The Red Tape State

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Red Tape State The Red Tape State red tape research report no. 2 Dr Mikayla Novak Senior Research Fellow May 2016 cut red tape to Institute of Public Aairs THE VOICE FOR FREEDOM unleash prosperity ESTABLISHED− 1943 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 Executive Summary As of the end of April 2016, the commonwealth government maintained an estimated 1,181 entities, bodies, and administrative relationships. Of those 1,181 entities and bodies, 497 are estimated to be involved in policy design or enforcement of the federal regulatory system. It is estimated that 444 government bodies established by the Rudd and Gillard governments continue to exist, and 198 of these involved in the regulatory system. A large number of these bodies are regulatory agencies imposing excessive and unnecessary red tape upon the Australian economy, including the Fair Work Commission, National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, Safe Work Australia, and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The Abbott Turnbull government has indicated it has abolished 286 bodies since the 2013 election, but sev- eral bodies previously scheduled for abolition remain in place today. Senate obstruction and other political considerations have allowed the likes of the Australian Charities and Not For Profits Commission, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to continue. The federal government must redouble its efforts to abolish public sector regulators and other public sec- tor bodies, to deliver budget savings and abate the tendency to overregulation. The Annual Deregulation Report series ignores state-local government compliance costs and the non-com- pliance costs of federal, state and local red tape, while the survey methodology used by the government is potentially dubious. This paper identifies 31 federal regulatory bodies that can be abolished, merged, or transferred to the states immediately, both reducing red tape costs and reducing spending pressures on the commonwealth budget. The Red Tape State 2 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 Introduction Government is involved in the modern Australian economy and society in a major way. On a daily basis the fiscal and regulatory functions and roles of government are conducted by numerous public sector entities, bodies, and administrative relationships that are funded or maintained in some other way. From the perspective of taxpayer accountability and value for money to the community, it is essential to closely check the activities undertaken by, or through, government entities, bodies, and administrative relationships. If the scale and scope of government is becoming too excessive then the potential exists to reduce the number of organisations and relationships maintained by government. But to check public sec- tor activity and to advocate reform proposals it is necessary, in the first instance, to identify which bodies exist. This paper provides an outline of the financial and non financial entities, bodies, and administrative rela- tionships maintained by the commonwealth government. We show that there are well over 1,000 federal entities, and that many government bodies introduced by the former Rudd-Gillard government remain intact. This is despite 2013 election commitments by the present Coalition government to repair the budget and reduce red tape, including through the abolition of numerous public sector bodies. This paper also suggests reforms to further reduce the numbers of com- monwealth government regulators and other entities. The Red Tape State 3 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 There are over 1,100 commonwealth government bodies today The commonwealth government maintains a register of financial and non financial entities, bodies, and administrative relationships, which is publicly available online.1 The last update to the register was undertaken by the government in November 2015. We make additional adjustments to the registry list to reflect decisions made in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook,2 released in December 2015, and other publicly announced changes to the end of April 2016 (e.g., the abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal). These adjustments reflect government decisions, either announced or actually implemented, to abolish certain entities. According to the information available, it is estimated that 1,182 commonwealth government entities, bod- ies, and administrative relationships are in existence as at the end of April 2016 (Table 1). This compares to the government’s count of 1,332 entities that existed in September 2013.3 1 Australian Government Organisations Register (AGOR), http://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/ governance/agor/ (accessed 27 April 2016). 2Adjustments do not include Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Advisory Board and Animal Health Laboratory Standards Training Working Group, slated for abolition in MYEFO, as these entities were not (clearly) identified in the November 2015 AGOR spreadsheet of bodies. 