Bob Day and Family First support that. I think it is fair to say that Palmer United Party senators support less regulation in some areas. We certainly would look forward to working with a number of them. If you were to quiz Nick Xenophon on his stated support for small business, you would expect that he would want to see us get rid of unnecessary red tape, along with Senator Madigan and others. I do not know what Senator Muir's stance is. I expect that he would have an open mind on it. But we do not see any evidence of support generally for the principle of reducing unnecessary, burdensome regulation, certainly from the Labor Party and the Greens. We simply do not see it. When we saw the Labor Party and the Greens in coalition government together, what did they do? They just added regulations. In fact, they did not just add regulations; they actually prided themselves on the amount of legislation that passed, which often imposed new burdens on Australian business.

Going to some of the coalition's achievements, we have repealed the carbon tax, which Labor wants to bring back. Repealing the carbon tax lowers people's costs. It lowers household costs and business costs. We have repealed the mining tax, which made very little money. Of course, a lot of spending went with that. We have stopped the boats and the deaths at sea. We have signed free trade agreements with some of our major trading partners. It is all about growing jobs, growing the economy and supporting Australian business. And we are, of course, getting on with the job of fixing the debt and deficit legacy that was left to us by the former Labor government.

One of the most important and successful ways we are doing this and looking to grow jobs is through reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on business—red tape that hurts productivity, halts investment and innovation, and stifles job creation. Since the 2013 election, the coalition government have more than doubled our election target of red-tape reduction, announcing over 400 measures across the whole of government and a net reduction of over $2.1 billion in compliance costs. As part of the 2014 spring repeal day on 29 October, the government continued this work by removing nearly 1,000 pieces of red tape and over 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation. This continued the work of the first repeal day, in March, when the government removed over 10,000 pieces of red tape, 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation and over $700 million in compliance costs.

In stark contrast, as I alluded to earlier, Labor introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations. It was something they seemed to take glee in. They seemed to pride themselves on the amount of legislation they passed. We happen to believe that not all legislation is good legislation—that simply passing legislation through the parliament does not make for a successful government and does not make for a stronger economy if that legislation adds burdens rather than takes burdens away. That is the stark difference between the way we do things and the way the former, Labor government did things. Of course, those 21,000 additional regulations were despite Kevin Rudd's promise of a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy, and the then small business minister, Craig Emerson, saying that Labor would 'take a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that is strangling small business'. They never did that, unfortunately. They in fact just added to that burden, and we are seeking to lift that burden from Australian small businesses and Australian business generally.

It is important to remember that some regulation is important. We are not against regulation that is about a safer Australia and about protecting our community. But we know—we hear it from business consistently—that there is in many cases just far too much of it and much of it is unnecessary, much of it is over the top and much of it is burdensome. And we know that, when there is too much unnecessary regulation and red tape, that hurts the ability of business to employ people. It also hurts the ability of small business people and family business owners to spend more time with their families, because they are constantly engaged in the paperwork of dealing with that red tape.

We saw that our multifactor productivity fell in 2013, after essentially flatlining for a decade. In 2014, Australia ranked 124 out of 148 countries for burden-of-government regulation in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index. We have a long way to go before we are where we want to be on that Global Competitiveness Index. We want to be in a place where we attract business to this country and where, when businesses invest their money or when businesses start and they look to employ people, we find ways of supporting those decisions and making them easier—making that decision to take on an extra staff member that much easier. That is absolutely critical to the economic task that faces our nation. If we want business to employ people, to continue to employ more people, to continue to grow, to become profitable so they can invest those profits so they can employ more Australians, then we need to work with them. That is what the coalition are seeking to do through things like reducing red tape and cutting unnecessary taxes such as the carbon tax and the mining tax.

The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. So it is absolutely critical that we address these issues—and that we do not just do it once and we do not just do it twice. We have committed to doing at least two repeal days every year where we will see unnecessary burdens being lifted from business in this country.

This bill forms part of our whole-of-government commitment to repeal counterproductive, unnecessary and redundant legislation and regulations. The measures contained in this bill improve and simplify the operation of laws relating to taxation, superannuation and shareholdings in certain financial sector companies. The bill contains a number of important measures: it repeals the pay-slip reporting provisions in the superannuation law that would have increased the regulatory burden on employers beyond that currently imposed under the Fair Work legislation; it simplifies taxation laws by removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law; it reduces the regulatory burden on the associates of individuals seeking to obtain a shareholding of more than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies; and it rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law for use across all the tax laws in a simple and coherent form.

