Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (20:46):  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—

The SPEAKER:  Order! The member for Wakefield!

Mr FLETCHER:  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.