Over-regulation and its friends

I have a piece in the Herald Sun today, Over-regulation strangling much chance of success, which addresses the continually losing battle against the regulatory boa constrictor.  Not easy to access on line but here is an ungated version.

It features the Illegal Logging Act, a Gillard initiative in support of the WWF campaign against forestry, that has now captured the Liberal government.  The WWF aim is to close down any but plantation forestry (and they’re not too keen on that as well) partly funding this by industry (ie consumers) contributions.  These take the form of Indulgencies that guarantee immunity from prosecution for firms who pay them a bribe rather than trying to trace the provenance of every scrap of wood they import.

The article also addresses the precarious state of UK which is losing its steel industry due to the same sort of renewable energy policies  measures that are being copied by the Turnbull Government.  And to the plight of miners facing hard times in markets while being assaulted by regulatory authorities under pressure from greens and nimbys.

Finally it draws attention to the boomerang affect that plain packaging of cigarettes has had – in undermining brand identification the market has been, at least partially, commoditised resulting in price reductions that, as night follows day, bring higher consumption levels.  Even clear proof of this is insufficient to convince the health advocates, while the Greens are going one further and calling for plain packaging of toys – obviously a step into banning all forms of marketing and product identification.

Eternal vigilance by regulatory review authorities seems to be insufficient to stop the rot.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Over-regulation and its friends

  1. teddy bear

    The problem is the areas which need regulation don’t get appropriate regulation because of lobby groups which corrupt the regulations to suit them and the areas which either don’t or other regulations already cover them get regulated to death because of lobby groups.

    Our governments are both incompetent and complicant in desperately chasing the media cycle and fawning over lobby groups that they shouldn’t even be letting in the door.

  2. Stackja

    Voters are to blame.
    They let the scumfilth take over.

  3. Baldrick

    The argument also extends to foreign investment, where the evil socialists are all to ready to protest against anybody from overseas willing to spend a dime in this country on anything that hasn’t had the Green or Red stamp of approval.

  4. Stackja

    Baldrick – Open cut mines in urban areas should be popular.

  5. Not surprised

    “Eternal vigilance by regulatory review authorities seems to be insufficient to stop the rot.”

    Yes, Regulatory Impact Analysis processes around Australia have been unsuccessful at stopping poor regulation. These processes are now viewed by many (including ministers, regulatory oversight bodies, government departments, industry and consumer groups) as bureaucratic red tape (see 2012 PC RIA Benchmarking report and the 2012 Borthwick and Milliner Review of the Commonwealth RIA process).

    While regulatory review processes suggest that a rigorous evaluation has been followed, all that really happens is the department talks up the Minister’s option and talks down any alternatives that are not consistent with government policy. Very little objective analysis of options or cost-benefit tradeoffs are examined. In short, they are generally a con job that is ticked and flicked by the ”independent” oversight body (if it knows what is good for it!). So it is not surprising that poor regulation gets made in Australia.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Next:

    Plain packaging of chocolates (obesity)
    Plain packaging of fizzy drinks (da ebil sugar)
    Plain packaging of salt (bad for you)
    Plain packaging of beer, wine and spirits (ditto)
    Plain packaging of petrol (bad for Gaia)
    Plain packaging of cars (road accidents)
    Plain packaging 0f clothes (inequality)

    We should therefore all wear Mao suits and drive Trabants.

  7. johninoxley

    Plain packaging of poltical is called for and if that doesn’t work a revolution might.

  8. 1234

    Usual bullshit from the industry spiv and shill A Moran. Eternal vigilance is needed to stop the creeping fascism industry wants and their destruction of our society and environment in the name of “progress”.

  9. Simon/other

    The traditional response to over regulation is feigned ignorance followed by followed by total community apathy in it’s compliance. The businesses that wish to do the right thing will go broke (good) and the unscrupulous will make it rich. Dishonesty is just so different from illegality, it’s the quintessential philosophy underpinning most Australian relationships. Charge a man too much for black market smokes and your dishonest (call the cops), sell them at the right price and everybody wins, oh and it’s still illegal, yet no ones feels a pang of discomfort.

  10. James Gibson

    and their destruction of our society and environment in the name of “progress”.

    If you don’t want to participate in human progress, you should go and live in the woods — and don’t even think of coming back when you’ve got a nasty eye infection that’s slowly eating away the inside of your skull.

    Environmentalism is probably the most utterly stupid ideology ever devised.

  11. rickw

    Usual bullshit from the industry spiv and shill A Moran. Eternal vigilance is needed to stop the creeping fascism industry wants and their destruction of our society and environment in the name of “progress”.

    You wear progress, live in progress, eat progress and probably drive progress.

    Please hand it all back, henceforth you will be permitted only to wear sackcloth and own one goat.

  12. rickw

    Govermment has decided that its main KPI is tons of regulations per annum. We are screwed.

  13. Some History

    Eternal vigilance is needed to stop the creeping fascism industry wants and their destruction of our society and environment in the name of “progress”.

    Ya vol, commandant!

  14. wreckage

    1234 does know that fascism is characterized by government direction, but not ownership, of industry… right? Or does he think it’s just a more edjumkated way of saying “fuckers”?

  15. slow&easy

    Numbers, go and spread your BS somewhere else.

    Some History,
    Jawohl is just a, mostly, military expression of strong affirmative. Nothing to do with the nazies still used today.

  16. Cannibal

    Eternal vigilance is needed to stop the creeping fascism industry wants and their destruction of our society and environment in the name of “progress”.

