Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (13:19): I am very happy to speak to the amendment to the government's amendment bill, rather than speaking on any topic of my choosing and making the same point over and over for the same 15 minutes. I encourage the new member to read standing order 75(a). It was very generous of you, Deputy Speaker, not to use your power to have her discontinue her speech—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell will address the bill.
Mr HAWKE: which was completely irrelevant. We could open up a whole range of irrelevancies, including your performance in government—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mitchell will address the bill before the House.
Mr HAWKE: I am very happy to comply with the relevant standing orders, unlike members opposite. This amendment bill is extremely important. It is not a charade. It is not a sham. It is not a pretend bill. This is a real bill amending all of the different statutes which require a reduction in red tape in our society—and there are many. We heard from the previous government they did this as a matter of course. We have heard, from many speakers, that they did it secretly in many cases: 'This was just an ordinary day in the office for us—we came into parliament, we moved a bill and we changed spellings and deregulated by stealth.' It was so effective you never even saw it! That was the problem. It was so effective you never did see deregulation from the previous government. You never did hear about it; it was deregulation by stealth, the opposition would have us believe.
We know, of course, there is no such thing as deregulation by stealth. The previous government added enormous amounts of statutes and regulations to the bill—20,000 new acts and repeals—and that was a great addition to the burden of red tape on the Australian people. We do not accept the deregulation by stealth argument the opposition has put forward. We do not accept that this deregulation and removal of red tape is unnecessary in Australia today, because when you talk to businesses or people in the community, they are calling for many of the things that are in this amendment. They are saying: 'These are the things that are delaying our days, when we trying to get business done, when we are trying to employ people and trying to expand our business and its impact on the community.' These are the sorts of things that are taking up their time.
There are many good features you will find in this particular bill. In fact, this particular spring session is the second. I think the Manager of Opposition Business is about to pull a very big tactic because he is so frightened of deregulation. What have you got to hide, as an opposition, about deregulation? (Quorum formed) I am grateful to the Manager of Opposition Business for bringing in such an illustrious audience to hear about why the Abbott government is doing so much to cut red tape and cut regulations off Commonwealth statutes. I know that the members who have joined us are great advocates of deregulation and the government's deregulation agenda. Really, if the Manager of Opposition Business would spend as much time drafting questions—there is something coming up called question time—as he has mucking around tactically here, calling a brilliant House quorum on me, you might have a better standard of questions in question time. It is just a thought—not that I am trying to help over there. More time drafting questions is probably needed.
Ms Rishworth: Talk about the bill!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell will address the bill.
Mr HAWKE: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I got awfully distracted by this whole affair. Back to the bill, the bill in question, the omnibus repeal bill, which I am very, very happy to address. This is part of the government's ongoing deregulation agenda, and it is important that twice a year we have deregulation. It is common in the United States of America, where many statutes and other laws will expire with people leaving office. They will expire automatically. They have many mechanisms to reduce and remove the amount of red tape, laws and regulation in America. However, here in Australia we have not had mechanisms like this that are regular, thorough, complete, that ensure that constantly we remove inactive legislation and regulation that is of no effect that brings the total net regulatory burden down.
Of course we know that the total regulatory reduction in savings for individuals, businesses and the not-for-profit sector will be something in the order of $2.1 billion. It is not about spelling, it is not about a few dollars and cents. It is about $2.1 billion of savings for the individuals, businesses and the not-for-profit sector. It is actually double the target that we have set. You will find in this bill in particular, as well as the repeals of redundant provisions in the acts that are going, the streamlining of many processes. We are also abolishing three bodies in this bill: the Fishing Industry Policy Council, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group and the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council. Getting rid of all these bodies federally—we do not know how many there are, we do not know what they do—is a good thing to do. It is good to downsize the role of government in our society.
On coming to office the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance asked, 'How many Commonwealth government bodies are there?' It sounds like a simple question; for anyone listening you would think there would be a simple answer. Maybe it would take a period of time to get an answer. How many Commonwealth government agencies does the Commonwealth government administer? The bottom line is that they cannot get a proper answer about how many bodies the Commonwealth government administers. That is how disorganised and how large the Commonwealth government has become: we cannot even identify the number of bodies that we are responsible for. So repealing these three bodies is yet another part, and we are going to be going through more government agencies to reduce the number of committees, bodies and things that we do not need; things that we do not need the government to be involved in or where there are duplicate services available at state level or duplicate services available at other layers of government.
We know, of course, that many of these things are duplicated at state level. The introduction of one-stop shops for environmental approvals is perhaps one of the biggest changes in the way our Commonwealth, our federation, does business in this country.
One of the most significant problems that we have had as a society has been the knock back of huge amounts of investment, including in states like South Australia, which lost a massive uranium mine because of the overregulation of state and federal governments. There is the time taken when you apply for environmental approvals. There are the multilayers of environmental approvals. There is the reluctance of certain governments to approve big projects, even though they are to the great benefit of their state or the Commonwealth. The one-stop-shop process will ensure that we have better and more streamlined approvals.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.