Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (09:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws was released in May 2013, some four months before the 2013 federal election. As was stated in the policy, achieving higher living standards, better pay and more jobs all depend on having fair, productive and effective workplaces. The reforms we have committed to will ensure that the Fair Work laws provide a strong and enforceable safety net for workers while helping business to grow, create new jobs and deliver higher real wage growth.

There has already been significant progress towards implementing the government's reforms, with the introduction into parliament of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

Today I introduce theFair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014, which further implements reforms included in our workplace relations policy. This bill gives effect to our election commitment to ensure that negotiations for enterprise agreements are harmonious and productive.

Enterprise bargaining is an important feature of the Fair Work laws, however the current framework has led to some outcomes that fail the common sense test.

Currently the Fair Work Act allows industrial action to be taken at an early stage in negotiations, before meaningful discussions have taken place. The current provisions allow for industrial action to be taken as a step of 'first resort'. The current act does nothing to encourage parties to even consider issues of workplace productivity during bargaining, despite productivity being front and centre in the objects of the Fair Work Act. The amendments to the Fair Work Act the government is pursuing will address these issues.

Protected industrial action

When Labor introduced the Fair Work Act, it enabled unions to take protected industrial action before bargaining had even commenced despite promising not to do so in 2007. The act also allows industrial action to be taken at a very early stage in negotiations, before proper, meaningful discussions have occurred or bargaining has been given a chance to get underway. When the 'strike first, talk later' problem was exposed in the JJ Richards case, Labor chose to do nothing about it, even though it was directly contrary to its policy commitments made before the 2007 election in relation to industrial action. Labor's own Fair Work Act Review Panel recommended that the problem be rectified, but Labor still did nothing.

The coalition government has already moved to address this problem with the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, which will ensure protected industrial action cannot be taken until bargaining has commenced. The bill I introduce today will complement this reform, ensuring that before someone seeks to take industrial action they have at least attempted to have genuine and meaningful discussions with the employer.

In order to take protected industrial action, an employee bargaining representative must first apply for a protected action ballot order to allow a secret ballot of employees to be conducted so the employees can decide whether they wish to take industrial action. When making a protected action ballot order, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Until now, the Fair Work Act did not provide specific guidance on what it means to be 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement' for this purpose.

The bill will fix this by requiring the Fair Work Commission to have regard to a range of factors in deciding whether an applicant for a protected action ballot order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. This list of non-exhaustive factors include a consideration of the extent to which the applicant has communicated its claims to the employer and the extent to which bargaining has progressed.

This amendment will provide greater transparency in what applicants for a protected action ballot order need to demonstrate to show they are genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The decision on whether to issue an order will still be made by the independent Fair Work Commission.

The bill also addresses a further problem with the Fair Work Act that allows industrial action to be taken in pursuit of almost any bargaining claim, regardless of how extreme, unreasonable or unrealistic it may be. Enterprise bargaining is a central part of the Fair Work system, but the current rules have allowed industrial action to be taken in pursuit of fanciful pay and leave increases, without any proposed productivity increases. For example, we have recently seen reports of protected action ballot orders made and protected industrial action threatened in pursuit of claims that would increase the salary package of marine engineers in Port Hedland by around 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees work six months of the year.

Similar irresponsible conduct was on show in the case of the MUA's negotiations with marine operators in the offshore oil and gas sector in Western Australia in 2010. These negotiations resulted in 30 per cent wage increases in just under four years with no productivity benefits, following industrial action being taken. Just months following this case, the MUA brought Australian ports to a halt in pursuit of a $46,000 wage increase for workers already earning over $100,000 for 185 days work per year.

The government's view is that the right to take industrial action should not be used as a 'first resort' tool in bargaining. This right must not be exercised capriciously. The bill will require that the independent Fair Work Commission will not make a protected action ballot order if it satisfied that the bargaining claims:

are manifestly excessive, having regard to the conditions at the workplace and relevant industry; or

would have a significant adverse impact on productivity at the workplace.

Enterprise agreement approval

Despite Labor's talk about how the Fair Work laws would encourage workplace productivity, there is nothing in the current bargaining provisions that requires bargaining parties to even think about productivity when they are negotiating a new enterprise agreement.

For the future prosperity of the country, we need to put productivity back on the bargaining agenda. To ensure this happens, the bill will amend the Fair Work Act to require productivity improvements at the workplace to have been discussed during negotiations, before a new enterprise agreement can be approved by the Fair Work Commission.

There does not need to be an agreement reached about improving productivity—it may be that the workplace has already been progressively making productivity improvements. The key is to make sure parties have at least considered how productivity in their workplace could be improved. This will at least ensure productivity is part of the bargaining discussions.

Conclusion

Before the last election, the government committed to keep and improve the Fair Work laws. The government is continuing to deliver on this commitment with the measures included in the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to promote sensible, harmonious and productive enterprise bargaining. It will make sure that industrial action is not a first-resort step in negotiations for an agreement. It will allow the Fair Work Commission to intervene where industrial action is pursued to support claims that are manifestly excessive. And finally, it will put productivity back on the agenda in enterprise agreement negotiations.

The bill implements clearly stated election policies—nothing more and nothing less.

These reforms are needed to help build Australia's prosperity for future generations. I urge members to act to promote harmonious and productive bargaining by supporting the modest and measured reforms included in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (09:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 will make minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to improve the operation and clarity of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999.

The bill will also confer jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to hear certain Commonwealth tenancy disputes. This is the most cost-effective and efficient forum to hear these disputes.

Federal Court of Australia Act amendments

The amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act will clarify that appeals cannot be made from minor procedural decisions, such as decisions to change hearing dates. This will reduce delays in the court system to ensure more efficient administration of justice.

Additionally, the amendments will clarify that police officers and court sheriffs can use reasonable force to enter premises to execute an arrest warrant for persons who are the subject of proceedings for contempt of court or for summary offences. This resolves current uncertainty about whether officers can use reasonable force. There have been occasions when an arrest warrant has not been executed due to this uncertainty.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act amendments

The amendments will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to hear certain Commonwealth tenancy disputes. These amendments are vital in order to provide a suitable forum to hear these disputes.

At present, in most jurisdictions, the applicable law provides for Commonwealth tenancy disputes to be resolved in state or territory tribunals, which can lead to inconsistency of approach. While superior courts may also be able to hear these matters, it is not considered an appropriate use of these courts' resources as it may lengthen the dispute resolution process and increase costs. This means that there is currently no suitable or affordable forum to hear these disputes. Conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to hear these disputes provides a cost-effective option and will provide a consistent forum available across Australia.

Additionally, amendments to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act will clarify specific limitations on the award of costs prescribed in other legislation, such as public interest disclosure legislation. This will clarify the limitations on the Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction to award costs and will assist readers to locate related provisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this bill will provide a more suitable and cost-effective forum for the resolution of certain Commonwealth tenancy disputes.

This bill will also improve the operation and clarity of the Federal Court of Australia Act and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act, which will contribute towards streamlining and reducing the complexity associated with navigating the justice system.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The ACT Government Loan Bill underpins the government's decision to provide a concessional loan to the ACT government of up to $1 billion to undertake a loose-fill asbestos remediation program.

The ACT government faces significant challenges in dealing with the remediation of loose-fill asbestos across the territory.

The one-off size and cost of dealing with this issue represents about a fifth of the Australian Capital Territory's annual budget.

Without the Commonwealth's assistance, the ACT's capacity to deal with this issue would have been significantly curtailed and put at threat its own credit rating.

The loan will ensure that the ACT government is in a position to deliver a well-structured remediation program in the coming years.

The bill provides authority for the Commonwealth to enter into a loan agreement with the ACT for an amount that must not exceed $1 billion.

The terms and conditions of the loan will be set out in the loan agreement. The minister administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 may enter into the loan agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Ministers for Infrastructure and Regional Development has responsibility for that act.

The bill also appropriates $750 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 2014-15 for the purposes of making payments under the loan agreement. The appropriation will be brought into existence on the day after it receives royal assent. The remaining $250 million will be appropriated through the 2015-16 budget.

A portfolio supplementary estimates statement will be tabled in the parliament.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As you can see from the weight of it, with roughly 650 pages in the bill and 450 pages in the explanatory memorandum, this is a very substantial piece of work and the culmination of over 100 years of experience. Australia has a world-class biosecurity system. The system helps us preserve Australia's unique pest and disease status and protect our environment, human health, the wellbeing of our domestic animals, plants and our way of life.

There is no doubt that all Australians benefit from the system that underpins the security of our agriculture, forestry and fishery industries and enables a competitive advantage in export markets around the world. We have to get biosecurity right, because the stakes are high and getting it right benefits everyone.

The importance of quarantine is highlighted by its inclusion as a head of power in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth government is responsible for using this power to ensure Australia is protected from biosecurity risks. It follows that our biosecurity system must be underpinned by a modem and effective regulatory framework. This framework operates to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australian territory and causing harm to animal, plant and human health, and the environment and the economy.

The legislation that currently enables us to do this, the Quarantine Act, has been amended no less than 50 times over the last 106 years. While the legislation has served us well in the past, it has become cumbersome to administer, difficult to interpret and incompatible with our needs as our business and our risks change.

A new regulatory framework is needed to provide for a safe and seamless transition of people and goods across Australia's borders.

It needs to be more responsive to the threat of communicable diseases while also avoiding unnecessary burden on international passengers and trade.

Today the government brings forward the Biosecurity Bill and four companion bills to implement the biosecurity legislation. The Minster for Agriculture is responsible for plant and animal quarantine and the Minster for Health is responsible for human quarantine. Accordingly, the legislation is a collaboration between both portfolios, and is jointly administered by them. This legislation will enable the departments to continue to manage biosecurity risks in a modern and responsive manner.

The century-old Quarantine Act was written in a completely different world, when today's technology was not conceived.

When the Quarantine Act came into force there were only two Australian passport holders.

The act was written when people and goods arrived by sea and today's air and sea craft were unimaginable. It was a time when the threat of diseases such as the bubonic plague, smallpox, cholera and measles were at the forefront of policymakers' minds and those of the community.

In 1908 over 5,000 miles of the Australian coastline remained uncharted, and in parts even unexamined.

The population of Australia at the time was around four million, less than the number of people that live in Sydney today.

To contrast this picture, in 2012-13 the Department of Agriculture cleared:

16 million arriving international passengers,

about 186 million international mail items,

1.7 million sea cargo consignments, and

26 million air cargo consignments.

In the past decade, we have seen the volume of air passengers grow by 80 per cent, sea containers by 82 per cent and bulk cargo increase by 16 per cent. So we need legislation that not only safeguards our primary industries, our environment and our people from the increased threat of pest and disease, but also allows us to manage these movements in the most efficient way.

This legislation is designed to support the biosecurity system in any age. The bill is a culmination of many years of work. A number of significant reviews of the system have outlined opportunities to improve the biosecurity system, including the development of new legislation.

During the development of the bill, we have worked with industry, stakeholders and state and territory governments to seek feedback and to ensure the legislation we put in place is robust and effective. This engagement will continue during the development of the regulations and policies that support the bill so that we all have the benefit of the best biosecurity system.

Strengthening the competitiveness and productivity of Australia's agriculture sector is a key undertaking of this government.

Australia is free of many pests and diseases that are common around the world. This allows our famers to produce higher quality products and increases the demand for those products.

This is essential for our farmers to maintain access to overseas markets and build on our position as a net exporter of the highest quality agricultural goods. In 2013-14 the total gross value of agricultural production was $53 billion.

These exports underpin our robust agricultural industry—and the biosecurity system that protects that industry—without which our farmers, the economy and consumers could suffer serious consequences.

Australia's enviable pest and disease status gives our producers a unique advantage. As well as playing an obvious role in protecting Australia's environment, safeguarding Australia from unwanted pests and diseases also protects Australia's economy.

For example, a recent review commissioned by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences looked at the economic impact of a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Australia.

In the event of a large multistate foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, the ABARES estimates revenue losses could be more than $50 billion over 10 years. Reflecting international experience, the economic impact of trade restrictions, including the closure of export markets, would be far greater than the cost of controlling the disease.

The bill will help protect the Australian environment from costly incursions by introducing a strong legislative framework that allows biosecurity risks to be managed more effectively.

In recent years, the biosecurity system has evolved to one based on risk, which helps officers target higher risk goods, passengers and mail. This has helped the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health to more effectively manage biosecurity risks associated with ever-increasing volumes of trade and passengers moving across our border.

When prohibited goods are intercepted, penalties in the bill will match the offence and be balanced, consistent and reflect the level of biosecurity risk posed.

The bill includes mechanisms to more clearly identify biosecurity risks offshore, onshore and at the border and will manage these risks using a broad range of Commonwealth powers.

In relation to risks posed to human health, the Quarantine Act was enacted before the considerations of individual rights and personal freedoms we have today. Within the bill, the process for managing the threat of a serious communicable disease to human health will be better aligned with modern science relating to treatment and management of such diseases. It will also provide for consideration of personal freedoms and rights to review in human health biosecurity decision-making.

The new legislation will have no fiscal impact on the Australian economy. In fact it will reduce red tape for thousands of businesses that regularly interact with the biosecurity system.

The compliance costs on businesses are estimated to be reduced by approximately $6.9 million per year because of clearer, easier to use legislation and the improved processes it will enable.

The bill modernises overly complex regulatory provisions and administrative practices under the Quarantine Act.

A good example is the introduction of a new scheme to manage Commonwealth-industry partnerships, known as the approved arrangement scheme.

This will replace the duplicative quarantine approved premise and compliance agreement provisions in the Quarantine Act, which can overlap and cause unnecessary costs for businesses. Provisions in the bill will instead allow businesses to enter into a single agreement with the Department of Agriculture, to manage their biosecurity risks in an approved way that better reflects their business operations.

The Biosecurity Bill introduces a new range of enforcement options, including infringement notices, civil penalties, enforceable undertakings and criminal sanctions.

The enforcement work undertaken by the Department of Agriculture is complex and can require a different approach than that traditionally taken by law enforcement.

Biosecurity requirements are grounded in science and not everyone who breaches them will have understood why or have done so deliberately.

Having a range of enforcement options available is important, as it gives the department the ability to effectively penalise those who deliberately breach laws and greater flexibility to deal with those who have inadvertently committed a breach.

Importantly, the bill contains new powers to address the risk posed by people and companies. Previous non-compliant behaviour of individuals or their associates can be considered when issuing an import permit or entering into a Commonwealth-industry partnership through a fit-and-proper person test.

Currently the current Quarantine Act only allows for assessment of the risks associated with the goods themselves.

The bill will provide the Commonwealth with the right tools to manage biosecurity threats, including the human health risks posed to the Australian population from serious communicable diseases.

The human health provisions of the Quarantine Act, particularly those relating to isolation and treatment, have rarely been used in the last 20 years.

It is expected that the human health provisions contained in the bill will be seldom used. However it is important that legislative powers are available to manage serious communicable diseases should they occur.

This has been particularly highlighted by the recent announcements by the World Health Organization of polio and ebola virus disease as public health emergencies of international concern. Importantly, the bill will also seek to further implement Australia's obligations as a signatory to the International Health Regulations 2005.

The Biosecurity Bill also creates powers to enable information gathering to review the biosecurity system. It is intended that these powers will be used by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity.

This will help ensure that the assessment and management of biosecurity risk is subject to regular review and continual improvement. An independently verified system will enhance the overall integrity and robustness of the Australian biosecurity system.

The bill will create and enable partnerships and better collaboration between governments, business and industry.

State governments, business and industries will be able to take a greater role in managing biosecurity risks—where it is appropriate to do so—with support and regulatory oversight from the Commonwealth. In doing so, there will be a more appropriate level or intensity of intervention from the government.

The Biosecurity Bill continues this intent by providing expanded onshore powers for the Commonwealth to cooperatively manage and address pest and disease incursions. Provisions such as the ability to issue biosecurity control orders and the establishment of biosecurity zones enhance the powers available to the Commonwealth to address biosecurity risks within or across jurisdictions, in a consistent way.

This is particularly important where state and territory government regulations may be incompatible or lack the powers required to manage an incident.

The Department of Agriculture has worked closely with states and territories and will continue to do so in the further development and implementation of the Biosecurity Bill.

This bill was several years in the making.

After engaging with industry, state and territory governments, environment groups, health professionals, the general public and our trading partners, the Biosecurity Bill 2014 represents a comprehensive modernisation of the Australian biosecurity legislation.

The bill directly addresses the government's commitment to improving Australia's already world-class biosecurity system.

The departments of Agriculture and Health employ and work with some of Australia's most knowledgeable and experienced plant scientists, veterinarians and medical and clinical experts.

These people are available to our biosecurity officers to provide current advice and guidance on the risks posed by the movement of people, aircraft, vessels and goods.

This bill ensures the Australian biosecurity system can continue to respond to future changes that this shifting world presents and the challenges and opportunities that come with those changes.

For Australian farmers, a strong biosecurity system means crops will be safer from exotic pests and livestock better protected from diseases such as foot-and-mouth.

For the Australian economy, it means an increased capacity for sustained domestic production and international exports from a competitive and profitable agricultural sector.

For the Australian community more broadly, it means everyone can continue to have confidence in the biosecurity system which protects our way of life.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Biosecurity (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014 is the first companion bill to the Biosecurity Bill 2014. It will facilitate the transition from the Quarantine Act to the Biosecurity Act. This bill makes consequential amendments to a range of other Commonwealth legislation to reflect the broad scope of managing biosecurity risk. It will also replace references to 'the Quarantine Act' with 'the Biosecurity Act 2014'.

Biosecurity is wide reaching and impacts air travel, shipping and fisheries amongst other matters, with the result that over 20 pieces of Commonwealth legislation will require some minor amendments.

This bill will repeal the Quarantine Act and the Quarantine Charges (Collection) Act 2014. Most importantly, it will allow the Department of Agriculture to provide for a smooth transition from the old legislation to the new regulatory framework.

The bill will do this by ensuring that biosecurity risk managed under the Quarantine Act will continue to be managed following its repeal. For example, if a person is directed not to move a good under the Quarantine Act, that direction will still be valid under the Biosecurity Act. Or if an import permit application is made under the Quarantine Act, it is taken to have been made under the Biosecurity Act.

