Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:57): Well, what a cock-up. Goodness me. We all make mistakes. I'm not immune to making mistakes, and I'm sure others aren't either. To explain what's happened here for those watching or listening into this debate: essentially, ASIC was charging fees that they weren't entitled to charge under the legislation passed by this place for a number of years, and it wasn't picked up for a number of years. Something in the order of $68 million was paid by business owners all over Australia in fees that they shouldn't have been charged under the way the legislation was drafted. Congratulations to the members of ASIC's internal audit team who picked up the error. Hats off to you for picking up the error. We are now faced with the issue as to whether or not we should retrospectively change the law such that the fees that were paid were required to be paid. Under the law that was passed by this place, fees were inappropriately levied against businesses across Australia. Sixty-eight million dollars worth were collected where there was no lawful basis to collect those fees, and now we're seeking to go back in time over a number of years and, ex post facto—after the event—change the law such that those overpaid fees don't have to be repaid to thousands of business owners across the country. So what are we to do in a case such as this? I note the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's report supporting this bill, and, on the basis that this falls into that very rare category—and I should say it should always be a rare category—of cases where it was always the intention that the fees charged under the law as it was passed years ago should be the fees that were charged and on the basis that business understood that those were the fees they should be charged, I think this situation stumbles over the line in favour of retrospective legislation. I'm prepared to support it on that basis. But let me say a few things about this. First, where is the QA/QC, the quality assurance and quality control, being undertaken in relation to this legislation? What happened in relation to this legislation such that this mistake was made? Legislation that comes into this place has to go through numerous scrutiny processes, and if nothing else this situation underlines the fact that the scrutiny processes are important. Even before the legislation gets into this place, we would reasonably expect that the QA/QC, quality assurance quality control, which this government expects the businesses out there to be engaging in every day, would apply with respect to the government agencies that are imposing fees. So something happened before the legislation reached this place. Something happened when the legislation entered into the domain of the relevant minister's office. Why wasn't it picked up then? Why wasn't it picked up in the House of Representatives or in the committee processes and the House of Representatives? Why wasn't it picked up in the Senate or in the committee processes of the Senate? And how do we make sure that this sort of error doesn't happen again such that we're here so many years later? It is 14 years later that we're here passing a piece of retrospective legislation. For 14 years Australian businesses have been charged fees which they were not lawfully required to be charged, and they paid those fees. Here we are fixing the mess. I note the various statements with respect to an inadvertent error, a mistake. It's a tidy-up et cetera. Well, I would expect a little bit more. I would expect an admission that the QA/QC processes weren't in place as they should have been in place. I would expect an explanation as to how we make sure this doesn't happen not just in the domain of ASIC fees but in the plethora of fees, charges and regulations which are imposed on businesses owners all across this country—especially small-business owners. There were thousands of small-business owners caught up in this debacle. Where were your QA/QC processes? What sort of tolerance would there be for a small business that made this mistakes vis-a-vis their engagement with government agencies? Every day, this place passes laws which impose additional burdens, regulations and imposts on small businesses that are working their guts out just to stay alive, just to keep their heads above water. Those small businesses employ millions and millions of Australians. They drive the Australian economy. So I would expect more than just: 'Oh, well. We made a mistake. We overcharged thousands of Australians $68 million in total. Sorry, but we're just going to change it retrospectively such as we, as a matter of law, assume that the law was 14 years ago what we intended it to be but we cocked up.' I'd expect more. I'd expect some self-reflection. I'd expect some reflection upon the impost that we place on small businesses in this country who are trying to provide for themselves and their families and their employees. And I would expect, at the very least, some sort of discussion in relation to how we make sure that this doesn't happen again. Where are the enhanced scrutiny processes? Where are the additional checks and balances going to be? Do we have any of these other issues lurking in the myriad of regulations, the hundreds of regulations, that go through this place every year? How are we going to make sure this doesn't happen again? So, whilst I say, in my view, that this bill stumbles across the line to justify its passage, and I take the recommendation from the economics committee of this place seriously in that regard—and in many ways I'll defer to their judgement in this regard—I think there need to be some lessons learned. We should always remember that, when this place passes laws, imposes fees and places additional obligations on the small businesses of this country, we need to be very careful and mindful of the obligations imposed upon them, because they're generating wealth, prosperity and jobs for all Australia.