Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Former Prime Minister John Howard has spoken about the issues that shaped him to get into politics and one of the chief ones was the impact of regulation on service stations. His parents, former Prime Minister Howard has written, felt that the Labor government maintained wartime petrol rationing for too long and they were frustrated by regulations that applied to local petrol stations from local councils. As John Howard once put it: 'What happened was my father had a garage near Dulwich Hill station and he got an edict from Marrickville council to remove the bowsers on the kerb. It accelerated a downward spiral for him and I guess it was something that helped to politicise me in the direction of profound sympathy for small business.'

One can only imagine what Mr Howard would make of a decision which sees the nation's 6,300 petrol stations hit with a compliance bill for $5.1 million for the privilege of collecting the Abbott government's new petrol tax. It is extraordinary that the so-called parties of Menzies has cast off so much of the values that Menzies stood for and is now rebuking the Howard legacy. What does the Liberal Party stand for any longer if it does not stand for the party of John Howard, if it is willing to spit in the eye of petrol station owners and slug them with new, unnecessary regulations? On the very day we are here talking about red tape, this is a government putting more red tape on to petrol station owners. You can just imagine John Howard shaking his head, 'First, they have undone the freeze in fuel indexation and then they are adding red tape to 6,300 small businesses.'

The government claims that the red tape measures are necessary and significant. And they are right, it is just that the necessary ones are trivial while the significant ones are unfair. Let me start with the trivia. Having crowed about the benefits of its first repeal day back in March, the government failed to tell the Australian people that that first red tape repeal day included 39 individual amendments changing the name 'electronic mail' to 'email'—difficult to see how that makes life easier for any Australian business—and hundreds of amendments adjusting spelling, grammar and punctuation.

To have a day on which you remove spelling mistakes from the statute books is like saying we are going to have a 'national showing up for work and having a cup of tea day'. It is just the regular business of government to clean-up the statute books and it is exactly what Labor did during our time in office, without the preening and the crowing that has accompanied the exercise from the coalition.

The first red tape repeal day encompassed the repeal of such noted business obstacles as the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1927, the Lighthouses Act 1949 and the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1969. The coalition crowed about the fact that it was removing a raft of amending acts, failing to tell Australians that an amending act ceases to take effect immediately after it has amended the principal act.

As my Senate colleague Senator Ludwig has recently discovered, the government set up teams at a cost of millions of dollars through the Australian Public Service in order to add to its preening exercise. The Treasury team cost $2.1 million. The teams based in the industry and social security departments cost around $700,000 a year. All of that is so the government can have a biannual preening exercise about simply doing its job. When we were in office, Labor removed over 16,000 redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments. We did not declare a 'war on bad punctuation'; we just figured that fixing typos is part of the work of good government.

Then there are the important reforms that the government is removing under the guise of red tape repeal. They attempt to gut Labor's future of financial advice consumer protection reforms, reforms that were backed by organisations such as Choice and National Seniors. These consumer protections were put in place in the wake of collapses such as Trio Capital and Storm Financial—and the minister at the table might chuckle, but these were crises that saw thousands of Australians lose their life savings and, in some cases, end up in debt, as a result of bad financial advice. That is why Labor put in those financial advice protections; not to impose additional red tape, but to ensure that older Australians are not scammed out of their life savings.

The government too is trying to kill off the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission was set up to protect Australians from door-to-door scammers. Thankfully, there are relatively few such scammers, but those who exist are in fear of an organisation which allows householders to check up on whether a charity is legit. It allows someone to type in the details onto the acnc.gov.au website and quickly check whether the person at the door is a dodgy scammer or a legitimate charity.

We believe that transparency is appropriate in the sector and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is delivering for charities. That is why four out of five charities support the charities commission, a figure which has remained unchanged in the year since the Abbott government has been in office. If the Abbott government's campaign against the charities commission had worked, you would think that charities might be less supportive. But actually this is the rare case of a regulator backed by its sector. What share of charities believe that charities regulation should return to the Australian Taxation Office? Just one in 20. Nineteen out of 20 Australian charities do not support the return of charities regulation to the tax office.

