Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the current inquiry by the Regulation Task Force into the subject of reducing the regulatory burden on business. Whilst recognising the significance in corporate cost structures and productivity, the inquiry’s initial discussion paper seems largely preoccupied with ways of reducing regulation as opposed to actually accomplishing good regulation. The discussion paper quotes from various business sources at length, yet makes no reference to consumer needs and demands. To this end, whilst not seeking to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry, it is essential the task force gives serious consideration to valuable, easily obtainable consumer views. In their submission to the inquiry, the Australian Consumer Association, ACA, stated:

We want as little regulation as possible—but as much as is needed. The idea that the size of the problem can be measured by the amount of regulation in the statute books—the “quantity theory of regulation”—is dangerously simplistic. Much of the regulation introduced in the past 20 years has been required by new developments in technology, markets, demography, societal expectations or government policy.

The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs.

The Productivity Commission task force discussion paper borrows heavily from the recent Business Council of Australia report titled Business regulation action plan for future prosperity. The BCA’s report is essentially concerned with reducing regulation for big business whilst ignoring the impact such reform will have on consumers and their small business competitors. Whilst it is important for governments to consider the cost of regulation on all business sectors, nevertheless the guiding motivation underpinning any regulation or government reform should always be the public benefit. Again, in their submission to the task force the ACA argued:

The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs.

The BCA position essentially posits that regulation should be the last, not the first, response of government. The approach adopted by regulators such as the ACCC and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission takes a very pragmatic handle whereby regulations can sit in view of the purpose and the aim of intervention; the nature of industry, whether it is service or goods, emerging or mature; the size and the structure of the industry; the geographic spread and cohesiveness of the industry— (Time expired)

See this speech in context