In some key areas, such as approved arrangement industry partnerships, the transition will take place over a longer period of time so businesses have more time to become compliant with new requirements and both business and the department can better manage the volume of work associated with the change.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Three charging bills are being introduced as part of the Biosecurity Bill package. These will allow the Commonwealth to impose charges that appropriately reflect the cost of administering the Biosecurity Act now and into the future. The charging bills do not set the amount of the charges and do not apply any financial impacts on business. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying these charges will be set and delegated in legislation.

The first charging bill, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2014 will amend the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Act 2014. This bill continues current cost-recovery arrangements to enable effective management of biosecurity risks through the Biosecurity Bill.

This bill will allow the Commonwealth to continue imposing suitable charges for activities and services relating to the administration of Australia's biosecurity system, including scientific analysis, intelligence, inspections and surveillance. This enables the Commonwealth to support and administer a robust, efficient biosecurity system where the appropriate responsibility for costs associated with the system lie with those who oppose the highest risk to our biosecurity status.

The charges will reflect the costs for providing the services, ensuring the department is sufficiently resourced to continue the critical job of protecting Australia's unique animal and plant health status.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2014 is the second of the three charging bills. This bill will amend the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Act 2014 relating to the repeal of the Quarantine Act, and will only impose charges when they are considered a duty of customs.

Debate adjourned.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2014 is the third of the three charging bills. It will make amendments to the Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Act 2014 relating to the repeal of the Quarantine Act. It will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise.

Debate adjourned.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:39): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report on foreign investment in residential real estate together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Ms O'DWYER: by leave—I am very pleased to be presenting the economics committee report on foreign investment in residential real estate. Residential housing has been, and will always be, an issue that is at the forefront of community debate and discussion. Owning your own home is part of the great Australian dream. For many, it represents the opportunity to build a future. It represents connection with community and security for family. Buying into the Australian dream does not come cheap. According to a recent International Monetary Fund report, the current ratio of housing prices in Australia to average incomes is 31.6 per cent above the historical average. Is it any wonder then, that many Australians now worry that home ownership may be out of reach for them, their children, or their grandchildren? At the same time, Australians worry about rental and interest costs, and their impacts on the cost of living.

There is no one simple explanation for the decline in housing affordability, although lack of land supply, underdevelopment, state planning laws and regulations, local council red tape, and stamp duty and tax arrangements likely all play a part.

Over the years, however, many in the community have asked the question: what role does foreign investment play in residential real estate? It was timely then that on 19 March this year the Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey MP, commissioned the House economics committee to examine: the benefits of foreign investment in residential property; whether such foreign investment is directly increasing the supply of new housing and bringing benefits to the local building industry and its suppliers; how Australia's foreign investment framework compares with international experience; and whether the administration of Australia's foreign investment policy relating to residential property can be enhanced.

Under our current foreign investment framework, as it applies to residential real estate, foreign investment is channelled into new housing so that more homes, units and apartments are built—meaning more opportunity for people to purchase. It also contributes directly to economic activity, generating employment for builders and suppliers.

When it comes to existing homes, there are generally prohibitions and restrictions. Non-resident foreign investors are prohibited from purchasing an existing home, and temporary residents—on visas of more than 12 months—can purchase just one existing home to live in while they are resident in Australia, but must sell this home on their visa expiring. All purchases, whether new or existing homes, are required to be prescreened by the Foreign Investment Review Board, supported by the Foreign Investment and Trade Policy Division of Treasury.

According to FIRB statistics, in the first nine months of this financial year, FIRB approved foreign investment into residential property of around $24.8 billion—44 per cent higher than the $17.2 billion approved during all of 2012-13.

Much of this investment is concentrated in the Melbourne and Sydney markets. Most of the increase is attributable to proposed investment in new property, which at $19.3 billion for the first nine months of 2013-14 is 79 per cent higher than 2012-13. The total number of established property approvals for the first nine months of 2013-14 is 5,755 compared to 5,101 for 2012-13.

Over six public hearings, and after considering more than 92 submissions, the committee has four key findings that translate into 12 practical recommendations. First, there is no accurate or timely data that tracks foreign investment in residential real estate. No-one really knows how much foreign investment there is in residential real estate, nor where that investment comes from. A national register of land title transfers that records the citizenship and residency status of all purchases of Australian real estate would fix this and would allow facts to be injected into discussions about foreign investment, rather than just 'best guestimates'. A national register would also help with compliance and enforcement with the foreign investment framework, allowing data to be compared more easily. Other relevant government information should also be captured and made available to FIRB. At present, FIRB cannot access data from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on departing visa holders. Given the government has this information, this makes no sense. Together, these initiatives would allow authorities to track departing visa holders who may have purchased an existing home but who, under current rules, need to sell that home within three months of leaving.

Second, there has been a significant failure of leadership at FIRB, which was unable to provide basic compliance information to the committee about its investigations and enforcement activity. During the course of the inquiry, it came to light that no court action has been taken by FIRB since 2006. During the entire Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, not one divestment order was issued, which means not one government sale of illegally acquired property was made. This compares with 17 divestment orders between 2003 and 2007, when foreign investment in residential real estate was at much lower levels. FIRB was also unable to provide basic data on voluntary divestments. It defies belief that there has been universal compliance with the foreign investment framework outlined above since 2007. The systems failure at FIRB needs to be repaired and new resources need to be injected into FIRB to ensure better audit, compliance and enforcement outcomes.

Third, if you are not prepared to enforce the rules, then it is less likely that people will comply with the rules. This is especially true if the consequences of a breach are not meaningfully adverse. The ability to more easily sanction people who have breached the foreign investment framework is critical. Hence, the need to bring in a civil penalty regime for breaches of the foreign investment framework, along with the need to capture those people who have previously stood outside the framework but who materially impact the integrity of our foreign investment regime—for instance, third parties who knowingly assist foreign investors to breach the rules.

Currently, non-resident foreign investors can profit from the illegal purchase of property. Given this, the current financial penalty that can be applied to a property, regardless of its value, is seen by many as simply the cost of doing business. Fines and pecuniary penalty orders should directly relate to the value of the property concerned. Furthermore, investors who breach the framework should not be able to profit.

Fourth, currently the Australian taxpayer foots the bill for the administration of the FIRB and FITPD, not foreign investors applying for approval. This has, arguably, contributed to underinvestment in FIRB's audit, compliance and enforcement activities.    Just as other regulators adopt a user-pays model, the committee recognises that a modest administration fee can be implemented to fund enhanced audit, compliance and enforcement capacity within FIRB, as well as other new measures outlined in the recommendations.

The Parliamentary Budget Office analysis suggests that a modest application fee of $1,500 would generate revenue of $158.7 million over four years, yet amount to 0.27 per cent or 0.20 per cent of the purchase price for an average home in Melbourne and Sydney respectively. These practical measures will send a strong message about Australia's commitment to its foreign investment framework in practice as well as in words.

This is important. Too often, the signals in recent years have been in the opposite direction. For instance, in 2008, then Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP, removed the requirement for temporary residents to notify FIRB of all residential purchases. This rule change allowed temporary residents to purchase existing homes without notifying FIRB. Perhaps recognising that this neutered FIRB's capacity to monitor compliance with the sale on departure condition under our foreign investment framework, his successor, Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry, reversed the change and, in the lead-up to the 2010 election, announced a range of proposed measures to tighten monitoring and enforcement. Some of them are not dissimilar to those being recommended by the committee. Regrettably, most of those announced measures were not pursued by his successor, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, nor by any of the subsequent assistant treasurers in the last government. The committee strongly recommends that the government pursue the package of measures canvassed in this report.

Given the recent successes in delivering free trade agreements for the benefit of Australia, lest there be any confusion it is important to note that residential property has never been part of any free trade agreement. Accordingly, none of the recent agreements with Japan, South Korea and China impact the screening arrangements for residential property.

In conclusion, the committee found that the current foreign investment framework should be retained. In practice, the framework has been undermined due to poor data collection, along with a lack of audit, compliance and enforcement action by FIRB. Australians are entitled to expect that the rules are properly enforced, and our committee recommendations strengthen the ability to do this.

I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those people who have helped inform this inquiry. In particular, I thank those people and organisations that made submissions and presented evidence; those who sent letters and provided their views; the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Budget Office for their efficient professionalism; and of course, members of the committee, who took a very collegiate approach to this task. Special thanks go to committee secretary, Mr Peter Banson; inquiry secretary, Dr Kilian Perrem; and the House Standing Committee on Economics secretariat team for their diligent work on this report and their willingness to assist both the chairman and committee members to enable the report to be as comprehensive as possible. Finally, I give a thank you to my incredibly hardworking staff, Tania Coltman and Sarah Nicholson, for their consistently excellent work.

I look forward to the government's response to this report and the many practical recommendations that are contained in it. I commend the report to the House.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (09:50): I also extend my thanks, on behalf of members of the Standing Committee on Economics, to the committee secretariat for all their hard work and their continued diligence. It is very much appreciated. However, I must say the one good thing about this inquiry is that it is over. It was an inquiry less focused on good policy and more on glaring publicity. Three things underpinned it. Firstly, there was a highly questionable and alarmist report by Credit Suisse into projected levels of Chinese foreign investment in residential property; secondly, there was a constant attempt to prove that there were systemic flaws within the way FIRB was enforcing compliance with investment laws; and thirdly, and levering off this last point, there was an obsessive drive to introduce a new tax on foreign investors at a time when the focus should be on improving trade and investment relationships.

Inquiries can be very useful means to spotlight areas demanding reform or improvement, but they need firm foundations to achieve this. This inquiry was sparked by an exaggerated publicity-seeking report by a firm you would expect better of, Credit Suisse. In March, Credit Suisse issued claims that inflated the projected scope of likely Chinese investment in residential property. When the committee sought to question them on the report, they had to be dragged to the inquiry to appear, which is not surprising, because they were no doubt embarrassed by their own claims. They used flagrantly emotive language in their report, including claims that 'The Chinese want to buy your house' and 'The dragon discovers the quarter acre dream'. This fanned reporting of contestable claims that $44 billion of Chinese investment would be ploughed into Australian residential real estate. After sustained questioning at a public hearing we learnt that Credit Suisse had included in its calculations purchases made by permanent residents who were of Chinese background. A lot of people would wonder how permanent residents can be classified as foreign investors. It defies belief.

The problem is that this type of hype reporting helped prompt this inquiry, and the inquiry then became a launching pad for a new tax grab. Make no mistake, the coalition wanted to grab a much bigger tax slice out of foreign investors than was finally recommended. You only have to refer to the media coverage generated during the course of the inquiry to know this to be the case. The new tax has been scaled back for now. What this inquiry heard on countless occasions was that foreign investment adds to housing supply in this country. It generates demand, spurs growth in jobs and economic activity. It is beneficial to the nation and our economy.

The rules around foreign investment in residential real estate are clear-cut. It is permissible for new developments, and strict rules prohibit the purchase of existing residential property other than for temporary residence. Whilst some marginal changes can be contemplated to these rules, there was little evidence submitted to the inquiry of widespread, systemic noncompliance. This is despite the fact that FIRB's compliance capabilities were subjected to regular public criticism by the coalition and little procedural fairness was extended to FIRB to put public criticisms directly to them and allow them to respond. It was extraordinary that the minister with direct oversight of FIRB and Treasury, no-one less than the Treasurer himself, either failed to defend them from these criticisms or he was happy for his coalition colleagues to launch them. Even more extraordinary was that after the coalition levelled those criticisms the report acknowledged that FIRB has an advisory role, and Treasury needs to shoulder more responsibility for compliance.

The concerns about compliance are being used to justify an up-front impost on investors. I would make a number of points about this. First, the government has to work out if it is in favour of foreign investment or not. It has driven foreign companies, such as Holden's, out of the country, it has blocked investment proposals, such as GrainCorp, and now it wants to siphon funds out of foreign investors. No-one for one minute should be fooled by the words used in this report of a 'modest application fee', which, by the way, the coalition tried to suggest would be between $500 and $1,500, and today it is a firm $1,500.

You cannot trust that this government, which has introduced a range of surprise new taxes or sudden tax increases, will not be tempted to milk revenue out of these investors at a higher rate down the track. The coalition argue that they will use the funds raised by the impost to improve compliance. This does not stack up. There is scope for the Australian National Audit Office, for example, to be engaged to review compliance processes and procedures utilised by both Treasury and FIRB. ANAO can and does conduct performance reviews and could have easily been engaged, and recommended to have been engaged, to assess the way that both Treasury and FIRB undertake compliance and determine if resource allocation for this activity is appropriate. In fact, it should be recommended that ANAO consider doing this as a matter of course ahead of the imposition of any new fee or tax. I would certainly urge them to consider this. They can undertake the activity and they, again, should consider to do so. But all of these reasonable suggestions have been ignored by a coalition determined to find new taxes.

Some of the other recommendations will have questionable effect. The big issue with data in this space is time lag—the distance between an intent to purchase and construct and then the actual construction occurring. A new national register that simply logs residential status of investors will probably do little to alter or change the impact of data lags in this area. While some good might have a chance to emerge from the inquiry, and some modest compliance measures might see the light of day, one hopes this report dissolves from memory, and fast.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:57): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:57): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (09:57): I rise to speak to the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014. The government has introduced a package of reforms to the Corporations Law to reduce regulatory burden and improve productivity and competitiveness. What I really want to talk about is why this bill is part of an overall package and why it is of fundamental importance to the future of this nation.

I listened to some comments in another context by one of my colleagues, and I am very worried about the personal future of members of the opposition. I am very worried about whether or not they will be able to continue to play a role in public life in this country if they pursue in their personal affairs the arrangements they want this nation to pursue. They see it as being desirable that we should budget for consumption and spending where we do not have the income available. They want us to essentially go out to dinner every night and simply put the tab on our bank card or on our mortgage. If you conducted your personal affairs in the way in which they want the affairs of the nation to be run, you would not be able to survive. When I make this point about their personal affairs, let me just say I am reasonably satisfied that in their personal affairs they would try to ensure that they live within their means, but when it comes to the nation it is regrettable that we do not see the same approach being taken.

I speak to many people around my electorate and they do appreciate very much that the country has to live within its means. In looking at that issue, it is not just how much you spend that is relevant; it is how you go about the earning of your income that is equally important. They are concerned in their businesses about unnecessary costs which make them less competitive and make their businesses more difficult to sustain. I must say that, in my own electorate, people are gratified that we have been able to make some changes in relation to the carbon tax. They are glad that it has gone, because that has made their businesses more competitive. But, equally, the sorts of measures that are contained in this legislation are absolutely important to them, because they find that a lot of the reporting that they have to make builds costs into their businesses, and that makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to be able to effectively carry out those businesses.

In my 41 years in this House, I have never seen such a determined approach by a government to reduce the regulatory burden. What we have seen with the removal of regulations is the freeing up of businesses to be able to do what they do best. I commend the member for Kooyong, the parliamentary secretary, for the work that he is doing in this regard. He is committed to tackling the volume of regulation, which is already too high. It is essential that we do ensure that our businesses remain competitive. I would simply say that this is not a job that has been finished. In an earlier life I was the Attorney-General of Australia, and I was able to work with the states to put in place a single defamation code. The importance of that was that it stopped forum shopping around Australia. When it was put in place, it meant that the volume of litigation was significantly reduced. I am a lawyer. I do not mind litigation, but sometimes litigation can be very unnecessary and very unhelpful.

I was very much focused on personal property securities. We had something like 80 different pieces of legislation across all the states and territories of Australia that were different for personal property securities. You can think of them: bills of sale, hire purchase, maritime liens and floating charges. When you put the myriad different forms of personal property securities across all the states and territories it meant that businesses trading across state and territory boundaries would often have to get complex legal advice about floating charges that they might have over their stock. I can remember a firm that ran a hotel in Mount Gambier and a hotel in Geelong, and they had to get advice because the floating charge over their stock-in-trade was different under South Australian and Victorian law. We are, I might say, somewhat belatedly now—I do not think I have been the Attorney for seven years—seeing a single scheme of personal property security being implemented.

I would encourage the government to continue looking not only at its own regulatory burdens that it imposes upon people but also at the multiplicity of regulatory burdens that are as a result of our Federation. I do not think our Federation arrangements were intended to inhibit successful businesses operating in Australia or to reduce their economic competitiveness, but I suspect that a lot of the regulatory burden which is so often unnecessary imposes those costs. So I do commend the member for Kooyong for his hard work in addressing these issues.

I think this bill, which I will go to, deals with a number of issues that will help to improve our economic competitiveness. If we improve our economic competitiveness, businesses are more successful. Hopefully, they end up paying more taxes. That is helpful for the Commonwealth. It helps our budgetary position. It enables the government to more effectively live within its means. I think we ought to be talking about how governments can live within their means, and I think we need to be quite lateral in the way in which we do it. We need to look at our expenditures. I encourage members of the opposition to come forward. I listen all the time to hear from them as to ideas they have about the way in which we can structure our budget more constructively. I do listen. I don't hear it.

Mr Craig Kelly: You don't hear very much.

Mr RUDDOCK: No, I don't. I do listen. But it is also important that they support measures of this sort that will help boost our economic competitiveness. This bill is about reducing business compliance costs by something of the order of $14 million per year. It contains measures to improve the efficiency of those processes which companies have to meet. They will better balance the rights of shareholders to raise issues with the company and the costs of companies being required to call and hold general meetings. It will improve the remuneration reporting requirements. It will clarify the circumstances in which a financial year may be less than 12 months. It will exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor. It will improve the operation of the Takeovers Panel. It will extend the Remuneration Tribunal's remuneration setting responsibility to include certain statutory bodies.

If I can go to some of those particular measures, there is the abolition of the 100-member rule. The government is removing the requirement for directors of a company to hold a general meeting on the request of 100 shareholders. It seeks to strike a better balance between the interests of minority shareholders and the shareholders as a whole, because all of these meetings involve costs which can be quite significant. In large corporations the 100-member rule allows groups holding less than what we can call one per cent of voting shares to force a company to incur significant costs in holding meetings. That has to be questioned. This particular issue is supported by both industry stakeholders, including the Institute of Company Directors, the Governance Institute of Australia and the Business Council of Australia, as well as shareholder groups such as the Australian Shareholders Association. The measure is expected to save businesses around $1.5 million per annum in compliance costs. Isn't that a desirable outcome?

In relation to remuneration reporting, the government is improving the disclosure of executive remuneration information in Australia by ensuring that it is provided in a form that is useful to shareholders and investors. The measure removes the requirement for unlisted disclosing entities to prepare a remuneration report. This measure is estimated to save unlisted entities from disclosing about $8.5 million in compliance costs. The remuneration report is simply not relevant to those agencies, but it is a regime that imposes very significant and unnecessary costs.