3 AGOR, op. cit.. The Red Tape State 4 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 Table 1: Commonwealth government entities, April 2016 Type of federal government Example Number Number of entities entity of entities with regulatory sys- retained tem involvement Department of state and oth- Fair Work Commission 92 58 er non-corporate entities Corporate commonwealth Clean Energy Finance 66 23 entity Corporation Commonwealth company NBN Co Ltd. 15 1 under Corporations Act Policy and stakeholder advi- Australian Multicultural 277 157 sory bodies Council Statutory office holders, -of Anti-Dumping Commis- 196 126 fices and committees sion Separate non-statutory body Australian Small Business 36 7 Commissioner COAG bodies and other in- COAG Disability Reform 87 76 terjurisdictional ministerial Council councils Other interjurisdictional (in- Regional Development 109 10 cluding international) bodies Australia partnerships with state and local gov- ernments Subsidiaries of government Australia Post’s Star Track 203 0 companies and corporations Express parcel service Bodies with at least 50 per Investment-holding sub- 55 0 cent equity ownership by sidiaries for Future Fund government National law bodies result- National Heavy Vehicle 26 26 ing from intergovernmental Regulator agreements Other bodies linked to gov- Australian Communica- 19 13 ernment through statutory tions Consumer Action contracts, agreements and Network delegations Total 1,181 497 Table refers to government financial and non-financial bodies, entities, and relationships established between 24 November 2007 and 7 September 2013, but retained to April 2016. Last update of Australian Government Organisations Register (AGOR) was undertaken in November 2015, with adjustments made to reflect December 2015 MYEFO decisions and other changes (e.g., abolition of Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal). Source: Australian Government Organisations Register, 30 November 2015; IPA analysis. Figure 2 compares the red tape cost estimate in this paper against major forms of taxation and expendi- ture. As is shown in the Figure, red tape costs exceed the likes of income tax, company tax and GST collec- tions and also greater than combined federal-state-local spending on functions such as social security, health, education, public housing, and defence. The Red Tape State 5 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 The accuracy of estimates for the number of commonwealth government bodies should be interpreted with some caution. Some bodies had not been captured in previous portfolio data collections, which then feed into the main register. Other bodies (for example, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency) was ceased in 2014 yet still remained on the commonwealth register as at November 2015. Additional bodies may be subject to reclassifications in later registry iterations, excising them from the register (say, if a given body is reclassi- fied to be out of scope internal management bodies). On the basis of this count of bodies, an effort is then made to assess the extent to which the common- wealth entities are involved in the regulatory process. We adopt a broad conceptualisation which encap- sulates involvement in regulatory policy development and design, as well as regulation compliance and enforcement activities. To illustrate the broad coverage of this definition, bodies involved in regulation not only include those directly responsible for rule making and/or enforcement, such as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The count of entities with regulatory involvement also includes, for example, stakeholder groups organised by government that allow individuals or groups to influence any aspect of the regulation system. It is estimated that of the 1,182 commonwealth entities, bodies, and administrative relationships that exist, 497 (or 42 per cent of the total) are involved in the regulatory process. The Red Tape State 6 IPA RED TAPE RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER 2 Over 400 agencies set up by Rudd and Gillard continue to exist Further analysis of the official list of commonwealth government financial and non-financial entities, bod- ies, and administrative relationships indicates that 443 organisations established between November 2007 and September 2013 remains in place to this day (Table 2).4 It is estimated that of these 443 organisations, it is estimated that 198 (or 45 per cent of the total) have policy or enforcement involvement within the federal regulatory system.
Recommended publications
  • Is the Medical Research Future Fund Fulfilling Its Mission As Promised?
    Is the Medical Research Future Fund fulfilling its mission as promised? Author: Lesley Russell | Editor: Marie McInerney | January 08, 2019 The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) was announced by the Coalition Federal Government, led then by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in the calamitous 2014-15 Budget that delivered massive cuts to proposed health spending and to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. As Croakey contributing editor Dr Lesley Russell writes in the #LongRead below, the MRFF was announced as the salve to those cuts. In a very timely and detailed analysis, Russell looks at what the MRFF has delivered to date, and how much greater transparency is required to enable more effective analysis and accountability. That includes the need for Health Minister Greg Hunt to report to Parliament and taxpayers on how MRFF funding to date is consistent with the priorities developed by the Federal Government and how it is, as promised, building on existing funding for medical research and innovation, and not supplanting it. 1 Croakey will seek a response from the Minister to the concerns raised in the article. Lesley Russell writes As Australia heads to a federal election, it’s timely to look at what is happening to the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), a much-vaunted Coalition commitment to health and innovation that will surely be highlighted again in their election campaigning. I have used publicly available data and information to attempt to assess how much money is available in the MRFF and how this is distributed to date. This has not been an easy task and my accounting may well be inaccurate or incomplete.
