Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (16:09): I rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance because I know there is a lot of interest in and talk about getting rid of red tape and reducing regulation. For that, we are all supportive. Red tape ought to go as much as is possible. Unnecessary redundant regulations ought to go wherever possible. That is exactly what Labor did in government and we did it in spades, but we did not crow about it and we did not have special days in honour of doing the normal work of business. It is what a government ought to do every single day. It is what a government ought to do as a matter of normal business. It is what governments should be doing. We need to examine very closely what this mob are up to when they say that they are cutting red tape and getting rid of regulation. It is actually a very big smokescreen. It is a big cloak for what they are actually doing which is removing consumer protections and taking away hard fought and hard won protections. When people come to see me—whether they are consumers or small businesses—they often come about things that burden them, about things that are happening in the market and about things for which the government ought to be doing more to protect them. So they often come about the two things—yes we want to get rid of red tape, yes we want to make life easier—and that is exactly what Labor did in government. We did it with business name registrations, which used to be an absolute nightmare under the mob from across the way, the Liberals and the Nationals. During their time you were required to register your business in seven different jurisdictions across the states and territories, either by paper or online. There was a different system in all of them and if you wanted to register your small business across Australia, it would cost over $1,000 and take you an enormous deal of effort. What Labor did to reduce red tape, to get rid of regulations and to reduce the cost was to actually do it properly and do it by making sure that we had an online system, seven days a week, 24 hours of the day. It worked absolutely fantastically for small businesses. Mr Christensen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister might want to relate to the House how that result now takes months to achieve rather than days. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): There is no point of order. Mr RIPOLL: What they have forgotten is simply this: they have forgotten the damage that is being done to ordinary mums and dads through the Storm Financial collapse. About $4 billion of life savings of ordinary mums and dads cannot be recouped. That is what happened under the poor culture and poor practices in the financial services sector. Labor did not just watch it happen; we did something about it. In fact, we did a lot of the heavy lifting. We made sure over the past five years that something was being done significantly to protect consumers, something that the consumers were wanting and demanding and something that this government will completely dismantle and rip away, under the guise of red tape and of getting rid of bureaucracy. This is not what people expected. The former Labor government put in a best interests duty to make sure that advisers would act in the best interests of their clients. We put in an opt-in clause, requiring advisers to make sure that they go back to their clients once every two years—that is not too onerous—to ask, 'Is it okay if we keep taking money out of your account?' I am sure most people on the other side would want to know, maybe even more than once in every two years, if somebody was taking money out of their account. They might even want to know what are they taking the money for. I have had a close look at what these changes actually do. When the former, the stood-aside, Assistant Treasurer gets his stuff through, when it actually becomes part of the new regulations, it will mean that a firm, an institution or a bank can change the amount they charge you, they can change the length of the agreement and they do not have to inform you. They do not have to disclose it. It is specifically written in. This is the tragedy of what these guys do not understand. They are not going to read the detail because for them it is all just about sweeping away red tape. You are sweeping away red tape but you are also sweeping away the protections that ordinary mums and dads have in investment and financial world. There are some very important measures in place, whether they are in best interests, in the opt-in or in the annual disclosure, so that every single one of you actually knows what you are getting and what you are being charged. We got rid of banned commissions, which everybody in this sector agreed with. Now they are going to change the definition of 'advice' and reintroduce banned commissions. They are going to get rid of the catch-all and the safe harbour, and they are going to scrap opt-in. Worst of all, this has been a shambolic process from day one with draft legislation being dropped a couple of days before Christmas and people having until the middle of January to respond, while not taking it through the scrutiny of the House.