So, where Parliamentary Secretary Frydenberg might see red tape, we see measures that stop Aussies from being ripped off by dodgy financial advisers and unethical charity scammers. We believe that we need to have an appropriate level of regulation. What the coalition will not tell you about is the 690 new regulations they put in place since the last red tape repeal day. For a government that says it is declaring war on red tape, it certainly seems to be waving the white flag.

Since the first red tape repeal day, some of the regulations that have been brought in include: the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Warlike Service) Determination 2014 (No. 4); the National Health (Botulinum Toxin Program) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 2); the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determination No. 15 of 2014; the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Amendment (Notification of Decisions and Other Measures) Direction 2014; the Broadcasting Services (Licensee Audit Exemption) Instrument 2014; the Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2014 (No. 7); the Therapeutic Goods (Listing) Notice 2014 (No. 6); the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) (Warlike Service – Operation OKRA) Determination 2014; the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transfer of Industry Assets and Liabilities) Declaration 2014.

I could go on, but I have merely listed one-seventieth of the new regulations put onto the statute books by this government between their so-called regulation repeal day No. 1 and No. 2. A government that is declaring war on red tape is littering the statute books with new regulations. How hypocritical is that? The government claims to be getting rid of regulations but instead it is passing hundreds of them. Regulations are being passed at a rate of three or four a day since red tape repeal day No. 1 under this government; that is what they will not tell you on red tape repeal day No. 2. This is a stunt, pure and simple.

The charities commission has received significant support. I spoke before about the support it has from the sector. And the charities commission is reducing the regulatory burden on Australian charities. I stood up with Andrew Barr in the ACT and Gail Gago in South Australia. Both represent sensible governments which recognise that the charities commission can reduce regulatory reporting duplication for Australian charities.

In both those Labor jurisdictions we have governments keen to reduce the reporting burden on Australia's charities, by working with the charities commission. And yet governments in coalition-run states and territories have been unwilling to work with the charities commission.

This government needs to stop declaring a war on an organisation overwhelmingly backed by charities. That is not just my view; Ernst & Young has noted in a report on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission:

A core component of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission's reporting framework and efforts around reducing red tape is the 'report once, use often' principle. This principle is consistent with recommendations issued by the Productivity Commission, the National Commission of Audit, the Australian National Audit Office, the Treasury and the Department of Finance.

Serious reform-minded organisations take the view, as charities do, that the charities commission is cutting red tape and that abolishing the charities commission would increase the paperwork burden on Australian charities.

The government has got it wrong. Minister Andrews's only argument for abolishing the commission has been debunked by this Ernst & Young report and it has also been debunked by independent submissions. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has said:

We understand the government has made a commitment to abolish the ACNC. While we do not agree with this approach, we would strongly encourage the government to maintain elements of the ACNC that were delivering improved outcomes for the sector.

It has noted the 'light touch' regulation that is embodied in the charities commission, the value of a charities register that provides valuable information for a range of stakeholders, the central reporting mechanism and the harmonisation across jurisdictions.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors supports keeping the charities commission. The Queensland Law Society, in a detailed submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, has discussed the flaws in the regulatory impact statement for the government's attempt to repeal the charities commission. It has described the regulatory impact statements for that repeal bill as being:

Less than rigorous, and not meeting the usually high standards and disciplines of the Commonwealth legislative process.

The Queensland Law Society have noted a claim in the regulatory impact statement that the ACNC repeal is said to give effect to a government election promise, but have said:

We can find no direct reference to such a promise in the Coalition's formal election platform 1 and it was not included as a policy commitment in the Coalition's election costings.

The Queensland Law Society further say that the regulatory impact statement states:

… 21,000 unincorporated charities are required to report to the ACNC where they previously were outside a regulatory framework. This appears not to take into account that these charities are already subject to federal regulation which is fragmented and uncoordinated.

And goes on to note that the critique of the charities commission for not becoming a reporting point 'fails to acknowledge the progress made in setting up a framework for streamlined reporting in the ACNC's first 15 months.'

They also note the speed with which the charities commission has managed to register charities—exceeding the 85 per cent benchmark within 28 days with a 95.6 per cent success rate.

The charities commission is doing good work to reduce the reporting burden on Australian charities. Australians benefit from the charities commission and from financial advice protection. The removal of extraneous hyphens and commas should not be the subject of a bill before the House and crowing by the government.

See this speech in context