    Yes, absolutely. Shoot all progressives. nadt

  17. John Michelmore

    1234, Destruction of our society is already well under way, and the cause is socialism and communism. I doubt if Alan Moran or industry had much to do with this destruction at all . Manufacturing Industry is currently being decimated as a result, and Australia is headed for the biggest crunch it has ever experienced! Unless there is money for environmental work, from a vibrant economy the environment will degrade faster than ever, because our environment has been so modified by humans startingat least when the aborigines arrived or invaded Australia 50 odd thousand years ago.

  18. Tekweni

    When you watch those scifi movies that control people you realise that they are not fiction but the future.

  19. Supplice

    Please hand it all back, henceforth you will be permitted only to wear sackcloth and own one goat.

    Has the Goat Regulatory Board determined whether said goat is to be for milk, meat or copulation only?

  20. Rob MW

    “Eternal vigilance by regulatory review authorities seems to be insufficient to stop the rot.”

    Alan – I don’t think that that is even enough. That most RISs simply talk through their hats to promote government policy and for which these consultants pick up a handsome government contract and probably based on the promise of picking up other government contracts is a given.

    Have a go at this RIS where the authors are considering the regulatory impact on property that neither the government or the community has any equity in. Simply amazing arrogance and ignorance by the government commissioned consultants.

    Link

    “The Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 is due for staged repeal on 1 September 2012, unless remade or a postponement to the repeal is granted by the Premier. Section 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 requires that a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) be prepared when making a new Regulation or remaking an existing Regulation. The RIS must include:

    a) a statement of the objectives sought to be achieved and the reasons for them;

    b) identification of the alternative options by which those objectives can be achieved (whether wholly or substantially);

    c) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed statutory rule, including the costs and benefits relating to resource allocation, administration and compliance;

    d) an assessment of the costs and benefits of each alternative option to the making of the statutory rule (including the option of not proceeding with any action), including the costs and benefits relating to resource allocation, administration and compliance;

    e) an assessment as to which of the alternative options involves the greatest net benefit or the least net cost to the community; and

    f) a statement of the consultation program to be undertaken.

    This RIS sets out the analysis of the impact of the proposed Native Vegetation Regulation 2012 and other alternative native vegetation management approaches, compared to a base case option of no regulation.”

    FMD, an assessment as to which of the alternative options involves the greatest net benefit or the least net cost to the community – the vegetation law doesn’t cost the ‘community’ any fucking thing but costs the landowners, in some cases, every fucking thing. Fairdinkum, you can’t make this stuff up.

  21. JohnA

    Supplice #1992915, posted on April 1, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Please hand it all back, henceforth you will be permitted only to wear sackcloth and own one goat.

    Has the Goat Regulatory Board determined whether said goat is to be for milk, meat or copulation only?

    That’s too much wealth for him!

    He should be entitled to one used matchstick – the one which Seagoon gave so generously to Moriarty (The Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler of Bexhill on Sea).

  22. Alan moran

    Rob MW
    It sure is an uphill battle with the cards heavily stacked against those of us who believe in liberty, small govt, property rights etc. That said the regulatory review people do try – they stopped plain packaging till Gillard made a captains pick on it and they put other measures through considerable hoops, as I have experienced in both the Vic and C/W contexts. That said they will not risk self preservation by opposing idiocy that is strongly supported by other bureaucrats and the ministers they so easily capture.

    At least reg. Review means introducing a form of bureaucracy on govt that diverts some of their efforts from dreaming up additional measures by which to oppress us!

  23. .

    e) an assessment as to which of the alternative options involves the greatest net benefit or the least net cost to the community

    That would be to stop spying on the citizenry.

  24. Rob MW

    “That said the regulatory review people do try –………………..”

    Alan – I would respectively have to disagree. From the linked RIS (above) we get this absolute dribble in their endorsement of the proposed government action:

    Option 1 (Base case) – No regulation would exist – this situation would create procedural and administrative problems with many sections of the Act. Government would be unable to achieve the objectives outlined in the Act.

    Option 2 (Instate the proposed Native Vegetation Regulation 2012) – The proposed Native Vegetation Regulation 2012 would be based on the existing Native Vegetation Regulation 2005, but contain a number of amendments to the current Regulation. This Regulation would enable government to achieve the objectives as outlined in the Act with more streamlined assessment processes and establishment of new exemptions for routine agricultural management activities.

    Option 3 (Remake the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005) – The Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 would be remade in its current form. This Regulation would enable Government to achieve the objectives as outlined in the Act.

    And a little bit further on:

    A series of costs would be incurred if there were no regulation in place (i.e. under Option 1) when compared to the situation where a regulation is in place (Options 2 and 3).
    These costs include:

    • increase in landholder costs of preparing and assessing clearing applications;
    • agency assessment costs would increase per application associated with a decrease
    • in the regional flexibility that is documented in the regulation and associated EOAM;
    • compliance costs would increase, in particular activities currently described in the regulation as RAMAs;
    private landholder benefits that are derived from the flexibility enabled by a regulation would be reduced;
    and environmental benefits would decrease.

    The only question is; What the f*^k ? They obviously didn’t consider the proposition that no regulation would be a huge property rights and financial benefit by rendering the ‘Act’ inoperable over any fee simple agriculture enterprises and more importantly, restoring the integrity of the Torren System. These absolute consultancy morons should return to the taxpayers their money.

  25. Natural Instinct

    REGULATIONS REGARDING THE TRAPPING OF POSSUMS
    .
    NSW Licence Needed
    ACT Permit Required
    QLD Licenced Commercial Possum Relocators ONLY
    SA Permit Required
    WA Licenced Commercial Possum Relocators ONLY
    TAS Permit Required
    VIC License Required

Comments are closed.