The first element of this bill is the employer reporting of superannuation contributions on pay slips. This provision will provide certainty to employers that they do not need to prepare for significant changes to their pay-slip software in respect of superannuation reporting. There are duplicative provisions from the superannuation law that allow for regulations to be created prescribing additional information that can be included on employee pay slips on superannuation contributions. These will be repealed. Labor had intended these regulations to specify that employers had to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. Labor, however, never made the regulations.

This measure will not affect the information employees currently receive on superannuation contributions on their pay slips. Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to at least report, on an employee's pay-slip, details of employee superannuation entitlements that accrued during the pay period

If employers were required to report actual contributions and payment dates, they would need to invest in major upgrades in their software. The benefit for employees would be marginal. Most employers pay their superannuation as they should, and, even if reporting actual superannuation contributions on payslips was mandated, it defies reason that an employer not complying would decide to voluntarily report that they were not complying. Also, employees may not take regular notice of what is reported on their payslips. I also note that 70 per cent of employees who do not receive their superannuation entitlements from their employer wait until they have left that job to make a complaint to the Australian Tax Office. This may be because they do not want to jeopardise their jobs, and changing the information on superannuation contributions required to be reported on payslips is unlikely to change that.

The ATO investigates every complaint received about unpaid super. Their risk analysis work allows the ATO to target actions against high-risk industries and employers. Employees can now also typically check online via their superannuation fund whether their employer is making regular superannuation contributions without having to wait for an annual statement. It is exactly this sort of regulation that this government is committed to providing so businesses do not need to deal with duplication and can get on with growing the economy.

We also have the consolidation and repeal of tax provisions. This measure simplifies the taxation laws by consolidating duplicated taxation administration provisions contained in various taxation acts into a single location in a single act. It also repeals spent or redundant taxation laws, such as the older harsh penalty regimes, and moves longstanding regulations into the primary law. One item in this bill has to do with the power of the Commissioner of Taxation to obtain information. Currently, there are over 10 different acts relevant to what information the commissioner can obtain, and, if a taxpayer wants to know what information that might be, they need to refer to all of those acts to get to the bottom of it. As a result of these amendments, a taxpayer will now only have to refer to schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

The current tax law is complex, difficult to understand and frequently costly to comply with. For example, the current provisions dealing with tax file number and investment income reports that investment bodies provide to the Commissioner of Taxation are overly prescriptive and difficult to comply with. They lack the flexibility to allow the commissioner to continue to pursue further ways of reducing compliance costs. Rewriting the tax file number and investment income reporting will help give the Commissioner of Taxation flexibility to facilitate modern reporting methods, which should reduce compliance costs for investment bodies.

Overall, the changes will result in a material reduction in the size of the taxation laws—with one or two sections replacing in excess of 50 existing provisions. Removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law does not alter any of the current tax policies. However, it does make the tax law easier to use and easier to comply with. Tidying up our tax laws in line with good legislative practices is an important part of the care and maintenance of our tax system. Once again, this reduces the burden on businesses who do the right thing and get caught up in unnecessary regulations.

We also have measures in relation to shareholding approvals in certain financial sector companies. These measures take away an unnecessary burden on the associates of a person—for example, a person's partner, relatives or related companies—who is seeking approval for a shareholding of greater than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies such as banks and insurance companies. At present, when a person is seeking a shareholding of more than 15 per cent of a financial sector company, they must seek approval from the Treasurer for the shareholding. The associates of the person must also seek approval from the Treasurer for the shareholding as the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 deems the shareholding of the associate to be the same as that of the person seeking the more than 15 per cent shareholding. This approval requirement applies to an associate even where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company. The measure removes this technical legislative trap that imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden.

The changes in this bill do not compromise the examination of a shareholder's controlling interest. Associates with a shareholding are still required to be considered as part of the main applicant's shareholding to determine if they need to seek approval from the Treasurer for the shareholding. In addition, the Treasurer retains authority to block shareholdings where practical control can be asserted by an associate and the Treasurer is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the shareholding be divested.

