The world of politicians gets deeper and deeper into spin, and so far no
production of the Abbott government rates higher on the spin cycle than
last week's Repeal Day.
Hands up if you believe in red tape? No, I
thought not. So how about we package up a huge pile of window dressing
with some worthwhile but minor measures, slip in a few favours for our
big business supporters and generous donors, and call it the most
vigorous attack on red tape ever? This will give a veneer of credibility
to our claim it will do wonders for the economy.
In the process,
of course, we'll have changed the meaning of "red tape". It's meant to
mean bureaucratic requirements that waste people's time without
delivering any public benefit. In the hands of the spin doctors,
however, it's being used to encompass everything from removing dead
statutes to the supposed deregulation of industries.
Repealing
redundant laws and regulations dating back as far as 1900 is mere window
dressing. By definition they don't waste anyone's time - if they did
they'd have been repealed long ago. Their primary purpose is to allow
Tony Abbott to quote huge numbers: today I announce the abolition of
more than 1000 acts of Parliament and the repeal of more than 9500
regulations. A trick you can pull only once.
Somewhere in there is
some genuine, time-wasting red tape we're better off without, but it
doesn't add up to much - hence the need for so much padding. Governments
of both colours are always promising to roll back red tape, mainly
because it gives people such an emotional charge.
But while it's
true there are examples of mindless, unreasonable bureaucratic rules and
requirements that could be eliminated or greatly simplified at no loss
to anyone, much alleged red tape is in the mind of the beholder: it's
red tape if you don't like it and good governance if you do.
There
are plenty of small business people who'd try telling you supplying
information to the Bureau of Statistics was "pointless red tape", maybe
even filling out tax returns. In an era when big business is going
overboard on "metrics", it's whingeing about the "reporting burden" the
government imposes so it - and the rest of us - can know what's going on
in the economy.
When business isn't complaining about "compliance
costs" it's demanding greater transparency and accountability from
governments. Guess what? They're opposite sides of the same coin. The
world is and always will be full of compliance costs. The sensible
questions are whether they're higher than they need to be and whether
the benefits of compliance outweigh the costs.
The notion that all
so-called red tape comes from power-crazed bureaucrats is a delusion.
Most excessive regulation comes from politicians. Sometimes they act at
the behest of lobbyists for particular industries, sometimes they're
merely trying to create the appearance of action (an old favourite is
laws to make illegal something that's already against the law) and
sometimes they pass an act to impress the punters while carefully
leaving loopholes and escape hatches for the industry pros.
But
the most objectionable feature of the whole red tape Repeal Day charade
is the way it has been used as cover for rent-seeking by the Coalition's
industry backers. It's an open secret the protections for investors
provided by the Future of Financial Advice legislation are being watered
down at the behest of the big banks, which want to be freer to
incentivise unqualified sales people to sell inappropriate investment
products to mug punters.
Then there's the strange case of the
Charity Commission,which was set up only recently to reduce inefficient
regulation and red tape. It's to be abolished despite the objections of
most charities, presumably because the Catholic Church doesn't like it.
It's being claimed all these dubious doings will "drive productivity,
innovation and employment opportunities", not to mention "creating the
right environment for businesses of all sizes to thrive and prosper and
to drive investment and jobs growth".
Yeah sure. The claimed
savings of $700 million a year (don't ask how that figure was arrived
at) are equivalent to 0.04 per cent of GDP, and yet they'll work
wonders. Must be an incredible multiplier effect.
We're told we'll
be getting at least two Repeal Days a year, with the goal of achieving
savings worth $1 billion a year. Really, a minimum of six Repeal Days in
Abbott's first term? What's the bet that promise will be quietly
buried?
But for as long as this pseudo reform lasts it seems it's intended as a substitute for genuine deregulation.