In issues relating to auditor-appointing requirements, the government is removing the nonsensical requirement for certain companies limited by guarantee, which are not required to undertake an audit, to appoint an auditor—that is, you are not required to audit, but you have to appoint an auditor. How ridiculous! Currently all public companies are required to appoint an auditor, even if they are not required to conduct a full audit of their financial reports. This unnecessary regulatory burden imposes $4 million of compliance costs on business. This change is expected to predominantly benefit companies that have a not-for-profit focus.

You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, why this legislation is of fundamental importance in addressing issues that do go to the costs of running businesses in Australia. Inevitably, it will help in small measure to improve their international competitiveness. We ought not through our regulatory regimes impose costs on businesses in Australia that are quite unrelated to the costs others abroad may face, because that is essentially imposing upon them and their employees a penalty in terms of their competitiveness. This legislation is an important deregulatory package; it is part of a continuing process in which this government is involved. As I said, I commend the member for Kooyong, who has had the responsibility for progressing these issues, for his determination in identifying measures that can effectively reduce compliance costs and that will ensure a far more competitive environment without reducing proper responsibility. This measure deserves support, and I hope that the opposition will have some regard to my earlier observations about the importance of ensuring that we not only live within our means, but also put in place a more productive economy through the sorts of measures that are contained in this legislation.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:11): Labor supports this bill and I am pleased to offer my contribution in supporting this bill passing the parliament. I do wish to make some comments about the comments just made by the member for Berowra, though I am conscious of his points about reducing red tape, which I find somewhat ironic, given that earlier we had the member for Higgins introduce the report of the Economics Committee. It actually advocates increasing red tape for foreign investment in Australian property by imposing a proposed levy. I understand that the Economics Committee discussed a figure of between $500 and $1500; today we learnt that the committee is now proposing the higher end of the range, $1500. When we talk about reducing red tape it is easy for those opposite to adopt a holier-than-thou approach on these issues, but we need to be conscious that there was some hypocrisy in the comments of the member for Berowra. Nevertheless, Labor is pleased to support these reforms because they are sensible—they make a sensible addition and changes to our corporate landscape.

Labor has a proud record of improving corporate governance, transparency and accountability in decisions of government, particularly with respect to their obligations to shareholders, workers, customers and the general public. During the course of the last Labor government, a number of reforms were introduced that not only improved safety for workers and the public, ensured greater competition in a number of industries and Australia generally, but also provided reliable accounts and information, particularly on executive remuneration. Over a number of years we have seen outrage in the community not only by shareholders but the wider community about some of the ridiculous remuneration packages and bonuses that were paid to corporate leaders in this country and throughout the world. Through such measures, Labor introduced a corporate regime that is one of the most robust and responsible anywhere in the world. This bill meets those conditions and on that basis we are pleased to offer support.

Items 1 and 2 of schedule 1 of the bill amend the Corporations Act to better balance the rights of shareholders to raise issues with a company against the cost to companies of being required to call and hold general meetings. This relates to the so-called '100-member rule', which creates an obligation on a corporation to hold a general meeting if requested to by 100 or more shareholders. That requirement will be removed by this bill. The requirement that a general meeting be held if requested by five per cent or more of shareholders will remain.

Importantly, the proposed amendment does not affect the right of 100 shareholders to put up a resolution to be considered at a general meeting or to distribute a shareholder statement with the notice convening that meeting. So the changes do not affect the ability of 100 or more shareholders to engage in activism. That is very important and that is the way it should be, because shareholder activism is an important component of corporate governance. What these amendments do is ensure that the operation of this provision does not burden companies with the cost of having to hold extraordinary general meetings where this is unreasonable. There have been examples in the past. Woolworths was required to call an extraordinary general meeting on the issue of $1 limits on poker machines—and the cost of convening that meeting was close to half a million dollars. Over many years the NRMA had to call a series of extraordinary general meetings. It is estimated that the cost of those meetings was in the millions of dollars. The proposed amendment is a sensible reform, one that ensures that an appropriate balance remains between the right of shareholders to put resolutions at general meetings and the need to ensure that, in doing so, the costs imposed on the companies involved are not unreasonable.

The second element of these reforms is improving remuneration reporting. Years ago in Australia, shareholders became increasingly concerned, even outraged, at the size of executive remuneration packages—pay, bonuses, shares and share options. These were being paid even where executives were, by any reasonable measure, failing in their duties, as reflected in the performance of their companies. We saw situations where executives presided over falls in the share price and/or falls in the profitability of their companies yet still commanded outrageous remuneration. This created angst within the community, particularly amongst shareholders. Many saw the outcomes as being unfair and unreasonable.

Labor acted on those concerns. It responded by implementing a fairer system that put shareholders, particularly institutional and mum-and-dad shareholders, first. The current shadow Treasurer, then the Assistant Treasurer, introduced reforms in July 2011. They became known as the 'two-strikes rule', which holds directors accountable to shareholders for executive salaries and bonuses. These reforms have led to a much more responsible and reasonable approach to executive remuneration being taken in this country. I think it is fair to say that the system has worked.

The way the system works is that companies have two opportunities, from the perspective of accountability to shareholders, to get their executive remuneration right. If a company's remuneration report receives a shareholder no vote of 25 per cent or more at an annual general meeting, that is the first strike. If there is another strike in the second year—if the company's subsequent remuneration report again receives a no vote of 25 per cent or more—there can be a vote to spill the board. In other words, there can be a vote on whether or not all directors need to stand for re-election. That subsequent vote to require a re-election of the board needs a majority of 50 per cent plus one to pass. If it does receive that majority, the election for directors has to be held within 90 days. As I said, this is a model which has worked. It has seen companies take a much more reasonable approach to executive remuneration. The stories of outrageous executive salaries and packages have dissipated—and that is a positive thing. Labor is very proud of its record of improving remuneration reporting and dealing with executive remuneration. Concerns were raised by shareholders and users of remuneration reports and we dealt with them.

Labor also supports removing the unnecessary requirement for unlisted disclosing entities that are companies to prepare a remuneration report. Unlike listed entities, they are not required to have their remuneration report adopted by shareholders through a non-binding resolution and they are not subject to the two-strikes test. In this respect, the reform in this bill is supported.

This bill also makes changes so that listed disclosing entities that are companies must disclose the number of options that lapse during the financial year, as well as the financial year in which those options were granted, for each member of the key management personnel. There will, under the changes introduced by this bill, be no obligation to disclose the value of options that lapse or the percentage value of remuneration that consists of options for each member of the key management personnel. Again this is a sensible reform that has Labor's support.

The bill makes an number of amendments that will improve the value of the information in remuneration reports. This goes to item 6 of schedule 1 of the bill, which clarifies the circumstances in which a financial year may be less than 12 months. There is confusion about conditions under which directors may determine that a financial year is shorter than 12 months, and these reforms clarify that.

Finally, in respect of the appointment of auditors, items 7 to 9 of schedule 1 of the bill amend the Corporations Act to exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor. Currently all public companies, including companies limited by guarantee, are required to appoint and retain an auditor. This bill amends this so that small companies limited by guarantee, and those companies limited by guarantee that have their financial reports reviewed, are not required to appoint or retain an auditor. This means that companies that are not required to undertake an audit no longer have to retain an auditor. Again, this is a sensible reform that Labor is pleased to support.

The bill also amends the ASIC Act in respect of the operation of the Takeovers Panel. Labor sees this as an improvement and is happy to support it.

On the whole, these are sensible amendments to Australia's corporate landscape. They build on Labor's achievements in government of making our corporate legislation more representative of the interests and aspirations of shareholders, of workers, of customers, of clients and of the Australian public. We believe that these sensible reforms and the Labor reforms that were put in under the previous government should make Australia a more attractive place to invest. On that basis I am happy to commend the bill to the House.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:24): I am pleased to rise and speak on the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2014. This bill forms part of our government's commitment to repeal counterproductive, unnecessary and redundant legislation and regulations. I would like to start by giving an example from my electorate of Hughes of some of those burdensome regulations that tie the hands of small business. This example in the retail sector shows the absurdity of this regulation, the stupidity of it, and the big task that we have of working through and repealing this red tape to free the hands of entrepreneurs in this nation.

There is a shopping centre in my electorate called the Homemakers Centre, at Warwick Farm. It is on the Hume Highway and has six lanes of road on either side. Opposite is Warwick Farm racecourse. In the front of the shopping centre there are two large takeaway outlets. There is a very large car park. There are a lot of shops in there. Next door is the Masterton Homes display village, and on the other side of this is a small motel. It is an ideal location for a shopping centre.

A few regulations were put on that centre at a few retailers. I would like to compare the regulations in my electorate to the regulations in Afghanistan under the Taliban's control. I will quote from a 2001 article by Amy Waldman published inTheNew York Times. It is a story from Herat in Afghanistan. It says:

Hefozullah, a seller of cooking oil, was arrested at the marketplace for keeping his shop open during Friday prayers. He was sent to jail for four days and became No. 3,183 in a registry of arrests at the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The article goes on and talks about 'the penal code promulgated by the Taliban's leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar', which sets out in copious detail what retailers in Herat—in Taliban controlled Afghanistan—can and cannot sell. I will quote directly from the article. It says:

Those who fly pigeons—a favorite Afghan pastime—will be imprisoned until ''their pigeons disappear from their home.''

Then it goes on and lists all the things that are banned from sale from retail shops. It says:

A kite seller will be imprisoned for three days.

It lists other things that are banned:

… cinematography, any equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computer, VCR's, televisions … wine, … nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.

It goes on:

Nothing was left to chance or the imagination under the Taliban. Merchants importing products like shampoo would find that Taliban customs officials had gouged out the eyes of the female models on the boxes. The merchants were then required to display the products with black tape over female faces, or be subject to a beating or jailing.

The journalist goes on:

It is no wonder that residents here react as if waking from a grotesque dream.

Compare that list of things that were banned under the Taliban from being sold with the recent court decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Here, where the Taliban had a Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice enforcing those red-tape regulations, we have similar regulations, but they are being enforced by the Land and Environment Court and the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The case was the Warehouse Group (Australia)—they were the appellant—versus those champions of free market competition Woolworths Limited. This was a case where three senior judges were involved in the Court of Appeal with Queen's Counsel—a platoon of legal experts—working out what a retail shop in my electorate could and could not sell. There were many days of court hearings and a rather lengthy decision.

I will read through some of the list of things that were banned, not in Taliban controlled Afghanistan but in the electorate of Hughes, which I represent. There is a list here of over 40—it is in roman numerals. It goes to over 50 separate items. I would like to go through a few of them. Item (i): floor coverings were banned from sale. Small plastic containers were banned from sale. Garbage bins were banned. Paint was banned, as were paint accessories—it goes on—dust masks and paint scrapers. Dangerous items that need government control such as kitchen implements, mashers, vegetable peelers, kitchen hand food storage containers, curtains and accessories were also banned. Curtain tassels were banned—we must have laws in this country to control the sale of dangerous curtain tassels! Item (xxx) on the list of banned items is baby goods. Baby bibs were banned from sale, along with baby strollers, baby prams and baby car seats, and item (xxxv) on the banned list is child's potties. In this country we have such red tape and such regulation that we are required to have in the New South Wales Supreme Court Court of Appeal three distinguished and learned judges and a platoon of lawyers making a decision that a retail shop in my electorate should be banned from selling child's potties.

The list goes on. Other things banned included dog toys—we cannot have anyone selling dog toys! And there are bird cages. While the Taliban would ban the sale of pigeons or anything related, we just ban the sale of bird cages. Toys are banned. Item (xlvii) is sheets. Again, while the Taliban Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice would simply ban any equipment that reproduces the joy of music, at least our court of appeal detailed those things that reproduce the joy of music that are banned. Prerecorded videos were banned, prerecorded CDs, prerecorded audiotapes, blank videos, blank CDs and, item (lix), blank audio tapes. They were all banned from sale. On the Taliban list of banned items it was simply Christmas cards, but of course our New South Wales Supreme Court was able to do better than that—they set out the things that were banned from being sold in a retail shop in my electorate: Christmas goods, Christmas trees, Christmas decorations and, just like the Taliban, Christmas cards. We simply cannot have shops in Australia being unauthorised sellers of Christmas cards. How would we get on without this red tape? At least in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan retail shops could sell bottles of shampoo as long as they gouged the eyes out of the women on the boxes or put black tape over them. In my electorate, thanks to the decisions and the red tape and regulation we have, we simply banned it altogether.

This is just an example of the regulation and red tape that we have. Other parts of my electorate fare even worse. It is not a matter of just having a list of things that they are not allowed to sell—dangerous goods such as potties and Christmas cards and things that reproduce the joys of music. We had in my electorate what was known as the Orange Grove shopping centre. On one side of Orange Grove Road we had a big Officeworks and on the other side a big Harvey Norman complex. Do we know what happened to Orange Grove shopping centre? They did not have a list of goods they were banned from selling—they were simply banned from operating. The red tape and regulation by the then New South Wales Labor-controlled state government simply banned them from operating and selling anything. That was done when former senator Bob Carr was New South Wales Premier—better known now as the senator who complained about not having silk pyjamas on an international flight; he complained about how unfair it was that he had to travel business class and about the quality of food and the types of music he could listen to. The very same Senator Carr was the one who banned a complete retail shopping centre from selling any of those goods. Silk pyjamas were banned, food was banned and of course the sale of any musical item was banned—the very things that Senator Carr complained about when he was forced to put up with the hardship of travelling in business class. These are just some examples of the red tape we have in this country.

This bill is estimated to reduce business compliance costs by around $14 million. The measures in the bill provide a better balance between the rights of shareholders to raise issues with a company and the costs to companies required to hold a general meeting. The bill will improve and reduce remuneration reporting requirements, clarify the circumstances in which a financial year may be less than 12 months, exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor, improve the operation of the Takeovers Panel and extend the Remuneration Tribunal's remuneration setting responsibility to include certain statutory bodies.

There is some urgency in this action we are taking because we have some serious difficulties in this country. We face the problem of an ageing population. Commodity prices for our largest exports of coal and iron ore that were quite high under the previous government's term are coming back. Perhaps the biggest problem we have to deal with is servicing the interest on Labor's debt. For the past six years the previous Labor government simply—and this is the best way to explain it—ran this country at a loss. In each of those six years they spent more money than they raised.

Mr Bowen: How are you going?

Mr CRAIG KELLY: I note the shadow Treasurer at the table, and I am sure he is familiar with the figures that the government of Australia now has to finance because of the interest bill on their debt. It is $13½ billion a year. To put that in context, that is $570 for every man, woman and child in this country—and that is just for the interest bill that has to be paid. For every family of four the annual interest bill that we must now pay is $2,280.

We can break it down over periods of time. Every month it is $1.125 billion. That is $1,125 million that flow out the door. That is the obligation that we have in interest just in one month. In a week it is $260 million. In a day, today, it is $37 million. On this day, this government will need to find $37 million just to pay the interest. In the next hour it is $1.5 million. That is the obligation that this nation has—to pay interest on a debt that this previous Labor government left.

Why is there some urgency about this? The money that is borrowed to pay for the six years of losses during the Labor government is done through the sale of government bonds. Whether through good luck or good management, we are currently in a period where global interest rates are at record lows. We have been able to borrow most of that money at around 3.5 per cent. The problem is that, even though we have that interest obligation, if we do not only address the interest but pay that debt down, who knows where interest rates will be in 10 years time, when a lot of these government bonds fall due and we have to refinance them. It may not be 3.35 per cent. We know that it could be double. And therefore, rather than having that $500 cost for every man, woman and child, it could be double. That is the urgency; that is the problem. That is why we must repeal red tape and free the hands of our entrepreneurs. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:39): The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014 amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Items 1, 2 and 10 of the schedule to this bill amend the Corporations Act 2001, and their intent is to better balance the rights of shareholders to raise issues with a company and the costs of companies that have been required to call and hold a general meeting. It would repeal the so-called 100 member rule which creates an obligation on a corporation to hold a general meeting at the request of 100 or more shareholders.

These meetings are often called for protest purposes and almost always, particularly in the case of larger corporations, create a very significant cost to business. For example, Woolworths was compelled to call an extraordinary general meeting in relation to $1 limits on poker machines. Whatever one's views about the worth or otherwise of imposing a $1 limit on poker machines, it can be seen that this was very much a political action using corporate rules. What it did was to impose on Woolworths, as a very direct cost, about $500,000, which was the cost of notifying its shareholders for that extraordinary general meeting. The resolution when put to the extraordinary general meeting, despite the political action behind it, received just 2.5 per cent support of those attending the meeting.

No-one objects to the fact that people might have different views. No-one objects in any way to the expression of those views. Indeed, shareholders should be able to legitimately raise concerns about the affairs of companies in which they hold shares, through a number of mechanisms, but they should not be permitted to do it at a significant cost to other shareholders. It is not appropriate that a very small number of shareholders be able to impose costs at that level simply for the purpose of making a political point. You could cite as another example that in the two years from late 1999 to late 2001 the NRMA in New South Wales was forced to call 12 extraordinary general meetings to consider resolutions removing directors, each of which incurred several million dollars in costs, and in no case were any of the relevant regulations that were the supposed purpose of those extraordinary general meeting passed by the members of the NRMA.

The proposed changes do not remove the ability of 100 or more shareholders to add items to scheduled annual general meetings and to instigate debate as an agenda item at these meetings. This retains the right for 100 or more members to raise issues of concern, without the often significant cost to shareholders of scheduling extraordinary meetings under the current acts. Shareholder activism is a component of corporate governance. Shareholders should be able to put issues on the AGM agenda and should be able to instigate debate at the meeting. The right is of particular importance to retail shareholders, who have limited opportunities to meet with the company prior to the AGM. These rights will not change with this proposed legislation.

Australia is currently alone in providing for a shareholder test that applies regardless of how much capital the requisitionists hold. It is more common to require that requisitionists must hold at least five to 10 per cent of the shares before they can call a general meeting. Again, no-one disputes the fact that shareholders have a right to question directors and decisions made by a company, but it should not be at a cost to other shareholders. Labor supports this change.