Finally, this measure rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law for use across all the tax laws in a simple and coherent form. This measures addresses the problem that the current definition of Australia for taxation purposes is complex, overly detailed and expressed differently in different parts of the taxation laws, despite the fact that the laws are intended to achieve a simple and largely equivalent result. Currently, if an individual working on an oil platform near Australia wanted to determine whether or not they had to pay Australian income tax, they would be required to navigate through myriad provisions in up to 13 different Commonwealth acts. To deal with this unnecessary complication, the amendments consolidate and standardise in one place the definition of Australia for most tax purposes.

Rewriting the tax laws, on average, has reduced the size of the provisions being rewritten by two-thirds. This assists taxpayers to better understand and comply with the laws, reducing compliance costs. This takes another step towards achieving a single income tax assessment act for Australia.

It is clear to me and it is certainly clear to members of the coalition that encouraging Australian businesses to thrive and encouraging Australian businesses to employ more people—surely all of us would share that goal—is very, very important. If we want to see more Australians in work, more Australians with the opportunity to work and more innovation in our businesses for the betterment of Australians and, in fact, the wider world, then we cannot tie the hands of businesses behind their backs. When I speak to businesses, big and small, in this country, one of the first things that they raise is the fact that there is too much unnecessary, burdensome regulation, which in many cases is simply as a result of poor legislation. Sometimes it is poorly drafted legislation; sometimes parliaments have been too overeager to regulate things which do not need to be regulated in the way that they are. So I am very pleased that the coalition has taken a different approach to this, that instead of talking about a one-in one-out regulation as we saw from those opposite when they were in government—and of course they laid on thousands of pieces of legislation and thousands of extra regulations during their time in office—we have committed to regular repeals where we put on the agenda the needs of Australian business and, in particular, the needs of Australian small business. If we want them to continue to employ people, we should not add burdensome regulation and red tape.

Achievements such as getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, signing free trade agreements and getting rid of unnecessary and burdensome regulations are all directed broadly at the same end. They are broadly about growing our economy, making it easier to do business in this country, ensuring that more Australians have the opportunity to work and ensuring that Australians who are underemployed get the opportunity to have more hours. These are the goals of these policies. We have seen significant successes in areas such as the repeal of the carbon tax and the repeal of the mining tax. We have already seen much of the burdensome red tape coming off. But, of course, there is much, much more to do. This legislation is a part of the package, and I commend it to the Senate.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. Despite what Senator Seselja tried to infer, the opposition does support this provision. During the second reading speech in the other place, we indicated our support for this bill. This bill is divided into schedules 1 to 4, which deal with a range of matters. Schedule 1 deals with the repeal of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 provisions requiring employers to report superannuation contributions on pay slips. The purpose of schedule 1 is to amend the SI(S) Act to repeal the provision and to report actual superannuation contributions paid on pay slips. Under part 29B of the SI(S) Act, employers are required to include on an employee's pay slip information about superannuation contributions as prescribed by the regulation. That is a point I want to come back to.

What I think Senator Seselja inferred was that the government is repealing a piece of legislation that is a burden on employers. Well, the catch here of course is that this provision was introduced by Labor and it was intended to commence from 1 July 2013. The measure did require employers to disclose when superannuation payments were actually made in a pay period, for all the sensible reasons—to ensure that employees were aware that they were being paid their superannuation. The concern is always that if a company goes into liquidation, if a company fails to pay its superannuation contributions, then at some point an employee, if they are not aware, will find out that they may in fact have missed out on a substantial amount of superannuation; it may have disappeared, and they may not be able to regain that amount easily. But in this instance it was a matter that was intended to provide an early warning that superannuation payments were not being paid. However, this provision has not applied in practice, as the enabling legislation has not been made. So we do have a hollow argument by Senator Seselja when he says he is removing the burden; the burden was never there in the first place. But we will move on from that small point; I am sure he would have corrected it had he been aware of it.

The draft legislation for the SI(S) Act pay slip reporting requirements was released by the Treasury for comment back in August 2014, so no changes were being made. In general the superannuation industry and accounting groups originally supported the pay slip reporting requirements when they were being considered for introduction. The ACCI has changed its position—I suspect it has been nudged by the government to close ranks on this issue or to at least not be discordant on the issue—and supports the repeal of these provisions as proposed in schedule 1. They argue—not as they argued originally—that the superannuation pay slip reporting regulations proved to be more complex in terms of creating confusion as to compliance obligations.

