Table of Contents
The title of this chapter is somewhat provocative and is intended to focus attention on the question of whether or not regulatory reform in Australia is only about cutting red tape and achieving national consistency. My experience as a state government official for some 15 years, in both line and central agencies, suggests that there exists a dominant view that regulatory reform will only deliver value when it is about achieving simplicity and consistency. This appears to be the orthodox view across all governments at both Commonwealth and state levels. There is, of course, considerable value in creating regulatory environments that are simple and easy to follow for all participants. In a federal structure, for example, where inter-jurisdictional transactions and cross border services operate, treating these activities in a consistent manner makes sense for the organisations and individuals concerned. However, one of the keys for successfully managing organisations within the modern world is about building the capacity to operate and work within complex regulatory systems. As Quiggin (2006) claims, innovation and diversity are more enduring than neat and tidy arrangements based on uniformity and simplicity. If we are to achieve the capacity to operate complex systems then we need systems that enable organisations to effectively operate within those diverse and complex regulatory environments.
The argument that follows is similar to the position put forward by Twomey and Withers in their recent paper on Australian federalism (2007). They argue that reform efforts should focus on working within our system of governance to improve our capacity to reallocate roles and responsibilities and improve mechanisms of intergovernmental cooperation. Their argument suggests that rather than work only to reduce complicated arrangements and diversity, governments should also work to harness the benefits of federalism. This will result, they argue, in more flexible and responsive government, promoting innovation and efficiency through competition (Twomey and Withers 2007:6).
The chapter is divided into six sections, followed by a conclusion. The first examines what is meant by expanding the regulatory reform process to include building regulatory capacity across policy sectors. The second looks at the increasing trend to a centralisation of decision-making in Australia’s federal system. The third analyses some of the negative impacts associated with the use of targets as a means for regulatory reform. The fourth and fifth sections, following Steane and Carroll, suggest that, in practice, regulatory systems necessarily are becoming more complex, not less, despite the waves of regulatory reform that have occurred. The sixth section examines the case of the National Transport Commission (NTC) in relation to regulatory reform in land transport.