Items 3 to 5 and 10 of schedule 1 to this bill amend the Corporations Act 2001 to improve and streamline remuneration reporting requirements. Currently, disclosing entities that are companies must disclose the value of options that lapse during a financial year for each member of the key management personnel. Disclosing entities that are companies must also disclose the percentage value of remuneration that consists of options for each member of the key management personnel. This bill makes changes so that listed disclosing entities that are companies must disclose the number of options that lapse during a financial year and the financial year in which those options were granted for each member of the key management personnel. There will be no obligation to disclose the value of options that lapse. Under this bill there is no obligation to disclose the percentage value of remuneration that consists of options for each member of the key management personnel.

Also currently, all disclosing entities that are companies are required to prepare a remuneration report, regardless of whether they are listed or unlisted. This bill changes that so unlisted disclosing entities that are companies are no longer required to prepare a remuneration report. Listed disclosing entities continue to be required to prepare a remuneration report.

Labor supports improving the disclosure of executive remuneration information in Australia. There have been concerns raised by shareholders and users of remuneration reports that currently the reports contain some information that was of limited benefit or can be found at other places in the annual report. Labor also supports removing the unnecessary requirement for unlisted disclosing entities that are companies to prepare a remuneration report. Unlike listed entities, they are not required to have their remuneration report adopted by shareholders through a non-binding resolution and are not subject to the two-strikes test.

Item 6 of schedule 1 to this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to clarify the circumstances under which a financial year may be less than 12 months. There is confusion about the conditions under which directors may determine that a financial year is shorter than 12 months. Currently, section 323D sets out how companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities may determine the length of their financial year. While an entity's financial year is expected to be approximately 12 months long, entities can determine otherwise in cases where an entity needs to modify its financial year by up to seven days to accommodate week based internal reporting frameworks or an entity needs to synchronise its financial year in order to prepare consolidated financial reports.

However, subsection 323D(2A) allows entities to determine that their financial year is less than 12 months if none of their previous five financial years have been less than 12 months, the shorter financial year commences at the end of the previous financial year and the decision is in the best interests of the entity. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the interaction between this provision and the operation of subsection 323D(2), which requires that a financial year is 12 months long, unless determined by the directors to be a period that is longer or shorter than 12 months by up to seven days.

There is confusion surrounding whether taking advantage of the flexibility in section 323D(2) would trigger the five-year period in which an entity is precluded from accessing the benefits offered by section 323D(2A). Similarly, subsection 323D(3) requires an entity to synchronise its financial year end with that of its parent entity when it becomes a controlled entity. Again, stakeholders have raised concerns that this provision may trigger the five-year period in which an entity is precluded from accessing the benefits offered by section 323D(2A).

The bill seeks to clarify that directors may determine that a financial year is shorter than 12 months by more than seven days irrespective of whether during an entity's previous five financial years the directors have determined that the financial year is shorter than 12 months by up to seven days or determined to synchronise the financial year to prepare consolidated financial statements. Labor supports the amendments in this bill that clarify the circumstances and conditions under which directors can determine the financial year is shorter than 12 months by more than seven days. This removes the unintended confusion arising from changes made in 2010 intended to make it easier for directors to alter financial year end dates.

Items 7 to 9 of schedule 1 to this bill amend the Corporations Act to exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor. Currently, all public companies, including companies limited by guarantee, are required to appoint and retain an auditor. This bill changes this so that small companies limited by guarantee and those companies limited by guarantee that have their financial reports reviewed are not required to appoint or retain an auditor. This means that companies that are not required to undertake an audit are no longer required to appoint and retain an auditor. All other public companies are required to appoint and retain an auditor, as is current practice. Labor supports these changes that remove unnecessary costs on business by removing the requirement for companies to appoint and retain an auditor, even if they are not required to conduct an audit. The change is expected to provide the greatest benefit to not-for-profit community organisations, allowing them to better service the community.

Part 1, items 1 and 2 of schedule 2 to this bill amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to improve the operation of the Takeovers Panel by allowing takeover matters to be dealt with more efficiently. Currently, the president and members of the Takeovers Panel may only participate in proceedings if they are within Australia. These changes mean the President of the Takeovers Panel may give a direction in respect of members who are to constitute the panel whether or not the president is in Australia. Further, members of the Takeovers Panel may participate in proceedings whether or not the members are in Australia. As technology improves and the world becomes ever more connected, it is sensible to alter legislation to reflect that change. This bill will allow members of the Takeovers Panel to participate in proceedings if they are physically located outside of Australia at the time. Labor supports this sensible change to allow the more efficient resolution of disputes.

Part 1, items 3 to 8, and part 2, item 9 of schedule 2 to this bill amend the ASIC Act to extend the Remuneration Tribunal's remuneration setting responsibility to include certain Corporations Act bodies. Currently, the ASIC Act provides that the responsible Treasury portfolio minister determines the terms and conditions—including remuneration—of the chairs and members of the Financial Reporting Council, the FRC; the Chair of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the AASB; and the Chair of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the AUASB. The ASIC Act also provides that the FRC is responsible for determining the terms and conditions, including remuneration, of the offices held by the members of the AASB and the AUASB.

This bill brings responsibility for determining the remuneration and full-time member recreation leave entitlements of the chair and member positions of the FRC, the AASB and the AUASB within the Remuneration Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Remuneration Tribunal has specialist skills in reviewing and determining remuneration and is therefore better placed to determine the remuneration of these offices. Moreover, it will ensure consistency in the remuneration setting arrangements between the three bodies and other statutory office holders.

Currently, the responsible Treasury portfolio minister determines the terms and conditions—including remuneration—of the chairs and members of the Financial Reporting Council, the chair of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the chair of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. The ASIC Act also provides that the FRC is responsible for determining the terms and conditions held by the members of the AASB and the AUASB.

Labor supports the provisions in this bill that brings responsibility for determining the remuneration and full-time-member recreation leave entitlements of the chair and members within the Remuneration Tribunal's jurisdiction. There is no question that that is the best place for them and where they ought to be. The changes that are contained in this bill are supported by Labor. They were changes that Labor was progressing through in government and matters that had been worked on with bipartisan support across both sides of this chamber, and within the industry and the sector itself. It is good, sensible policy. I offer Labor's support for these measures and commend the bill to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:53): I rise to speak on the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014and indicate that the Labor Party and I will be supporting this government legislation that amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. With the Minister for Small Business and the shadow Treasurer in the chamber we would be quick to acknowledge the important role that corporations play in Australian society, in the protection of the individual and the mustering together of an appropriate response to the risk that comes with business. In fact, much of the development of modern Australia can be traced back to corporations, with people pooling their money and not having an individual risk.

Corporations have evolved over time. Not everything that applies to a corporation is covered in the corporations legislation. Modern corporations are aware of their social licence. It is not something that is written in any particular section of the corporations legislation, but they must have a strong connection with their community and earn the right to carry out things that they do, whether it be the tasks they do, the products they make or sell or the role they play in the community.

Items 1, 2 and 10 of schedule 1 to this bill amend the Corporations Act to better balance the rights of shareholders to raise issues with the company and the cost to companies of being required to call and hold a general meeting. I focus particularly on this because of the point I made earlier about social licence. Obviously, shareholders of the company have the ability to give input at an annual general meeting of a corporation, and say, 'This is what we are concerned about.' But it costs money to set up an annual general meeting and to notify all the shareholders. Even in these days of electronic communications it still costs money to hold such meetings. This amendment to the Corporations Act repeals the so-called 100-member rule, which created an obligation on a corporation to hold a general meeting at the request of 100 or more shareholders. These meetings are often called for protest purposes. I am not saying that those purposes are not legitimate, but there can be significant costs that have to be met by every shareholder in the corporation, and such meetings do create a significant cost to business. These proposed changes do not remove the ability of 100 shareholders to add items to the regular, scheduled annual general meeting. Obviously, shareholders always have the right to instigate debate as an agenda item at any of these meetings. They still have a chance to have their concerns heard as an item at the annual general meeting, whether their concerns are about the financial governance of the organisation or some of the social licence matters. This legislation retains the right of 100 or more members to raise issues of concern, but without the often significant costs to shareholders of scheduling these extraordinary meetings, as exists under the current act.

The 100-member rule is not linked to having five per cent or 10 per cent of the value of a corporation, which is what happens in several countries. For example, for a significant company like Woolworths, only 100 shareholders would be required to compel the company to call an extraordinary general meeting. That is actually what happened with Woolworths when it came to debating $1 limits on its poker machines. The cost to Woolworths of notifying its shareholders of the meeting was $500,000. When it hosted the meeting the motion received only 2.5 per cent support. Perhaps it might be said that if the motion to put a $1 limit on poker machines had received 10 per cent or 50 per cent support it might have been worthwhile. Irrespective of the merits of the reason for the shareholders calling the meeting in the Woolworths example, Labor has seen that we need to be more sensible about this and not have unnecessary costs attached to corporations. The other example mentioned by the shadow minister, Bernie Ripoll was the example of the NRMA—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Mr PERRETT: Sorry, the shadow assistant—

Mr Bowen: He's the shadow minister for financial services.

Mr PERRETT: The shadow minister for financial services—thank you, shadow Treasurer—and member for Oxley. He is my next door neighbour and a great guy. He gave the example of the NRMA, which in two years was forced to call 12 extraordinary general meetings to consider motions about removing directors. The meetings cost several million dollars and resulted in none of the directors being removed from the NRMA board. It is hard to justify such behaviour.

Items 3 to 5 and 10 of schedule 1 of this bill amend the Corporations Act to improve and streamline remuneration reporting requirements. Currently disclosing entities that are companies must disclose the value of options that lapsed during a financial year for each member of the key management personnel. So disclosing entities that are companies must also disclose the percentage value of remuneration that consists of options for each member of the key management personnel.

Item 6 of schedule 1 of this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to clarify the circumstances in which a financial year may be less than 12 months. This sounds like something out of Yes Minister, but it is actually good business practice every now and then to change the year. There is confusion about the conditions under which directors may determine that a financial year be shorter that 12 months. Currently section 323D sets out how companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities may determine the length of their financial year. While an entity's financial year is expected to be approximately 12 months long, entities can determine otherwise in cases where an entity needs to modify its financial year by up to seven days to accommodate week based internal reporting frameworks or an entity needs to synchronise its financial year in order to prepare consolidated financial reports.

Items 7 to 9 of schedule 1 of this bill amend the legislation to exempt certain companies limited by guarantee from the need to appoint or retain an auditor. Obviously there are significant costs associated with auditors. They perform an important role. Normally when companies get into trouble you find that the auditor has not been doing an appropriate job. Currently all public companies, including companies limited by guarantee, are required to appoint and retain an auditor. This bill amends this so that the small companies limited by guarantee and those companies limited by guarantee that have their financial reports reviewed are not required to appoint or retain an auditor. This means that companies that are not required to undertake an audit are no longer required to appoint and retain an auditor. All other public companies, however, are required to appoint and retain an auditor. So the public has that security, knowing that auditors will be looking through the books of those companies.

Part 1, items 1 and 2, of schedule 2 of this bill amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to improve the operation of the Takeovers Panel by allowing takeover matters to be dealt with more efficiently. Currently the president and members of the Takeovers Panel may only participate in proceedings if they are within Australia. This bill makes amendments so that the president of the Takeovers Panel may give a direction in respect of members who are to constitute the panel whether or not the president is in Australia. Further, members of the Takeovers Panel may participate in proceedings whether or not they are in Australia.

Part 1, items 3 to 8, and part 2, item 9, of schedule 2 of this bill amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to extend the Remuneration Tribunal's remuneration setting responsibility to include certain Corporations Act bodies. The ASIC Act currently provides that the responsible Treasury portfolio minister determines the terms and conditions, including the remuneration of the chairs and members of the Financial Reporting Council, the chair of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the chair of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. The ASIC Act also provides that the FRC is responsible for determining the terms and conditions, including remuneration, of the offices held by the members of the AASB and the AUASB.

This bill brings responsibility for determining the remuneration and full-time member recreation leave entitlements of the chair and member positions of the FRC, the AASB and the AUASB within the Remuneration Tribunal's direction. The Remuneration Tribunal has specialist skills in reviewing and determining remuneration. It looks after members of parliament's remuneration as well, and it does a good job. It is therefore better placed to determine the remuneration of these officers. Moreover, it will ensure consistency in the remuneration setting arrangements between the three bodies and other statutory office holders.

One of the controversial items in this legislation which has bipartisan support will be the one about 100 members. I revisit that item because so many campaigns are organised when a corporation is perhaps doing something that people are not happy with. We have seen it with union campaigns in the past where perhaps inappropriate workplace practices are taking place. We have seen it when corporations are selling something, farming, mining or doing something that members of the community are not happy with. The 100 shareholders practice has often been used in the past in these cases. I want to stress again that, when compared with other common law jurisdictions that utilise corporations or even civil countries that use corporations and all the benefits that come with corporations, Australia has been a bit stand-alone in letting 100 shareholders, as I said, irrespective of the value of the shares held by those 100 shareholders, take control and basically impose a cost on other shareholders.

That would be the more controversial point, but the other aspects, such as improving remuneration reporting, clarifying the financial year, streamlining the auditor appointments, improving the efficiency of takeover panels and improving the government remuneration process, are not particularly controversial. This is normal, run-of-the-mill government business. I am happy to support this legislation before the chamber.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:06): I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill makes a number of amendments designed to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses operating in Australia. Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to reduce the cost to businesses operating in Australia by removing the ability for 100 members of a company to request a general meeting. While this change ensures company resources are no longer spent on meetings requested by only a very small minority of shareholders, we have also made sure important shareholder rights are retained. This change will not impact on the right of a member or members with at least five per cent of the voting shares to request a general meeting. Nor will it impact on the right of 100 members of a company to place items on the agenda of a general meeting.

This bill simplifies remuneration disclosures in Australia. Unlisted disclosing entities will no longer be required to prepare a remuneration report. This bill clarifies when entities can change their financial year end dates. Stakeholders have been calling for this clarity since an amendment to permit companies greater flexibility to change their financial year end date was inserted into the Corporations Act in 2010. Entities will finally be able to access this flexibility with confidence.

Finally, schedule 1 of the bill removes the requirement for companies limited by guarantee, that are not required to undertake an audit, to appoint an auditor. This primarily benefits smaller companies limited by guarantee who feel the burden of the existing requirement most acutely.

Scheduled 2 of this bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to improve the efficiency of government processes, reflecting the government's commitment to identifying cost savings and efficiencies within its own processes. Schedule 2 also improves the efficiency of the operation of the Takeovers Panel. It further extends the remuneration-setting responsibility of the Remuneration Tribunal to the Financial Reporting Council, the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

In summary, the amendments made by this bill will reduce the costs borne by Australian businesses because of government regulation. It will permit business to focus on what it is they should be doing—running their business. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill now be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FEENEY (Batman) (11:09): I am very pleased to make a fine upstanding contribution to this debate in the context of our next speaker being momentarily detained. The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill is obviously something that the Shadow Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation looks forward to attending to in just a moment. But let me say that schedule 1 to this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to repeal the pay slip reporting provisions. The pay slip reporting provisions in the SISA require employers to include in employee pay slips information prescribed by the regulations. It was intended that the regulations be made so that employers had to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. This is has not occurred. There are existing requirements in the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 for employers to include in pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions they are liable to make.

Schedule 2 of the bill makes mechanical and noncontroversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law.

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 such a company. Under the 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 clause 10 of schedule 1 of the FSSA 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 clause 4 of schedule 1 of the FSSA to include a person's relatives, their partners, related companies and other parties.

Where a person acquires a direct control interest of more than 15 per cent in a financial sector company, the associate of the person is also required to obtain approval to exceed the 15 per cent shareholding limit. This can be despite the associate holding no direct control interest or, indeed, any interest. While I am very keen to continue making these points, I must now defer to my colleague, who I know is far more intimate with the material.

Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (11:12): If I could thank the member for Batman for dutifully and skilfully taking over some duties and negotiating through as he is well known.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): We have just experienced an excellent contribution to the debate.

Mr RIPOLL: A fine and excellent contribution, and that is why he is doing so well. I do 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.

The pay slip reporting provisions in the SIS Act require employers to include an employee pay slip information prescribed by the regulations. 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 amount of superannuation contributions they are liable to make. These regulations are not changing. The requirement for superannuation guarantee payments to be made within 28 days the end of a quarter is also not changing. The provisions this bill is removing were enacted in legislation but never made a practical reality for business because the regulations needed to enact them were never put in place.

There is no doubt that the intentions of the original changes were good. The reality for employers, though—particularly small business—was increased cost via software and other upgrades. It is arguable whether the requirements being repealed would have any affect 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 fund whether payments have been made by their employer. That is critically important. Labor will monitor closely 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 actually been paid into our respective accounts, wherever they might be. We will monitor that and we would expect the government to do the same thing, particularly in light of the importance of superannuation in terms of 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, to the budget and to the bottom line.

This is a good measure. Just last financial year alone, some $6 billion was saved from the budget 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. This is something that should be encouraged. It should be grown; it should be leveraged up. The government should do as much as they can to ensure that continues to happen 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 on people's pay slips.

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 always the case. Regardless of how long you are in government, you cannot 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 the 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 clause 10 of schedule 1 of the FSSA 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 clause 4 of schedule 1 of the FSSA 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 holding 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 bill 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 associate is required to seek the Treasurer'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 appropriate examination of a shareholder's controlling interest. But it will take away the trap of associates who have no control interest in having to apply to the Treasurer 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 always prepared to support any 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 deal with regulation properly. Labor understands that good regulation is the best outcome for business, where that regulation is clear and concise and where it provides the right mechanisms for business to get on with their job. Labor wants to make sure that, particularly in the case of superannuation, employees have a clear understanding of what is required by employers in terms of providing their superannuation guarantee. This is in the best interest not only of individuals; it is also in the best interest of employers, companies and business.

It is in the best interest of Australia because it grows our national savings pool, which today stands at more than $1.85 trillion. It is this incredible statistic which puts Australia well ahead of the world in terms of size of population and in terms of our national savings. We have somewhere around the fifth largest funds under management in the world because of our national savings pool, which is a direct outcome, a direct result, of the superannuation guarantee that exists in this country. Governments should always be enhancing that and growing that, and ensuring that people are not only paid their proper superannuation entitlements but paid on time. Employers should endeavour to always be vigilant around paying the Superannuation Guarantee because it is an important part of people's retirement savings and income, and their financial security in retirement. The changes that are before us are non-controversial and Labor supports them. I commend them to the House.

Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:22): Before I begin in earnest, I would like to attach myself to the end statements from the member for Oxley about the importance of employers paying superannuation. As someone that prior to being in this place has paid more than I care to imagine into the accounts of people's superannuation over the last 23 years from work in my father's business, seeing many of my staff retire from our business and live on their savings afterwards, I cannot agree more, but I will say more about that in a minute.

On the night that we won the election the Prime Minister uttered those now famous words:

… I declare Australia is under new management and is once more open for business.

While that means to a lot of people immediately new business, what it means to me as a prior existing business operator in this country is getting out of the way of existing business too. It is to the Prime Minister's credit that he has sought to keep this in his portfolio.

I note today that we are talking about the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, and I want to applaud the Treasurer and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Moncrieff, who have taken up the challenge in this set of measures. It is not just the Prime Minister; it is that the Prime Minister took it in his portfolio and put in charge the member for Kooyong, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to drive this agenda. And I am privileged that not long after being elected, the member for Kooyong made contact with me, and some other colleagues who will talk shortly on this bill, and asked if I would give him a hand in the great state of New South Wales given my background. I of course jumped at the opportunity. Over the last 12 months, one of the great things for me has been to work with the member for Kooyong in liaising with other ministers' portfolios in an effort to find ways that we can get out of the way of businesses.

Why is it so important? You have heard since May, discussion always gravitates in budgets to the expense side of our national profit and loss statement. At the moment we are about to have the MYEFO, in which I believe we will find that the discussion starts to move to the revenue side of the profit and loss statement as we come under pressure.

But one of the things that we do not realise, in my humble opinion, is that as government we are not just regulators and we are not just legislators. We are ultimately depending upon the company structure or the ownership structure of every business that operates in Australia irrespective of size. We are a 'shareholder', and the more we can do, irrespective of ministerial portfolio, to get out of their way—and I mean get out of the expense side of their profit and loss statement—the more money will flow to their bottom line. Why is that important? Firstly, because they make more brass, and secondly, so do we as government. That is where we are battling. And that is the part of this deregulation agenda and narrative that this government, I do not believe, have expressed strongly enough to this point. It is not just about making life simpler for business—yes, that is important; it is about enabling them to increase their bottom line, their profit. Why? Because we go for the ride. And, at a time when revenue is short and vulnerable, the more we can do this, the better we will be. It will allow us to focus less on the expense side of our national profit and loss statement in our budget and focus on where we can better spend our money.

But I draw your attention back to the legislation in front of us, and I note that this bill forms part of our whole commitment. 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 measures: it repeals the payslip reporting provisions in the superannuation law that would have increased the regulatory burden on employers beyond that currently imposed under the Fair Work Act legislation; it simplifies the 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 new tax law, for use across all tax laws in a simple and coherent form.

In terms of employer reporting of superannuation contributions, this government is providing certainty for employers—that they do not need to be preparing for significant changes to the software that generates their payslips in respect of superannuation reporting. The government will repeal duplicative provisions from the superannuation law that allow for regulations to be created, prescribing additional information to be included on employee payslips on superannuation contributions. Labor had intended that these regulations would be made, specifying that employers had to report on payslips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. However, Labor never made the regulations. This measure will not affect the information that employees currently receive on superannuation contributions on their payslip.

Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to at least report details of employee superannuation entitlements that accrue during the pay period on an employee's payslip. If employers were required to report actual contributions and payment dates, they would need to invest in major upgrades in their software—once again, a large expense on the expense side of their profit and loss statement, decreasing their profitability. The benefit for employees on this move would be marginal.

Most employers pay their superannuation. Even if reporting actual superannuation contributions on payslips were mandated, employers who did not comply with their superannuation requirements would be unlikely to disclose this on their payslips. Also, employees may not take regular notice of what is reported on their payslips. I note that 70 per cent of employees who do not receive their superannuation entitlement from their employer do not make a complaint to the Australian Taxation Office until after they have left the employer. This is a real shame. 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 high-risk 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.

The consolidation and repeal of tax provisions measure in this act 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 primary law. One such item in this bill has to do with the commissioner's power to obtain information. Currently, if a taxpayer wants to know what information the commissioner has the power to obtain, they need to refer to over 10 different acts. As a result of these amendments, a taxpayer will now only have to refer to schedule 1 of 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 numbers and investment income reports provided by investment bodies to the Commissioner of Taxation are overly prescriptive and difficult to comply with. They are not sufficiently flexible to allow the commissioner to continue to pursue further ways of reducing compliance costs. Rewriting the tax file number and investment income reporting will increase the Commissioner of Taxation's 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 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.

With reference to shareholding approvals in certain financial sector companies, the government in this measure removes 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.    Currently, 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 more than 15 per cent of the shareholding. This approval requirement applies to an associate even where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company. This measure removes the 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 that shareholding.

There is the measure to rewrite the definition of 'Australia'. I don't know about you, member for Bass, but, quite frankly, I found this one to be a little bit bizarre; but it is there. This measure rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location. Who would have thought it? If you want to get something complicated, get government involved in it. They can do it every time—make no bones about it. This allows it to be used across all tax laws in a simple and coherent form. Finally, we have got Australia sorted, it would seem—at least in the realm of the tax world. 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 the myriad provisions in up to 13 different Commonwealth acts. I refer to my earlier point: if you want to make something complicated, get government involved. To do away with the complex and ad hoc nature of the existing definition, the amendments codify and consolidate in one place a 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 their compliance costs. This takes another step towards achieving a single income tax assessment for Australia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to the commencement of this speech—when there was actually a different Deputy Speaker in the chair—where I stated that the narrative of this government from night one has been that Australia under our governance will be open for business. Whilst many immediately come up with the thought that that is about new business, it is also about what is and will always be the engine room of this economy—small- and medium-sized enterprises. They employ over 70 per cent of the people in this country today.

The best thing that any government can do—and I note that the Prime Minister plans to take this to COAG as a major reform item; and I mentioned earlier my experience in family business pre this place—is to get out of the way of business. This must be an agenda driven through all levels of government—through local government, state government and federal government. Why? Because by working together and getting out of the way of business, getting out of the expense side of every profit and loss of every business in this country, irrespective of size, it will allow that company to maximise their bottom line. The sooner we as a government work out that we are not just legislators, we are not just regulators, and we make that quantum leap to understanding that we are business partners, the better business will be, the better our budget will be and the better our country will be, not only for us—we are mere custodians of this land—but, more importantly, for our children and our grandchildren. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:37): I wonder if any of those on the other side of the House could answer the following question: between this government's red-tape repeal day No. 1 and red-tape repeal day No. 2, how many new regulations did this government pass into law? The answer is 690. While they were crowing about a bonfire of regulations, this government was passing an average of three to four regulations every day. So much for their hatred of regulation—even on the weekends, they did not stop. No weekend day went by that they did not manage to churn out an average of three or four regulations. That, frankly, speaks to the stunt that red-tape repeal day is.

Good governments are always about cleaning up the statute books, making them as straightforward as possible and getting rid of typos. Good governments do not crow about a red-tape repeal day—it is like having a special 'I came to work and had a cup of tea' day. The minister at the table is saying, 'Now there is an idea.' Perhaps that is what we will see from red-tape repeal day No. 3.

When Labor was in government we repealed over 16,000 redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments. We changed thousands of pieces of bad punctuation and typographical errors in the statutes, but we did not feel the need to publicly pat ourselves on the back for that. We thought that was merely the engine room work of government. This is a government, though, that thinks that it ought to be particularly proud of its 39 individual amendments, changing the term 'electronic mail' to 'email'; of its several hundred amendments adjusting spelling, grammar and punctuation; and of the repeal of such noted business obstacles as the Dried Fruit Export Charges Act 1927, the Nitrous Fertiliser Subsidy Act 1969 and the Lighthouses Act 1949. Indeed, the way they keep on going we can expect a headland speech from this government on the repeal of the 1949 Lighthouses Act.

The inane nature of so many of these amendments explains why the government, in the case of its first red-tape repeal day exercise, did not bother to bring forward the Omnibus Repeal Bill to the Senate until a few weeks before the second red-tape repeal day. These are hardly the actions of a government which is champing at the bit to reduce regulatory burden for Australians.

As Senator Ludwig has recently discovered, red-tape repeal stunts under this government are not free. Across agencies the government has set up teams to hunt out typographical errors, to root out the term 'electronic mail' wherever it might exist, to abolish regulations which are troubling no-one. The cost of that exercise in the case of Treasury is $2.1 million a year, while the industry and social security departments are costing around $700,000. This bonfire of the regulations is in fact a bonfire of the vanities, and Australians are paying the cost. Australians are paying millions of dollars for this government's war on bad punctuation.

When the government is not getting rid of trivial typographical errors, it is using its red-tape repeal stunts as a way of hiding measures which hurt ordinary Australians. So red-tape repeal day No. 1 involved attempting to gut Labor's Future of Financial Advice consumer protection reforms—reforms put in place in the wake of the devastating collapses of Storm Financial and Trio in order to prevent Australians from losing their life savings. You could tell who benefited and who lost from this by the shiny shoes lining up to defend the government while organisations like Choice and National Seniors were saying that taking away consumer protections on financial advice would be a bad idea. The Australian people managed to see off the attempt to gut consumer protections and to remove those financial advice protections. I pay tribute to those brave senators who stood up to knock off the government's removal of consumer protections.

The government is also using its red-tape repeal stunt as a way of killing off the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission. The commission is one of those rare regulators that receive strong support from the sector it regulates. Four out of five Australian charities supported the charities commission before this government came to office and—after a year of campaigning in which minister Andrews with his forceful advocacy hit every TV and radio station in the country to argue for the repeal of the charities commission—after that ferocious PR campaign from one of the government's most charismatic ministers, what share of Australian charities do you think still supports the commission? Deputy Speaker, I am afraid it is still four in five; and it is only about one in 20 who supports the government's plan to give charities regulation back to the tax office.

Why would you take charities regulation from a bespoke agency, which is handling it well at an economical cost, and give it to the tax office, which is not well set up to monitor charities? The charities commission is good for charities, transparency and Australians wanting to protect themselves against door-to-door scammers. You can go to www.acnc.gov.au to simply check whether a charity is legitimate or whether the person at your door is trying to line their own pocket.

The real problem with red-tape repeal day is that its reforms are either trivial or take Australia backwards. As the member for Reid has noted of schedule 4 to this bill, it is indeed 'bizarre': unifying the definition of Australia for tax purposes does not seem to be a measure which governments ought to be patting themselves on the back about. Schedule 2 makes mechanical uncontroversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law. That is all unobjectionable stuff, while the measures relating to superannuation are supported by this side of the House—naturally, because Labor has the great superannuation legacy of which we are enormously proud.

This is a government which needs to the focus less on trivia and more on substance; less on unfair measures and more on fair measures that are in the interests of all Australians. We need to know what the future of the $7 GP co-payment is—whether it has been trashed or whether it has just been moved to the witness protection program, whether the government still intends to sneak it in or whether it is indeed an ex-parrot.

This is a government that has gone from bad to worse. It is a government that does not just have barnacles on the ship but has a fundamentally rotten hull. This government needs to focus on the Australian values of fairness and egalitarianism rather than governing for the very few at the expense of the many.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (11:45): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (11:47): This is the second time in two days I have had the pleasure to speak about the government's deregulation agenda. There are very few speakers on the opposite side and I think the reason for that is obvious. That reason is that it reveals Labor's culpability when it comes to the regulation that they imposed on Australia during their six years in government. Those opposite, despite the comments by the member for Fraser, know deep in their hearts how badly they have affected the productive capacity of our economy with binding coils of regulation—python-like, squeezing the life out of the hardworking businesses of Australia.

Labor cannot defend the indefensible, although they are certainly building a track record of doing exactly that. They are intent on bringing back the carbon tax and the mining tax and on changing immigration policy. Judging from the cavalcade of unaffordable promises they have made in opposition over just the last 12 months, they are intent on returning to the unsustainable spending practices that have robbed Australia of its economic freedom of action.

People must be scratching their heads about how it is possible, with a record like that achieved by the Labor and Labor-Greens governments from 2007 to 2013, that the member for Fraser can stand up in this House and talk about fairness and about 'well-understood' government responsibilities. How can he stand up and talk about the fiscal and economic responsibilities of government given the record they achieved in just six years? They gave us nearly $200 billion of achieved deficits, $123 billion of deficits projected across the forward estimates and peak debt rising to two-thirds of a trillion dollars—$667 billion or $667,000 million, whichever way you like to say it, is an obscene amount of money to have borrowed in six years. The member for Fraser stands up here and talks about fairness. How is it being fair to the Australian people and future generations to not only ruin Australia's economic freedom of action—our capacity to respond to another event like the global financial crisis—but to compound that problem by blocking measures in the Senate and elsewhere that would allow us to address the effects of their six years in government?

We are here to talk about deregulation. The member for Fraser called it a stunt and a whole range of other pejorative terms. What a contrast we have seen between just the first year of this government and the first year of the Rudd government in 2008. In 2008, I was both a senior Army officer and an acting senior public servant in one of our big national security agencies, so I got to see firsthand the intention of Rudd Labor when it first came into government—Mr Rudd's expansive promise that for every new regulation that came onto the statute books he would take one regulation off the statute books. It was commonly called the 'one on, one off' rule. Who would disagree with that? What a sensible thing to do! It is sensible policymaking to ensure that the regulatory impact of your policies is fully considered in cabinet submissions—that wherever possible we take away those binding coils of legislation and regulation that impede the productive capacity of our businesses.

The problem, though, was that that laudable undertaking was never delivered upon. As with so many of their policies, Labor were long on promise and short on delivery. The member for Fraser talked about how 'good government is about cleaning up the statute books'. I know that the member for Fraser has authored many books that he would probably like to clean up today—they are regularly mentioned in this place—but how can he say good government is about cleaning up the statute books when the net result of six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government was 21,000 new regulations? They did not discriminate either: those binding coils of regulation slithered even tighter, taking the very breath out of efficiency, productivity and investment.

In the five financial years from mid-2007 until mid-2012, multifactor productivity across Australia declined by three per cent. So bad was our performance that, when the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked 51 countries for productivity growth, Australia came in second last, just in front of Botswana. That is the effect that was achieved by those opposite in six years of government. The Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, has pointed out how vital improvements in this area are. He said this about improving productivity:

Improving productivity growth is just about the sole source of improving living standards …

He drew that linkage between binding coils of regulation, productivity and the living standards of everyday Australians, and he is absolutely right.

In my home state of Tasmania it is a persistent message from business owners, chambers of commerce and numerous other stakeholders that reinforces what a red-hot-button issue this is. The member for Fraser stood up here and—I take offence at this, Deputy Speaker—he spoke in pejorative terms about the team that I am a member of, a team that is led by the member for Kooyong, who by any measure has delivered well beyond his brief when it comes to deregulation. We have the member for Ryan, who is here, and other members like the member for Pearce, the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Reid, who spoke earlier. We go up and we sit with the member for Kooyong, and we take forward problems that really matter in our communities. At two repeal days now, we have come forward and said, 'Here is our response to those problems,' delivering $2.1 billion in productivity improvements, deregulation and legislation improvements. That is not something that you should scoff at, those opposite. And the member for Fraser comes in here and says it is some sort of stunt! These things are making a meaningful difference in the lives of people in my community.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 contains a number of key features, and I will speak to some of those now. It repeals pay slip reporting provisions in the superannuation law that would have increased the regulatory burden on employers beyond that which is currently imposed by the Fair Work regulation. It simplifies the 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 who are seeking to obtain a shareholding of more than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies. 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 member for Reid remarked on this matter of the definition of Australia. For me, the most important thing is to make sure that we do not leave Tasmania off the map. The three members in this House from Tasmania are making sure that they are never forgotten when the map of Australia is drawn.

In some of the other provisions in this bill, the government is providing certainty for employers that they do not need to be preparing for significant changes to their pay slip software in respect of superannuation reporting. We will do this by repealing duplicative provisions from the superannuation law that prescribe additional information on employee pay slips on superannuation contributions. Labor had intended that these regulations would be made, specifying that employers had to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. But, as I said earlier in my speech, on this issue, like so many other policy matters, Labor was long on promise but short on delivery and never made these regulations, so we are going to tidy that small matter up in this bill.

Importantly, this measure will not affect the information employees currently receive on superannuation contributions on their pay slip. Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to at least report details of employee superannuation entitlements that accrued during the pay period on an employee's pay slip. If employers were required to report actual contributions and payment dates, they would need to invest in major upgrades to their software, and the benefit for employees would be marginal at best. A lot of what we do is about cost benefit. It is about accepting a little bit of risk so that we do not impose unnecessary and additional cost on those who are making a living, who are adding to the productive capacity of our country.

Most employers pay their superannuation. Even if reporting actual superannuation contributions on pay slips were mandated, employers who did not comply with their superannuation requirements would be unlikely to disclose this on pay slips, so what is the point? I note that 70 per cent of employees who do not receive their superannuation entitlement from their employer, as the member for Reid said, do not actually make a complaint to the ATO until after they have left the employer, so changing the information on superannuation contributions required to be reported on pay slips is unlikely to change that.

It is also important to note that the ATO already investigate every complaint received about unpaid super by that small number of employers who do the wrong thing. Their risk analysis work allows the ATO to target actions against high-risk industries and employers. But, as I said, the vast majority do the right thing and pay their staff their super entitlements. In 2014, as we know, employees increasingly can typically check online, via their super fund, whether their employer is doing the right thing. So the mechanical, handraulic need for this measure is certainly reduced.

We are going to consolidate and repeal some tax provisions in this bill. We are going to simplify the taxation law by consolidating duplicated taxation admin provisions contained in various taxation acts into a single location in the act. We are also going to repeal spent or redundant taxation laws, such as the older harsh penalty regimes, and move longstanding regulations into the primary law. 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 provisions. Removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law do not alter any of the current tax policies. However, it does make the tax law easier to use and easier to comply with—and I say hooray to that. Tidying up our tax laws in line with good legislative practice, contrary to what the member for Fraser said, is an important part of the care and maintenance of our tax system.

Another measure in this bill removes an unnecessary burden on the associates of a person, for example a person's partner, relative or related company, who is seeking approval for a shareholding of greater than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies, like banks and insurance companies. This approval requirement applies to an associate even where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company. The measure removes the technical legislative trap that imposes an unnecessary legislative and regulatory burden. Importantly, this change in no way compromises our ability to examine 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 that 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.