Another argument was that the introduction of pay slip reporting requirements would involve significant compliance costs. I do not for one minute accept that proposition. Nonetheless, existing arrangements under the Fair Work Act continue to operate. I have been assured on the concerns that I would otherwise have raised, whilst the government remains vigilant in the area of the Fair Work Act. I am not entirely confident of that, but there is good legislation in place to ensure that those requirements are met. For example, in terms of what reporting is actually provided to employees, the current Fair Work Act provisions give employers the choice of including either contributions actually made, which would be identical to the policy intended to be facilitated by the SI(S) Act provisions, or the amount of contributions the employer is liable to make. I will not go through the Fair Work Act provisions, but, in short, it is what I would regard as reasonably equivalent, and provides certainty that employees will have that information available to them.

For those employers already reporting the contributions they make on the payslips, the proposed SI(S) Act arrangements essentially match the reporting they currently provide. So, ultimately, the employers are meeting these obligations; they are meeting the spirit of the regulations through the Fair Work Act. As to the argument that it is a glad day and we can all cheer about the repeal of legislation, I think Senator Seselja's enthusiasm is a little bit misplaced. These are necessary as a consequence of what has already occurred.

The schedule 2 amendments are designed to simplify taxation laws by amending the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and a number of other acts so the requirements for the provision of information for the administration of taxation and superannuation laws are centrally located. Federal Labor again supports the measures aimed at the consolidation and repeal of redundant laws. It does make, with no shadow of a doubt, statute laws clearer, shorter and more accessible, and has real practical benefits for those who work with the law such as legal practitioners, courts, parliament and, of course, government, and for those who need to be able to access it, including those citizens and businesses that we speak of.

Schedule 3 has amendments to the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act. I will not go through the detail of that, other than to say that removing the requirements for a person to be subject to the provisions of the act where they do not have a stake in a financial sector company and their associates may be seen to increase their own stake in that company above 15 per cent is a laudable aim and should be supported. This amendment may lead to the unintended consequence of a person with no stake in a financial sector company gaining control of that company through their associates' stakes. This, however, is, I think, a small matter. There is, however, legislation to deal with that particular situation in the act. But it would have been easier for it to have been brought to the Treasurer's attention before action was taken. But we will continue to provide our support for this legislation, notwithstanding that it maybe missed a couple of points or was a little sloppy in bringing this forward in a consolidated way.

Schedule 4 rewrites provisions for the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to unify the definition of 'Australia' for income tax purposes. One of the areas that this government seems to crow about is the repeal day provisions. Yet these are, in truth, tidy-up provisions. They should be doing them as a matter of course. They should be doing them as a good government as they go through, rather than trying to put them under the rubric of a sudden 'repeal day'. That typifies what this government is. We have already heard the government say that—how can I phrase it?—good government would start from yesterday. I can only conclude from a statement like that that it must have been bad government prior to that. That seems to be the only position that you could adopt if you argue that good government started yesterday.

I think the repeal provision of this Treasury legislation is a good piece of legislation, but it is telling of the government. It is telling in this way: it is about spring-cleaning. And you can see in the eyes of the Liberals that they are keen to do a bit of spring-cleaning themselves. They have their broom in hand and they want to clean out their leader. That is what they want to do. And you can see it when their Prime Minister stands up in question time and answers questions. Those behind him are not watching him. They seem to have their eyes riveted on Mr Turnbull to see what he is doing. That seems to be the circumstance.

Federal Labor would like to see a bit of spring-cleaning on the other side—extending to the Abbott government's policies and leadership. It is time for the broomstick to turn a bit inward after their repeal of this legislation, to sweep away some of the cobwebs of chaos, speculation and dysfunction which have clearly taken hold of the manor. It seems that the repeal of a redundant leader like Mr Tony Abbott is on the cards. His leadership since 7 September 2013 has been marked by the relentless pursuit of inequality and unfairness, against those least able to defend themselves. He is a leader who is out of touch. There has been a litany of lies from this government, which is addicted to breaking promises and being ineffective.

And let me provide some practical examples of this, because I know that there are some on the other side who would doubt it. Mr Abbott said in his address to the National Press Club shortly before his election:

My aim is to lead a no surprises, no excuses government that says what it means and does what it says.