Earlier I talked about a team led by the member for Kooyong, with some of the members here present as part of that team, doing what I consider to be good work twice a year that will continue in the future. These repeal days are making a meaningful difference in relation to that binding regulation in Australia at the moment. But that is only part of the equation. Every portfolio minister has to search for and come up with red-tape reduction measures, and in relation to this bill the Treasurer had done exactly that. I congratulate the Treasurer for delivering on part of that deregulation agenda that is so important to the future multifactor productivity of our country.

This bill takes another step towards achieving a single Income Tax Assessment Act for Australia. It reinforces the government's resolve to implement our vital deregulation agenda, to strip away the binding coils of as much red tape as possible in our community and to help Australians more easily navigate their way efficiently through legislation and regulation. It is one contribution to this government's bonfire of bureaucracy, but an important step, nevertheless, on the long road to sensible economic reform. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:02): The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill forms part of the government's repeal day stunt. The government makes a lot of grandiose claims about their deregulation agenda. We have heard feverish talk of a 'bonfire of regulations'. The government claims that they will achieve savings in compliance costs of up to $1 billion dollars from their repeal day theatrics.

Mr Nikolic: It is $2.1 billion.

Mr DREYFUS: There is more rhetorical nonsense from the member for Bass, who is one of the chief culprits in this area. They are not able to say where this fanciful figure of $1 billion, or the fanciful figure of $2.1, was plucked from. Much of repeal day is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. With tremendous fanfare and much boasting—including from the member for Bass, who is one of the more boastful of those on the other side about the supposed marvels of the deregulation activity that the government is engaging in—on each of its two repeal days this year the government has introduced a statute law revision bill and an amending acts repeal bill. With all of the talk of bonfires and wars and slashing red tape on the part of the Prime Minister and the member for Kooyong—the leader of this exercise, according to the member for Bass—and their colleagues, you would think that pieces of legislation like this contained some kind of bold reform. You would be wrong, though. The statute law revision bills are nothing more than housekeeping exercises. Every year Australian parliaments pass these bills, which correct typos, update drafting, and improve formatting and numbering, among other things. Is this the Liberal Party's idea of slashing red tape? How many businesses are held back by typos in obscure Commonwealth acts of parliament? How many Australians feel burdened by numbering errors in old statutes? Given the pomp and ceremony attached to the repeal day media stunt, you might be underwhelmed to discover that one of the bold reforms this government is progressing is the removal of the hyphen from the word 'email' wherever it appears in Commonwealth law.

The amending acts repeal bills are even more farcical. I am sorry that the member for Bass, after all the rhetorical froth we just heard from him, has left the chamber and is not here to hear what is actually going on with this repeal day stunt. All these bills do is to repeal legislation which amends or repeals prior legislation. Technically, these bills are still on the books—but they have no effect. Their operation is spent. Their removal has not one scintilla of real legal consequence. Indeed, the repealed bills will remain on the Commonwealth's legislation register in any case as historical acts! The only purpose of these bills is to let the Liberal government crow about the number, not the substance, of regulations they have repealed. What hollow numbers they throw around. When the Liberal government says they are repealing 10,000 pieces of legislation, they neglect to mention that the vast bulk of those pieces of legislation have not been in force for decades. We should expect nothing more from a government already, just a year into its term, known for its disingenuousness.

Of course, the Labor Party has a genuine belief in lightening the load of regulation where that is appropriate. We are the party of meaningful deregulation. We are the party of banking sector liberalisation, sweeping competition reform, the floating of the dollar and the slashing of tariffs. We do not shy away from removing regulations which do not serve a worthwhile purpose. We believe, unlike the government, that we need regulation to protect our environment, to protect labour standards and to protect consumers, but we have never supported regulation for its own sake. So, when the government puts forward measures like those in this bill, we are happy to support them.

This bill amends several acts dealing with taxation, superannuation and shareholdings in certain financial sector companies. The member for Riverina, when speaking to this bill, compared it to removing 'small grains of sand from an engine'. It does remove a small number of regulations and makes some mechanical changes to some legislation.

Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to repeal the pay slip reporting provisions. The pay slip reporting provisions in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, the SI(S) Act, require employers to include in employee pay slips information prescribed by the regulations. There is no political party in Australia that has done more to boost the retirement savings of Australians than Labor. Unpaid superannuation liability is a problem that some Australians have to face. Recent estimates place that figure at approximately $1.3 billion, so it is right that there are measures on the statute books that try to remove that problem and that try to ensure that superannuation which is required to be paid is paid. There are current protections under the Fair Work Act for the reporting of superannuation liability on pay slips. These require the payments either made or liable to be made to be reported on the pay slip, and they are not being changed.

The requirements for superannuation guarantee payments to be made within 28 days of the end of a quarter are also not changing. The provisions that this bill is removing were enacted in legislation—that is, in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—but have never been a practical reality for businesses because the regulations that were needed to enact them were never put in place. Just to make that clear, there are current protections in the Fair Work Act; that is good. The government is not changing those current protections. What the government is doing here is removing a legislative requirement that never actually came into effect for any Australian business because the regulations that they called for were never put in place.

There is no doubt that the intentions of the original changes were good. The reality for employers, particularly small businesses, was potentially increased costs via software and other upgrades. It is arguable if the requirements being repealed would have any effect at all on those negligent and unscrupulous employers who intend not to pay superannuation. Employees will still be able to check with their fund if payments have been made by their employer. Labor intends to closely monitor the issue of unpaid superannuation payments. We will examine closely options to ensure that compliance by employers is insisted on, because we believe in the superannuation guarantee as a means of boosting retirement savings of Australia. But let us not overstate the effect of the repeal that is occurring here. There are already protections under the Fair Work Act. That is good thing; they will remain.

Schedule 2 makes some mechanical and non-controversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law. It is not something that one could point to as having a dramatic impact on Australian business.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 so that persons who do not hold a direct controlling 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 associates' direct control interest in the company. Under the 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 clause 10 of schedule 1 of the 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 clause 4 of schedule 1 of the FS(S) 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 also required to obtain approval to exceed the 15 per cent shareholding limit. This can be despite the associate holding 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 amendments in this bill will 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 that 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 other associates, including the person acquiring the actual direct control interest. The associate is required to seek the Treasurer's approval where the aggregated stake exceeds the 15 per cent shareholding limit.

Schedule 4 rewrites provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to unify the definition of 'Australia' for tax purposes. This is a non-controversial, mechanical change without any fiscal impact.

The member for Riverina's muted description of this legislation is appropriate. These are worthwhile, if not earthshattering, measures. Labor is happy to support them. But we must complain when the passage of legislation like this, with our support, is used as an excuse by those opposite to grandstand about the supposed regulatory overreach of the last Labor government and to tout their own supposed credentials in deregulation. Perhaps we can forgive the coalition for forgetting about the at least 6,000 redundant or obsolete regulations repealed by the last Labor government. We did not feel the need to throw a stunt like Repeal Day to celebrate this achievement. The use of a light touch in regulation, the removal of regulations which no longer serve their purpose, and keeping a keen eye on any unintended effect of regulation on business and the community are part and parcel of how modern Labor governs.

If you ignore the rhetoric of the Liberals, the facts indicate that Labor governments are not in any sense prone to overregulation. The Liberals like to say that the last Labor government was responsible for some 21,000 new regulations. But, again, their numbers are deceptive.

Mr Tudge: You were not responsible? It was someone else's fault.

Mr DREYFUS: No, in answer to the interjection, I am going to explain what they were. Fully 4,200 of these regulations were, in fact, tariff concession orders—regulations that reduce costs for businesses and that were requested by businesses. More than 3,400 of these regulations were airworthiness directives, which address safety issues.

Are tariff concession orders requested by business the kinds of regulations that the Abbott government thinks are holding back our nation? Is that the kind of regulation that the Abbott government thinks is holding back the country? Are airworthiness directives the kinds of regulations that the Abbott government thinks are holding back our country? Is anyone from the Liberal Party seriously saying that we do not need airworthiness directives to uphold air safety standards in our country? I doubt it. It simply makes the point that, at all times, in the case of all regulation, it is necessary to examine the purpose that is being served by the regulation.

This kind of mad incantation of raw numbers gets us nowhere, because it removes attention from the purpose for which the regulations were created. The mad incantation of: 'We have repealed 1,000 acts,' or 'We have repealed 10,000 regulations,' as I have attempted to make clear in this speech, ignores the actual substance of what is being repealed. Repealing amending acts of parliament from 1901 to 1967, which was the exercise on the first repeal day, or repealing the amending acts passed by the parliament from 1967 through into the seventies achieves precisely nothing, and the Liberal Party should not boast or pretend that it, in fact, has achieved something. In fact, if we must throw around raw numbers, the all-time record year for added pages of regulation was not under either of Labor prime ministers Gillard or Rudd but in 2006, under the Liberal Prime Minister John Howard.

As I have said, Labor is happy to support measures like those in this bill. When the government proposes real, useful deregulation, we are happy to work with them. But it is hard to stand the self-congratulation, the media stunts and the misrepresentation of Labor's record which has come alongside the government's supposed deregulation bills. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:17): The former speaker from the opposition claims that this bill is no more than good housekeeping. Could I just suggest to him that, if his self-titled modern Labor had kept their own house in order during the chaotic years of the Labor-Greens-Labor alliance for the last six years, we would not need to be here today cleaning up the mess that they left. I rise today to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. Yet again, the coalition government is presenting a bill that seeks to reduce the amount of duplication between various pieces of legislation and reduce the compliance load on business and, at the same time, ensure businesses are not, by omission, breaking the law.

Under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 employers are required to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions earned and the date on which the employer is expected to pay them. Of course, this is quite unreasonable since cash flows within businesses change on a near-daily basis. But, of course, those opposite have no idea about running a business. They might have had a hand in running a few into the ground but not in successfully employing people and keeping a business prosperous, which is why they think this minor amendment is about trying to hide superannuation contributions from employees.

This again demonstrates to those of us on the government side how little faith the ALP have in themselves and their ability to craft good laws. The Fair Work Act 2009 and Fair Work Regulations 2009, both written and passed by those opposite, require employers to report on pay slips the superannuation entitlements earned or actually paid. Is their own legislation so dodgy that they have no faith in it?

What we have is three separate acts of parliament that each require employers to report superannuation entitlements. How do you suppose that should appear on a pay slip? Should it be just once, because that fulfils the requirement of all three acts, or as separate line items? Would that make an employee believe they are actually receiving three times as much superannuation? Common sense must prevail, and the system has to be made easier for both employees and employers.

But in order to do that some tough decisions need to be made by those opposite. Do they want to be part of the solution, or are they content with continuing to be the problem? Stop being negative for the sake of it and support this bill that simplifies the reporting of superannuation contributions on pay slips, as well as deleting some spent provisions and continuing the rewrite of tax legislation begun under the Keating government. Short-term opportunism is no substitute for long-term thinking and planning. Labor has no plan for the future, no plan beyond the next electoral cycle and probably no plans after lunch but sniping from the sidelines and suffering relevance deprivation. But, of course, I am exaggerating, because, as we know, Labor does have one plan. Indeed, they have a plan to re-introduce the world's biggest economy-wide carbon tax, which was not effective in lowering carbon emissions by one single gram.

The government is not trying to hide workers' superannuation entitlements. We are just trying to make it as simple to understand as possible. Surely, simplicity in understanding how your retirement nest egg is working is something all workers want. When I look at my pay slip I want to easily see what my contribution to my superannuation is. This allows you to plan for your future and your family's future, and an easy to understand single number is the best way to do that.

Those opposite continue to grasp at straws in trying to discredit this government because they know they have no real ammunition. This is a government of responsible fiscal management. This is the government Australia needs after the years of poor and reckless financial management by the Labor-Greens alliance. The coalition government will lead Australia back to financial prosperity, although Labor did send businesses to the wall and hurt consumers.

The other important measure this bill takes is to define 'Australia' for taxation purposes. While this may seem self-evident, the standard definition of Australia does not cover seabeds or any oil, gas or other precious and semi-precious material under the sea. This bill defines those areas above and below sea which fall under the provisions of the Australian Taxation Act. When you consider the vast potential of the Joint Petroleum Development Area in the Timor Sea, this is an important measure to get right. So I again ask those opposite whether they are part of the solution or remain the problem. I call on them to show genuine bipartisanship in the interests of Australia and vote this bill through. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:23): I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. I have listened with interest to the contributions, the chest thumping, coming from those opposite about this. It is almost as if the government see this bill as the pinnacle of their legislative achievements. I was here for the first repeal day, and I was here for the second repeal day. I want to contrast the speeches made about that and the speeches that we have had over the last few days and weeks about the loss of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Queensland Treasurer Wayne Goss. These speeches about repeal day need to be seen through the prism of these political leaders of vision. The shadows this casts on the political pygmies opposite are unbelievable. It shows how small their vision is. We have had people coming in here to talk about what is effectively 'turning up for work day'. It is not repeal day; it is just 'turning up for work day'. This is what every government does. Every government needs to get rid of redundant bits of legislation when they can.

Those opposite talk about their vision, about where their great ship of state is headed with Prime Minister Abbott at the tiller. But he has no vision at all. He is worried about the barnacles and what needs to be taken off, but he has no vision whatsoever as to where the ship should be heading. They come up and say: 'Everyone that has turned up at work today, you need to be celebrated. In fact, we need to give you a medal.' They call it repeal day, but it is really just the work of good government. Regulations are not inherently evil, as those opposite seem to be suggesting. Most of the front bench of the government were here under the Howard government in the 41st Parliament. Most of the front bench of the government today were members of the Howard government. They were part of the government that brought—

Mr Tudge: What a government that was!

Mr PERRETT: As the member would acknowledge, the Howard government brought in more regulations than any government in the history of Australia. He is inherently saying that a government is good if it brings in regulations. So all the political pygmies opposite who have come in beating their chests and saying repeal day is a wonderful thing have somehow flipped? I can understand why the front bench has not changed. They are still set firmly in their ways from 1955 or 1956—whatever year it is that they have calibrated as being the perfect year. But the fresh blood of the 44th Parliament come in here and say, 'We turned up for work today and the people of Australia should be proud of us.' Even in the military, where they do give out medals for service, you have to be in the service for at least three years before you get that medal. But you have been here for one year, you are in your second year, and you are saying, 'This repeal day is our most magnificent achievement.'

We have heard valedictory speeches from both sides of the chamber about Wayne Goss—I just delivered mine up in the Federation Chamber—and Gough Whitlam and their incredible vision for Australia. And what does 'Rear Admiral Abbott' have to offer the people of Australia? Repeal day. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we've hunted down some commas. We've changed the words "electronic mail" to "email". Please give us an Order of Australia or some appropriate recognition. Bring back knight and dame honours'—because we have tracked down a comma or something! This shows the paucity of vision from the Liberal and National parties. Unbelievable! The sooner that front bench gets changed the better. Bring in some of the new blood—the people that actually have a bit of vision and a bit of hope for a future Australia—not the idiots that have swallowed this line that somehow we should not pay a little bit now rather than make future generations pay a lot more. That is fundamentally what has happened.

Maybe it is something to do with the people that came through the Howard government. They just have not seen beyond 2007 when the Howard government finished. They did not come to government as a group of adults with a vision. They set out their principles before the election; I will give them credit for that. I read their booklets and I heard their speeches about no taxes, no cuts to the pension and no cuts to education; I heard it so often I know it better than I knew my own campaign slogans. The reality after the election is that the only political currency which counts—trust—was broken time after time after time. We see it with the GP co-payment, which surely personifies red tape. They are going to have red tape on every visit to the doctor, with $2 in red tape for every sick person and $5 given to the never-never. And the way they have sold this! This morning the health minister, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Senate were all over the shop. It is like they have read William Custer's playbook about how to sell a policy to people. It is unbelievable!

But back to the legislation before us, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, which, as I said, I am calling the 'Turning up for Work Day Bill,' celebrated by those opposite, a government that on every single day they have been in office have brought in three or four regulations, even on the weekend! I am not making fun of them for doing that; that is what governments do. Regulations are not inherently bad. But for them to turn around and say: our greatest achievement—and the people of Australia should celebrate the fact—is that we hunted down a couple of commas and changed the word "electronic mail" to "email". It is unbelievable.

You can see the proper context for how that first repeal day should be treated. Some of the new people in the 44th Parliament were here, reading out their prepared lines about how wonderful it was that they had got rid of a couple of commas. But what happened to the legislation? We pay the people in Treasury $2.1 million a year to track down these stray commas. But what happened to it? Did they rush it over to the other place to ensure that it was turned into law? No. Nothing happened with it until almost the second repeal day. It is smoke and mirrors. The smoke should be blown away and the mirrors should be smashed to reveal that this is what governments do.

Governments look over legislation and most of these regulations are doing good things—for example, regulating aircraft safety—unless those opposite want to sign up to only flying planes that have not had regulations in terms of their safety signed off on; I do not want to do that—and are not hurting anyone. They are not an albatross around the neck of Australia. One particularly puerile comment from a member opposite was that it was a python squeezer, a cobra striker—I cannot remember which one—but the serpentine reference was completely deluded. This legislation is what governments do; they turn up and sort out things.

Labor is supporting this legislation; it is not particularly controversial. But the fake chest beating is controversial. I find it repugnant, hypocritical and hard to swallow, as do the people of Australia. However, schedule 1 in this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to repeal the payslip-reporting provisions. I heard the member for Ryan, my neighbour on the other side of the Brisbane River, say that this was a bad thing. I am not sure whether the member for Ryan has had the experience of a business going belly up or of a constituent coming in after thinking they had a superannuation payment going on for years and then finding out that the superannuation had not been paid and that the business was belly up. The modern equivalent of the GEERS scheme will not pay superannuation and, for people who are close to retirement, this can be heartbreaking.

I noted the contribution of the member for Reid where he, as a former employer of a business that employed many people in the pub industry, made the point about how important it is that your workers understand where their superannuation contribution is going and that it has been paid, because it can be particularly heartbreaking.

As I said, the Labor Party is supporting this legislation. When it comes to superannuation, I will stand on the Labor Party's record any day. We have done more to boost retirement savings of Australians than those opposite have ever done. They are fundamentally opposed to superannuation. They attack it whenever they can but, thankfully, after difficult implementation times under the Hawke and Keating governments, Australians now accept that superannuation is a part of life. Accumulation schemes have obviously brought in an incredible amount of superannuation, with approximately $1.3 billion now being managed. It will continue to increase. Incidentally, because of that, we can now look to providing those funds management services in Asia. As the middle class emerges, the skills that Australians have when it comes to managing money can now be retailed and taken over to other countries. That is something that we do particularly well. That is a part of the Asian focus that we need to have in selling our services and engaging with the emerging markets of India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and the like. Obviously, despite the snickering from those opposite when that was announced as an election policy back in 2006-07, we have managed to do that and will continue to do so.