Sixteen months later, do we have that? Well, let us look at this example. As at 10 February 2015, the Abbott government is still unable to pass the 2014 budget measures. It promised to lead a strong, stable, accountable government. That promise was broken on 9 February 2015. Within 17 months, Mr Tony Abbott has faced his first leadership spill. Quite extraordinary—17 months in! How is this strong? Where is the stability? Where is the accountability? They are absent. He has dumped his signature policy on paid parental leave. That was abandoned on 2 February 2015, after months of back-pedalling. This was a signature policy that suddenly got swept back. I heard on the radio, as this policy was going out the back door, that small business and business in general were wondering what was going to happen to the 1.5 per cent tax—does it still apply, does it not apply, does it get swept out with the paid parental leave, and was this a government that was going to continue to mislead? No credibility can be sheeted home to this government.

On 26 January we saw firsthand just how out of touch Mr Tony Abbott is when he awarded a knighthood to Prince Philip—but I will not say any more about that; quite frankly, enough has been said. It was bizarre when he reintroduced knights and dames—I do not have a description after that. It was beyond bizarre—I am short of a word to describe it. On 30 August 2013 Mr Abbott promised that they were not in the business of cutting health. That promise was broken. On 12 January 2015 the Abbott government undermined Medicare by slashing the amount doctors get for consultations—and not even telling them. It was a surprise, unlike what he promised before the election—a no-surprises government. Let me say that slashing the amount of money that doctors get for consultations was a big surprise to those in the medical fraternity. On the same day he announced a freeze to the annual increases to the Medicare schedule. Again, this is supposed to be a no-surprises government. Let me redefine what 'no surprises' means—it means 'at any time I will do what I like, when I like, how I like and I will call it no surprises and you will believe it. There was $57 billion worth of cuts to hospitals, including $600 million from dental health care. We were not told of that before the election and it was not discussed during 17 months—it was just another jack-in-the-box policy surprise from this government.

By 15 December 2014 the federal budget had blown out to $40.4 billion, compared to the $29.9 billion deficit predicted by the Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey, in May 2014. Talking about Mr Joe Hockey, with deficits being predicted by this government I wonder whether he is also going to get a bit of a spring-clean from those who sit opposite. I am not going to make predictions. We can only watch the chaos of this government unfold. On 11 December Mr Turnbull imposed a $900 tax on new homes connecting to the NBN, breaking the 14 March 2013 election promise of no new taxes under an Abbott government. If those opposite are considering swapping Mr Abbott for Mr Turnbull, they should be aware that he also breaks promises and misleads so be very, very careful. On 2 September 2014 the Abbott government killed the low-income super contribution payment and the superannuation guarantee, which aimed to boost the retirement savings of 3.6 million workers who earn $37,000 a year or less. I can only say shame on the government for that. This has not been a good, stable government. No wonder the statement was made yesterday that they would start the journey of being a good government. That does not wipe away the things that they have already done, and the public will not be misled by that statement. They will not start you afresh. This is not a reset of the clock. All of these things that I am outlining are matters that you have already dealt with, and you have already demonstrated your credentials to the Australian public.

On 13 May 2014 the Abbott government slashed $240 million over four years to community programs that support poor, sick or disadvantaged people. On the same day, the government cut $25 million over four years—a quarter of the total funding—to community legal centres that provide legal support to those who are most in need. On 6 December 2013 Mr Tony Abbott promised there would be no cuts to education. What a phenomenal mislead that was. There were to be no cuts to education and no cuts to health. We now know that they were totally broken promises because those areas have been cut. The Abbott government's deregulation of university fees will mean $100,000 degrees for students seeking a higher education in Australia.

This is a government that is now in the weeds, concentrating on Treasury repeal legislation. Where are their signature policies, where are their big statements, where are they managing government in a way that gives confidence to the Australian people? This is not a government that is doing any of that. This is a government in chaos; this is a government that is confused—and a little dazed too, I suspect, after the last two days. Can it concentrate on the bigger picture? No. We are now talking about repeals that are a bit hollow. They might be repeals that are necessary, but they should not be trumpeted—they should be just an ordinary part of the government's day-to-day work. Mr Abbott said that 'a serious country deserves an adult government.' This government has not demonstrated that it is a serious government one little bit. What has this government done? Mr Abbott has been in the chair of his new government, with a new agenda, for a couple of days, and what are they doing? There is silence. It is business as usual. Do not be fooled, Australia.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill is an important part of our plan for a stronger, more prosperous economy where everyone has the best possible opportunity to get ahead and get a job. It is part of our commitment to reducing red-tape costs for business by more than $1 billion a year. I commend the bill to the Senate, and thank senators for contributing to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.