The amendments in this legislation are not particularly troubling. As I said, the Labor Party will be supporting it. But I do take issue, as I said, with this repeal day stunt and all the government's grandiose claims about the deregulation agenda. Unless you look at what the regulations do, you cannot make those sweeping statements. In fact, time and time again, the government has been saved by the opposition in the House of Representatives and by other people in the Senate from themselves. They are so focused on talking about bonfires, slashing red tape and all that emotive language that they have not done the real hard yards. It is a typical conservative government, which, in terms of economic reform, are not prepared to do the hard yards and to make significant changes. When it comes to managing the economy, it is up to Labor to do the hard yards. The government now moan about the AAA credit rating given to the Australian economy by the three ratings agencies, something never achieved by those opposite. These are not left-wing agencies; these are the ratings agencies of the world.

I note the Treasurer has particular challenges, but I am waiting for him to come in and apologise to the House after hearing him, year after year, talking about how economic challenges were irrelevant. He never acknowledged the global financial crisis and the challenges that it brought to the people of Australia. He never acknowledged what it would be like to have 200,000 people out of work and the havoc that that wreaks upon communities and individuals—the tears in school playgrounds, the suicides and the heartache associated with unemployment when it hits particular communities. No. I am yet to hear the Treasurer come in and actually acknowledge some of those challenges. Well, now, as revenue starts to collapse for this government—as iron ore goes below US$70, with the challenges that will bring, and as coal comes off the high prices that it was at during the 40th and 41st parliaments, when John Howard and Peter Costello just watched the money trickle into the Treasury coffers—it will be interesting to see whether the Treasurer has the ticker it takes to lead this ship of state, the ticker it takes to lead a government and a nation during difficult times. And I can tell you this for free: having these cheap-stunt days will not fool anyone in the Australian community at all.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (12:38): It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, if for no other reason than that the member for Moreton has ceased that tirade. To the members of the public in the gallery, I apologise, because what you have seen is the worst example of Australian politics. If you were up there in the gallery, drifting in and out of consciousness as that tirade went on, you would have been convinced that the member for Moreton would end his contribution by saying, 'And I oppose this bill, because it is so bad, and I've spent 15 minutes talking about how bad this bill is.' But no: he will support this bill. You heard 15 minutes of a contribution on a bill that he supports, believe it or not.

Mr Tudge: Imagine if he disliked it!

Mr SUKKAR: Yes, imagine if he disliked it. I tell you what, he has fire in the belly. But I say to all members of the public in the gallery, thanks for hanging in there. What we saw from the member for Moreton was a continuation of Labor's denial: the denial that over their six years of government we saw a budgetary position that is now a ruinous position—the words of Wayne Swan, It was a government that said, 'We did for small business what no government has done before'. All they did was increase the number of regulations by 21,000. But there was nothing wrong with that; nothing to see here! In the world view of the member for Moreton, or the view of those last six years, there is nothing to see here: 'We were a great government, and there were no problems.'

So, fundamentally, it is an example of the Labor Party just not learning their lesson. The member for Moreton also said that today's bill and all the repeal days are just a matter of turning up for work today, and this is what governments do. Does he not see the great irony when he says that—that the clear inference is that for six years the Rudd, Gillard, and Rudd governments did not turn up for work, and did not do what governments are supposed to do? If that was the case, why did the number of regulations increase by 21,000, strangling small businesses in this country? Every time he says that there is no problem, that there is nothing to see here, he absolutely condemns all the small-business owners in my electorate who have said to me that for many years—and it got so much worse under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments—they have been strangled in regulation and costly red tape.

Having grown up in a small-business family myself, I saw firsthand the costs of red tape. It is not just a theoretical exercise that we discuss in this House. My parents and I have very vivid memories of me growing up and seeing my parents sitting at their desks filling out paperwork until all hours of the night. They would be at work during the day. At six o'clock in the morning they would get up and go to work. They would get home at probably seven or eight o'clock at night, try to enjoy some time with the family and then get started on the paperwork at 10 or 11 o'clock for a couple of hours. This has a real impact on people's lives. So, when the member for Moreton, the member for Fraser and the member for Isaacs sit there whingeing and moaning about today's bill and then vote for it, that suggests to me that they have no understanding of small business and no desire to engage with the government on this task that we are trying to achieve—for the first time in many decades, to actually reduce the regulatory burden that the Australian government imposes on our citizens. And I am not so surprised to see it from the member for Fraser and the member for Isaacs—two academic, bookworm types who probably have absolutely no idea about small business. But I think I expected a bit more from the member for Moreton, and unfortunately I was left wanting.

But I do want to get to explaining some of the substance of the bill in front of us—the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, which implements a range of improvements to Australia's laws and, as we have been talking about, removes costly and unnecessary red tape. The government does recognise that while some degree of regulation is of course necessary, bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity and deters innovation and investment, and that ultimately costs jobs. There is a real-life dimension to the issues we are discussing today. The member for Fraser, in a sort of nasty, snide way, had a go at us for our coalition deregulatory task force, which I am a member of and which is ably led by my friend the member for Kooyong. The whole purpose of the coalition's deregulatory task force, of which I was the Victorian member, was to give members of parliament an opportunity to bring real-life examples from our electorates—on the frontline, not theoretical examples or examples from peak bodies, but examples of where the interface between a small business and government is causing issues for constituents of ours. I found the process extraordinarily worthwhile, and a number of fantastic outcomes have been achieved by that task force. So, I want to again congratulate the member for Kooyong for leading that. It was a privilege to be a part of it. But it is a whole-of-government approach. Our task force was quite a minute part of that.

We have set up in every department specific deregulation teams to search for those deregulatory changes that we can make in each and every portfolio. This led to our holding of the first two repeal days. We said before the election that we would repeal $1 billion of red tape each year. After our second 2014 repeal day, a net reduction of $2.1 billion in compliance costs was achieved. There is quite a complex process in determining that $2.1 billion reduction, but the benefits of a $2.1 billion reduction in red tape flow into many, many billions of dollars. The multiplier effect is quite phenomenal.

Ultimately, we want to make it easier for businesses and individuals to get on and spend their precious energy on what they do best, and that is improving their bottom lines, creating a better life for their families and also creating more jobs. Particularly in the small business sector, I can tell you now that employees are more like family than employees. There is nothing better than a small business that can have their employees grow with them, develop with them and, hopefully, share in the spoils of a successful small business.

If this bill helps that process in any way, I think in this House it would be much more gracious of people like the member for Moreton, who is a friend of mine, to get up and say, 'I support this bill and I support it for these reasons.' If he only talks for a couple of minutes, that is fine—talk for two minutes—but to go on a 15-minute tirade, absolutely pillorying the bill, and then conclude by saying, 'And I commend the bill to the House,' is embarrassing. It is the worst feature of Australian politics. I remember when I was a private citizen observing Australian politics. You would sort of sit there and you would want to grab the TV screen and say, 'Just say you agree with this.' There is enough going on in this House that members opposite can get an opportunity to try and whack us on, but, where we agree, let's just agree and move on. I think it was a very ungracious contribution.

The bill before us contains a number of features that other speakers have gone into much more detail on than I will, but for completeness I want to cover off on them. Schedule 1 repeals the pay-slip reporting provisions in the SI(S) Act that increase the regulatory burden on employers beyond what is currently imposed under the Fair Work legislation. The changes, which have been spoken about by other members, remove some duplication in reporting what superannuation contributions have been made. It is relatively uncontroversial and makes sense. Schedule 2 to the bill is something that is quite close to my heart. It contains a range of changes that simplify the tax laws by consolidating duplicated tax administration provisions and it also bundles a whole lot of tax acts into a single set of provisions. I was one of those unfortunate people in the tax profession, in my former life as a tax lawyer, trying to juggle a half a dozen different acts with certain provisions that were cross-referenced into an entirely different act. If you had put all of the tax acts that I had to deal with on a daily basis on a set of scales, they would have weighed something like six or eight kilos. It is quite extraordinary. So anything we can do to achieve what I hope is the ultimate outcome of a single tax act—the process was started in the mid-nineties and we sort of got half the way there but never actually concluded it—is good news. Schedule 2 is definitely a standout feature of this bill for me.

Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act by making some sensible changes around associate tests and reporting for associates who may or may not have an interest in a company. These sorts of associate tests are often there for really good reasons, to ensure that we avoid collusion and conflicts of interest, but here I am quite convinced that the changes proposed will not end up with a diminution of any protections; they just remove quite a redundant rule. Schedule 4 rewrites the definition of Australia into a single location in the tax law. Over the last few weeks, I have heard lots of members opposite deriding this change. We should not overstate it, but I can tell you right now that having multiple definitions in different tax acts cross-referenced against each other is extraordinarily difficult for any type of understanding of the tax law. I dealt with small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses on a very regular basis. Anything we can do to make the tax affairs of Australian taxpayers easier should be applauded in this House and should not be derided. So I think rewriting the current definition of Australia is outstanding.

I want to conclude by saying that I think our approach here is working. When we discuss legislation like this and when we have our repeal days, we are saying to the public, 'We have a determination from the Prime Minister down to the humblest backbencher to make your lives easier in any way we can.' I welcomed the words of Jennifer Westacott, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, who put it quite succinctly: 'Finally, we have reached a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by business and individuals in Australia every single day.' I think that is right. For too many years now we have accepted that a new government or a new minister want to put their touch on a particular policy area, and so we just pile on more regulations. In contrast, this government has said, 'We want to get out of your lives to the greatest extent possible.' We are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and remove necessary regulations for protections of our citizens, but we do not want to wedge ourselves into your life where it is unnecessary. So I say to my electorate, the people of Deakin, that, whilst this is not particularly sexy stuff, I can assure you that we are doing the hard work behind the scenes to make your life easier, to make it easier for you to grow your businesses and employment opportunities for your employees, which will hopefully mean greater opportunities for your children as well. I commend the bill to the House and again congratulate everybody for their wonderful work in this space.

Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:52): I rise to speak to the bill that is before the House. I listened with interest to the contribution of my friend the member for Deakin. He made a point about the way we deal with legislation in this House and the way it is spoken about. He suggested that people should be a bit more straight-up in the way they talk about a bill such as this one and should not pillory the government's approach by saying it is some sort of stunt. He suggested that people should just stand up and say they agree with the content of the bill and not complain about the way in which the bill is presented by the government and the messaging around it—the spin, in more blunt language. But the difficulty with that proposition is that this bill and the bill that preceded it in the House today are part of spin. This suggestion that these worthy but pedestrian parts of the business of the parliament somehow constitute a magical red tape repeal deregulation agenda is wrong. This bill and the preceding bill are, as I said, just part of the ordinary work of the parliament—reviewing laws and making small, incremental changes to respond to community needs. So to make a song and dance about these bills as though they are a part of some sort of magical repeal and deregulation achievement of this government invites the sort of contribution that the member for Deakin has complained about.

If you want to talk about spin, the corporations legislation deregulation bill that was before the House this morning was not a deregulation bill at all; it was actually about a very important issue. It was about striking the balance between the right to protest and the rights of shareholders in public companies to have value for their shares. That is a really important concern for our democracy. You have to give people the right to protest the decisions of companies in which they hold shares. Equally, you have to strike a balance that prevents the small minority from causing damage to the value of the shares of the majority.

Protest is a really important part of what makes our democracy very strong. For example, today in the electorate of Bonner, which is next door to my electorate, casual employees at a factory have been protesting for equal pay for casual employees. They are protesting in a traditional form. Similarly, under the 100-member rule, which was the subject of the previous bill, shareholders might want to call an extraordinary general meeting of a company and seek to ventilate concerns via a motion of that company. The previous bill, which we supported, quite properly sought to strike that balance by saying that you cannot use the 100-member rule to get an EGM but you can use 100 members to get an issue onto the agenda of an AGM. It is a very important issue: how do we strike that balance to allow for the proper ventilation of genuine concerns and, at the same time, not allow smaller groups or minorities to cause damage to the interests of a company? Of course, when you are talking about the interests of a company, you are talking about the interests of its shareholders.

Instead of spinning that bill as being about that issue, it was spun as a deregulation bill. Those sorts of funny approaches to spin are, unfortunately, very common from the coalition. Who can forget the names of some of the bills during the Howard era? For example, they gave workplace relations bills names such as 'More work, better pay' when in fact they were going to have the opposite effect. If the member for Deakin is concerned about contributions being made that deal with views about the messaging around bills then perhaps some straighter approaches to the naming of bills and the reduction of spin for those bills might go some way to assisting with that.

Similarly the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 has a little bit of spin in the title as though it were some massive achievement for the repeal of red tape. In fact, it is very straightforward legislation that deals with four groups of items that are important, useful and supportable; but this is part of the ordinary, everyday work of the parliament and no fanfare is required to do it. 'Look at me, look at me! Aren't I great? I'm doing a repeal day bill.' This sort of nonsense is not that helpful. This sort of legislation should be discussed in the straight-up way suggested by the member for Deakin previously.

The first schedule of the bill goes to superannuation reporting on pay slips. This is an important issue. It is going to repeal the provision that will require an employer to state on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which they are expected to be paid. There is already an obligation to state the liability for superannuation on the pay slip.

This provision in the SI(S) Act that is the subject of the current bill is slightly different, in that it would require the amount of the contribution and the date on which it is expected to be paid, and that is important. It is important because there are, unfortunately, unscrupulous or disorganised employers out there who fail to pay superannuation on time. That can usually be rectified pretty quickly via paying the superannuation guarantee charge once the mistake is noticed or to rectify a deliberate omission, but if the company goes broke, if the company ends up in insolvency, it can be extremely difficult to recover superannuation contributions from the company. Of course, there are entitlement protection schemes in place, but that just socialises the loss to the taxpayer, when in fact the obligation ought to have been borne by the employer itself.

I guess the other issue that arises when superannuation is not paid is that, if there is a gap in the payments of superannuation contributions, there can sometimes be a gap in the superannuation fund taking income insurance premiums through that superannuation process. If a person then suffers an injury and seeks to rely on their income protection insurance, or the other insurance that they thought they had via their superannuation scheme, but the premiums have not been met, that can leave people—and this has happened—in a situation where they do not have the income protection insurance. They do not have the insurance provided under their superannuation that they thought they had. If you have been injured to the point where you cannot work, that can be catastrophic for a household. So when we are dealing with superannuation reporting issues they are very important. They are issues of significance that should be debated in a proper way.

Labor is always happy to talk about superannuation. We introduced compulsory superannuation. The massive superannuation sector that Australia has, this massive amount of national savings that is such a great buffer for our country, was a great nation-building reform of a previous Labor government. We are always very proud to talk about superannuation in this country for that reason. We are certainly very proud of the way that superannuation funds have grown and developed and we are proud of the fact that we are helping Australians to plan for their own retirements. We have always supported superannuation, unlike the coalition. I think it was a very well-known coalition member of parliament who described superannuation as the 'greatest con job of all time'. Of course, that was some time ago. There is at least on the surface, at least ostensibly, bipartisanship around the value of superannuation.

Having said that, we know that this year, regrettably, the superannuation guarantee increase was pushed back further by this government on two occasions. There was an argument made to the Australian people that the money would be in their pockets instead of locked away in their superannuation funds. That is actually a very silly argument, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a lot of Australians are covered by enterprise agreements that already have pay rises locked away for the next few years and will not necessarily be in a position to have higher pay rises as a consequence. It will be difficult for them to renegotiate the pay. But, secondly, there is no obligation on the part of employers to increase pay to compensate employees for the superannuation that they thought they were going to be getting and now will not be because of the decision making of the Abbott government. It is fundamentally an attack on superannuation, and a shocking one at that, because we all know that we need to increase Australians' retirement savings. We need to continue to work on superannuation and to increase the level of the superannuation guarantee charge.

Of course, that is not the only regressive and unfortunate step that this government has taken in respect of superannuation this year. We have also seen the government moving to abolish the low-income superannuation co-contribution, which is a superannuation tax break for the millions of people who earn $37,000 per annum or less—predominantly women. The government, in its questionable wisdom, decided to take away the low-income superannuation co-contribution at the same time as forgoing some tax revenue that sensibly ought to have been collected from people with very high superannuation balances. So at the same time as they are giving tax breaks to the rich they are taking away tax breaks from people on $37,000 per annum or less.

That is unfortunately typical not just of this government's approach to superannuation, the coalition's traditional scepticism of superannuation, but also of the coalition's inverse approach to taxation policy and to social policy generally. This idea that you give tax breaks to the rich while taking away tax breaks from the very poor is unfortunately very consistent with the coalition's approach to public policy—another obvious example being the paid parental leave scheme where, the more you earn, the more taxpayer support you get. You could not imagine a more regressive policy, I think. It is funny—you mention it to people from overseas and they are just shocked that a so-called conservative government would come up with such a large cash splash from the public purse. But it is unfortunately consistent with what this government wants to do. It wants to redistribute money towards the well off and away from the less well off. It wants to contribute to inequality, not tackle it.

We know that this government has come under a great deal of fire and pressure not just from economists and community groups but from its own backbench to scrap the ridiculous $20 billion paid parental leave scheme. I hope that it is one of the so-called barnacles that will be scrapped. But, as I say, it is consistent with the way that this government has approached public policy generally.

They unfortunately have these very, very odd ideas about what an appropriate use of taxpayer money is—another example being forgoing five tax evasion loophole closure mechanisms that Labor proposed last year. They voted against the tax evasion bill that Labor proposed last year. And the list goes on when it comes to the way that this government has been approaching the issues of fairness and equality, because tax evasion and tax loopholes go to the heart of fairness and equality. If you allow people and companies to avoid paying taxation, that has a direct effect on government's ability to provide services to the community.

Turning to the other parts of the bill, schedule 2 makes mechanical and non-controversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law. I note the member for Deakin was very supportive of these changes. The fact is that of course legislation should be made easier to read, of course it should be made more practical for practitioners and laypeople alike, but it is just a job. It is the everyday job of this parliament to do those things; it is not something that requires a great big fanfare. I do not think the government needs to jump up and say, 'Ta-da! We've managed to do our job!' Just get on with it guys. Schedule 3 amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 in respect of— (Time expired)

Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:07): Before commencing my contribution to the debate on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 I will address a couple of comments made by the member for Griffith about this being the ordinary work of the parliament. She reiterated that at the end, saying that this is the everyday job of government. Let us go back into the history of her predecessor, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and have a look at how he did with the ordinary work of government.

Those opposite promised one-in one-out. What was the result? Let us have a look at their performance: 21,000 extra regulations. One-in one-out? No, 21,000 extra. How did you perform? How did you do in your ordinary work of government, I ask the member for Griffith. How many out? There were 21,000 in, so there were not many out. It is no wonder that last September the Australian people said, 'You have failed in your performance. You have not done the ordinary work of government that you are supposed to do, far from it.' We know the history. We will not go into the detail too much.

What have we done? Let us compare and contrast. In only a year we have added a huge amount of legislation which is repealing a huge amount of regulations—10,000 on our first repeal day. More recently, we have had another thousand, adding up to around $2 billion worth of regulations being removed. These are tangible outcomes that have significant results, which the member for Griffith decides is the ordinary work of government. That may be, but you have to perform in this world. You have to get results, whether they be ordinary or not.

Let us look at the public gallery after the speech of the member for Moreton. The member for Deakin in his speech reflected on the public gallery and its opinion of the speech of the member for Moreton. The member for Moreton does say some good things from time to time. I do enjoy his company. Those in the public gallery departed very quickly after his speech. As the member for Deakin said, his speech could have been far more constructive. He could have recognised that, yes, the coalition has done some good work and Labor acknowledges you for that. The member for Fraser, too, talked about substance. He did not want to mention the free trade agreements that have been signed. He mentioned fairness but he did not talk about the interest bill of over $30 million that we are forced to pay back every day on the former Labor government's debt. Speaking of fairness, the money we pay on that interest bill could go to social infrastructure, to so many things that our community needs, but, no, we are paying it on debt. That is the clincher. That is where debt does matter and how it has an impact on the community, which members opposite fail to acknowledge.

I mentioned recently in the House when speaking about another of these fine bills through which we are getting great results in eliminating compliance and red tape. A recent study is Shaping the Future of South Australia, by KPMG, Bank of South Australia, CEDA, Flinders University and the government of South Australia. One of the top 10 actions in the study was 'Reduce the burden of regulation to drive economic growth.' I congratulate the government of South Australia on this initiative. I looked through the actions to see what they proposed. Let us remember that after 12 years in power in South Australia the Labor Party have finally realised that they need to do something on so many fronts, and need to take some action on regulation and red tape. They are establishing industry and government roundtables. After 12 years they are establishing things. What have they been doing? They have been asleep at the wheel, like some others we have seen.

What have we done in one year? We have had significant outcomes: over $2 billion and 12,000 regulations removed. They are doing consultation. Congratulations! In a year we have done significant consultation, whether it be with the Logistics Council, Medicines Australia and so many other industry groups around Australia that my colleagues in the deregulation task force have reached out to and obtained input and suggestions from. When I speak to some of these national bodies, they say, 'Yes, we're talking to Josh Frydenberg. He's onto it and he's looking at ways to address our concerns about the overburdensome compliance of red tape.' I congratulate the member for Kooyong on his excellent leadership on this, which is being driven by the Prime Minister.

When those opposite talk about consultation they might like to take a leaf out of our book too. We have requested that ministers work with departments and create to regulation units within every portfolio. That is the template, South Australian Labor, go and do it. Do not just mess around for another four years.

Another of South Australia Labor's action items is the one-in one-out rule. Well done! We have heard that before haven't we? The one-in one-out rule was tried by the previous federal Labor government, and look where that got them. Do not follow the previous federal Labor government, South Australia, follow the coalition government. Jay Weatherill and the Treasurer, do something for the state, get some results, get some action and stop talking.

In closing, I will go through some points on the bill. Whether it be superannuation, the consolidation and repair of tax provisions, or rewriting the definition of Australia, they are not headline grabbers but they are important. They are significant. They add to better government. They are good policy. We are getting good outcomes and we need to be acknowledged for that.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:14): It is great to follow my friend the member for Hindmarsh on his remarks on this important piece of legislation. Regulatory burdens are a terrible thing and they should be minimised wherever possible. Of course, you cannot get rid of all regulation. We do need some regulation. But there is an enormous amount of government regulation which is counterproductive. As I said in the House the other day, one of the very good examples of counterproductive government regulation is the whole system of international tariffs, which the world is in the process of dismantling. That is a particularly egregious example, but there are many, many examples of red tape and bad regulation that get in the way of people getting stuff done.

The problem is that in the six years which we have just seen pass from 2007 to 2013—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era—the regulatory problems in this nation just got worse and worse. That was because the Labor Party do not fundamentally understand how to get rid of red tape and they do not fundamentally believe in their hearts that it is important. Part of the reason for that is that they have absolutely no experience at ever managing an organisation or trying to get something done in the private sector. That big government style of saying, 'We'll set up a committee, we'll talk about some things, we'll establish a few rules, we'll put out a press release and then we'll go and have a cup of coffee at Aussies,' is not the way to govern. We must always govern with the interests of the Australian business community at heart because they are the people who create jobs.

What is interesting is that the last government commissioned an independent review into its approach to regulation and reducing regulatory burdens. I am sorry to say that that review came back with some very, very damning results. It was not a good report card at all that the previous government got from the independent review which it commissioned—so much so that The Australian in October 2012 chronicled some of the shortcomings listed in the Borthwick Milliner review into government regulation. To quote from its article:

GOVERNMENT ministers are flouting requirements that the impact of new regulations be assessed before decisions are made …

That is not at all consistent with the notion of getting rid of regulation, because if the ministers in charge of getting rid of regulation are not considering regulation prior to passing new legislation there is a pretty fundamental problem in the process.

To quote directly from the review:

None of the ministers consulted saw that regulatory impact statements had any real relevance to their, or cabinet's decision-making …

That was from the report commissioned by the previous government into their own process in relation to regulation. The independent panel found that none of the ministers consulted saw that regulatory impact statements had any real relevance to theirs, or cabinet's, decision making. In that one sentence, any shred of credibility that the previous government would lay claim to in relation to reducing red tape is gone, because none of the ministers consulted by this independent review saw that regulatory impact statements had any impact on their decision-making processes.

There are some other interesting quotes in this very well-written review of the regulatory impact process by Borthwick and Milliner. This one is quite intriguing:

… most agencies indicated that in the majority of cases, a RIS is prepared after the relevant decision has already been made …

That is an interesting way of doing it—to make the decision, commit to a course of action and then look at the regulatory impact and the red tape burden you are creating after you have already made a decision. I might be unusual in this sense, but I always find the way to approach things is to consider the issues prior to making a decision. Once you have made a decision, if you have not considered something, then by definition it has not been in your thought process. As I say, most agencies indicated that, in the majority of cases, regulatory impact statements were prepared after the relevant decision had been made.

There is another interesting quote in the Borthwick Milliner review. I commend that review to you, Deputy Speaker. It was published back in April 2012. The authors said:

… the evidence before the Review suggested that things were often left too late with there being a last minute scramble to pull the RIS—

regulatory impact statement—

together. Often this results in ministers being uninformed or frustrated by the time taken to prepare a RIS which is seen as holding up rather than informing their decision.

This is a very difficult image. It is very sad to hear that ministers were upset and frustrated by the regulatory impact process, but the report says there was a last-minute scramble to pull the statements together and that this resulted in the minister being uninformed or frustrated. I am not sure which is worse. You would think it would clearly be good for them to be informed. They should not have been frustrated because this is a fundamentally important task that is central to discharging your duty as a minister to minimise the regulatory impact on society. But they were either uninformed or frustrated, according to this independent review.

It also says in the review:

If the … Process were operating and performing as intended, Ministers … would rely on and refer to the analysis and evidence contained within it in coming to their decisions – however, this rarely happens in the cases discussed during the Review’s consultation.

So, again, there was no actual consideration of the regulatory impact and crushing burden of red tape prior to it being implemented. This is a very, very important point because the independent review commissioned by those opposite into themselves found that they were completely disinterested in the issue of the regulatory burden they were imposing on the Australian community. It is impossible, then, for them to argue that they were, in fact, concerned with that when the independent review found the opposite. I will come to a little more about what the previous government did in this space a little bit later.

The report goes on to make a number of other observations. One of the concluding comments is a bit of a sad note. It talks about the importance of the impact statement being embraced by ministers and then it says:

If this seemingly low hurdle is an obstacle, it begs the question whether there is, in fact, a ‘real’ Government commitment to take ownership of RIA.

No government commitment.

The other point from the review:

It is clear from the consultation undertaken by the Review that none of the participants or stakeholders believe that the RIA Process (and the RIS) is delivering the benefits that the OECD suggests it should.

It is really just an absolutely damning report into the complete and blatant disregard for the crushing imposition of red tape by the previous government. Rarely is there such a black and white, clear-cut independent condemnation of government policy as we see in this sterling report.

Of course we know how bad a job Labor did in this space. We know that the OECD ranked Australia last year 124th out of 148 nations on the burden of government regulation—this is a list that you want to be at the top of, not at the bottom. Our regulatory burden was deemed to be worse than Colombia. It is really quite frightening. We just beat Iran in terms of the level of government regulation, but we could not quite top Colombia. That is a damning estimate of our position.

And of course the Productivity Commission has weighed in on this and said: 'The cost of regulation in the economy is as much as four per cent of GDP.' Getting rid of these burdens would improve GDP by as much as four per cent.

Given the extraordinary record of the previous government in this space, so eloquently confirmed by the Borthwick-Milliner review, it is remarkable that just a few weeks before the election on 24 July 2013—about six weeks before the election—the Labor Party put out a press release. 'Labor delivers real reforms to cut red tape', it grandly announced. It was such an important issue that they had to have three different people release this exciting information. There was Senator Wong, of course; the Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP; and someone who is no longer with us in this House, the previous member for Lindsay and Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury. He has been rightly removed from his role by the people of Lindsay and replaced by a far more effective current member who is a very strong advocate for the people of western Sydney.

We had the independent review that basically said Labor did nothing in the regulatory impact area and did not care about it—to summarise it in a sensible fashion. That is basically what the report said. But Mark Dreyfus QC said:

Reducing red tape and removing redundant laws, particularly in the customs portfolio, improves the efficiency of businesses engaged in importing and exporting and makes things simpler for all Australians.

So why did they introduce 21,000 new regulations? Why would they put out a press release just six weeks before the election when they had done such an appalling job in this space for the preceding 34 months? It really does beggar belief that they would claim any credibility in this area whatsoever.

There are a number of changes in this bill. Frankly, when you look at the bill, you see they are good changes—very sensible changes. You wonder why they need to be made, because you wonder why the previous government would not have sorted this stuff out before. There have been sensible changes such as some technical issues around the definition of 'Australia', which obviously needs to be cleaned up, as well as a range of other matters which include, of course, those provisions around the definition of 'associates' and the reporting requirements in relation to what associates need to do when involved in a transaction—which is an important point.

Also, there is an important area in the superannuation administration removing the pay slip reporting provisions which were to be introduced and which would have significantly increased the compliance costs for small businesses; that is clearly not something that is in anyone's interests. It also removes some of the various redundant and other inoperative provisions, specifically in the area of taxation. So these are good and sensible changes. It is good that the opposition is supporting these changes; we do welcome them to the cause. We do welcome them to the cause of removing red tape so ably led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. That is what we are entirely focused on.

It is very easy to say red tape; it is two words. It is a whole lot harder to actually do something about it. The Borthwick-Milliner review, that very detailed and considered review from April 2012, is a horrendous indictment on the complete lack of interest in this area by the previous government. They do not have experience in actually running enterprises. They do not have experience in employing people. They do not know what it means to actually be there on the front lines of the economy, employing people, making things happen. They do not know how crushing the burden of red tape can be. That is why they did nothing in the six years they were in government. That is why the Borthwick-Milliner review in its even tone condemned the previous government and all of those opposite so comprehensively. We have to fix up that mess, and that is what we are doing through this legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! It being just about 1:30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (16:22): In the theme of the chamber this afternoon after the shocking and sad loss of Phillip Hughes, I also would like to add my voice to these very, very sad times. He was a young man of nearly 26, with his birthday on Sunday, a man of so much talent in what really is the one sport that unites our entire country. We might divide on rugby league, rugby union and AFL, but cricket unites us all. We have lost a talented young batsman. When you see balls such as that that ultimately took this young life, it takes you back to the days of bodyline and Don Bradman and the bouncers that he faced. It makes you look at what cricket means to our country. I have been sitting here in the last few moments looking through Twitter at the outpouring of emotion from his cricket mates, friends and family, and it is just heartbreaking. I, too, would like to place on the record the sad loss of Phillip Joel Hughes. May he now rest in peace.

Today I rise in support of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. I rise today in support of all business, big and small. For too long these businesses, especially small businesses, have been burdened by unnecessary red tape which has placed heavy demands on owners as well as reduced productivity and investment, stifled job creation, generated uncertainty and sapped confidence. Today I stand here in support of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, which reduces compliance burdens on business owners. The bill implements a range of improvements to Australia's laws and removes costly and unnecessary red tape, a promise we made during the election and a promise we will continue to fulfil way into the future.

This year, we cut $2.1 billion worth of red tape to make life easier, help small business, strengthen our economy and create more jobs. For the first time in history, the Abbott government, to which I am proud to belong, has dedicated two days of parliament each year to removing red tape. During the spring red tape repeal day on 29 October, nearly 1,000 pieces of legislation and regulation, totalling 7,200 pages, were scrapped.

I have listened to the concerns of the people of Lindsay about the burden of red tape right across the electorate, from large manufacturing businesses in St Marys, such as Baker & Provan, a business that has been manufacturing Supercats that will join our military, to specialty businesses along high street Penrith and my regular cafes, such as Belle Saveur and Henri Marc. They are all concerned about too much paperwork. They want running their businesses to be that much easier. That can only be done by reducing unnecessary regulation.

As a result of the recent red tape reduction, nearly half a million small businesses are now exempt from pay-as-you-go requirements, and around 1.4 million myTax users will be able to use pre-populated income tax returns, saving countless hours and costs. Access to government services is now much simpler with seven services now available through the one myGov website. There is practical red tape relief across the board, from one-stop shops for environmental approvals to major projects that hire companies no longer needing to register concrete mixers as vehicles.

Local businessman and Executive Board Member of the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce John Capes has experienced firsthand what it is like to run his own business. He wrote to me describing his experiences and how this bill will help his printing business in Penrith. John said: 'I am a small business owner and have been so for over four years. I am an owner of a local weekly newspaper; I have a consulting business and I assist my partner in running her printing business. Prior to that I worked in the corporate sector for in excess of 20 years. Small business is the largest employer collectively in Australia but a small voice when compared to other industries. My lovely partner, Sharon, and I have four boys and are very much entrenched in the local community of Penrith. As an active member of the community, I sit on charity boards; I am an active member of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service; I sit as an executive at the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, to which we are very passionate about; and we are passionate about being part of the community of Penrith.

'My experience in the corporate sector hid the challenges that small business owners face every single day in running their own businesses. Now, as a small business owner, I can fully appreciate the issues that we all face in dealing with all levels of governments and ensuring compliance with legislation and regulations. This is no more evident than dealing with the taxation laws at the ATO, which I have found my fair share of issues with. Most of us, I am sure, find taxation laws cumbersome, complex and time-consuming.'

Mr Capes went on to say: 'Unlike most corporate employers, small businesses are usually required to deal with meeting all of their reporting outside of normal trading hours as their lives continue with running their businesses. Their focus can be drawn from one thing to another as they focus on just trying to make a living. Currently, I would spend in excess of 10 hours per week on paperwork that ensures I am compliant with one or more levels of government. If the changes in taxation and superannuation under repeal day allows easy and simplified reporting for businesses, this needs to be congratulated, although more needs to be done to improve the time which small business spends on the area of taxation.'

The Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce also commented on this bill: 'The Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce congratulates the government on its reduction 'redpeal' day. Gina Field, President, applauded the simplifications made today in reducing particularly complex provisions and simplifying the administrative burden in the superannuation act as positive for employers and employees alike. We would urge the government to continue simplifications similar to this. Anything that makes legislation easier to understand and implement can only be viewed as positive.'

As you can see, this bill makes legislation easier and takes stress out of paperwork. In amends various laws relating to taxation, superannuation and shareholdings in certain financial sector companies to implement a range of improvements to Australia's laws. Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to repeal the pay slip reporting provisions. Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to report details of employees' superannuation entitlements that accrued during a particular pay period on an employee's pay slip. Repealing the pay slip reporting provisions will save employers from investing in major upgrades in their payment system software with minimal benefits to their employees.

Schedule 2 simplifies taxation laws by consolidating duplicated provisions from various taxation acts into a single set of provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. This act also repeals redundant taxation laws such as the harsh penalty regimes and moves longstanding regulations into primary law. Cleaning up tax laws is very important in taking care of our tax system.

Schedule 3 amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 to remove the deemed shareholding applied to an associate where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company.

Schedule 4 addresses the fact that the definition of 'Australia' for taxation purposes is complex, overly detailed and expressed differently in different parts of the taxation law. Schedule 4 rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law for use across tax laws in a simple, coherent form.

It is with great pleasure that I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is, in fact, here today. He needs to be commended. We went to the last election saying $1 billion year on year, but he has delivered $2 billion, so a gold star to the member. This is fabulous legislation. This is legislation that is actually going to make life so much easier for so many small businesses right across our country. This is why it is important we get this legislation through. That is why it is important that we are out there making life easier for Australians when they deal with any interface with government, be it the tax office, Centrelink or any of the other administrative services that we work with. The work that has been done here through so many pages and pages of legislation is absolutely commended. I do absolutely thank the member for his assistance.

Those opposite left us with 21,000 new regulations. Those are regulations that burden so many Australians businesses. It put so many shackles around the necks of so many businesses right across Lindsay. Leading into the last election, it was one of those things that small business owners would come and speak to me about. They were angry about the constant regulation and changing of the rules—the shifting of the sands. They want to see a government that is there for them, making their life easier. That is what this legislation is about. That is why I stand here today again with this repeal day legislation. Every time the parliamentary secretary puts another repeal day up, I will be speaking on the great work which will be for the people of Australia.