    [Show full text]
  • 19 November 2020 the Hon Peter Costello Chairman, Board Of
    19 November 2020 The Hon Peter Costello Chairman, Board of Guardians Future Fund Locked Bag 20010 Melbourne VIC 3001 Re: Future Fund’s investments in Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd Dear Mr Costello, Through a Freedom of Information request, we recently became aware of equity holdings held by the Future Fund in Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd (Adani Ports) valued at AUD$3.2million. We write to express our serious concern that the Future Fund, Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, holds equity in Adani Ports, despite grave human rights concerns regarding Adani Ports’ business in Myanmar. This is in addition to its recently revealed role in the Carmichael coal project in Australia1 and the associated environmental, ecological and climate impacts, which is also a major threat to the Traditional Owners of the land, the Wangan and Jagalingou people. Introduction The Myanmar military (known as the Tatmadaw) is credibly accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, including violations which amount to the commission of grave crimes under international law, crimes which are serious criminal offences against the Commonwealth of Australia.2 These in particular include allegations of: war crimes; crimes against humanity; and genocide against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar. In August 2017, following decades of persecution, the Tatmadaw engaged in ‘clearance operations’ of entire villages across Arakan state, marked by mass killings of civilians, widespread and systematic torture, torching of whole villages, widespread rape and other forms of sexual violence, including against children, and forced mass displacement. In September 2019, the UN Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) concluded that the Rohingya people remain at serious risk of genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention.3 The Rohingya community in Australia have suffered greatly through the actions of the Tatmadaw and the genocidal campaign against the Rohingya.
    [Show full text]
  • 20Year in Review 2 03
    1 Future Fund FY20 Year in Review Fund Future INVESTING FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AUSTRALIANS 20YEAR IN REVIEW 2 03 FY20 YEAR IN REVIEW Future Fund FY20 Year in Review Fund Future FY20 Year in Review Fund Future YEAR AT A GLANCE 04 REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN 06 REPORT FROM THE CEO 08 HOW WE INVEST 10 INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT 12 PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY 14 INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE 16 Future Fund 16 Medical Research FY Future Fund 20 Additional detail on the portfolios and the governance and Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Land and operations of the Future Fund Sea Future Fund, Future Drought Fund and Board of Guardians and Future Fund Management Agency will be Emergency Response Fund published in our 2019-20 annual 22 report in October 2020. For more information visit futurefund.gov.au DisabilityCare Australia Fund Data in this publication is 26 unaudited and subject to finalisation through the normal end of year process. Data may not ORGANISATION HIGHLIGHTS 20 sum due to rounding. 27 04 05 YEAR AT A GLANCE Future Fund FY20 Year in Review Fund Future FY20 Year in Review Fund Future FUTURE billion $16.5 FUND $4.1 billion $4.1 DisabilityCare Australia Fund $4.1 billion $4.1 Emergency FY20 return: 1.3% Response Fund FY20 benchmark Future Fund target: 1.1% $2.0 billion $2.0 Future Return since Drought Fund 1 April 2020: 3.4% 10 year return: 9.2% pa Balance at 30 June 2020: $16.5 billion 10 year benchmark target: 6.1% pa billion $17.2 Aboriginal and Torres Return since Balance at 30 June FY20 return: -0.9% Strait Islander Land 1 April
    [Show full text]
  • Future Funds Or Future Eaters? the Case Against a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Australia
    Future Funds or Future Eaters? The Case Against a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Australia Robert Carling and Stephen Kirchner Related CIS publications Policy Monographs PM98 Robert Carling and Stephen Kirchner, Fiscal Rules for Limited Government: Reforming Australia’s Fiscal Responsibility Legislation (2009). PM108 Robert Carling, The Unfinished Business of Australian Income Tax Reform (2010). Future Funds or Future Eaters? The Case Against a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Australia Robert Carling and Stephen Kirchner National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: Carling, Robert Future funds or future eaters? the case against a sovereign wealth fund for Australia / Robert Carling ; Dr Stephen Kirchner. ISBN: 9781864322088 (pbk.) Series: CIS policy monographs, 126. Sovereign wealth funds--Australia. Investment of public funds--Australia. Australia--Economic conditions. Other Authors/Contributors: Kirchner, Stephen, 1968- Centre for Independent Studies (Australia) 332.672520994 Future Funds or Future Eaters? The Case Against a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Australia Robert Carling and Stephen Kirchner CIS Policy Monograph 126 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank John Freebairn for comments on an earlier draft. All errors are the responsibility of the authors. Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................vi Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 What’s
    [Show full text]
  • Consortium Agrees Strategic Partnership with Telstra Infraco Towers
    Consortium agrees strategic partnership with Telstra InfraCo Towers 30 June, 2021 The Future Fund and Morrison & Co today announced an agreement for an Australasian consortium to acquire 49 per cent of InfraCo Towers from Telstra Ltd, which represents the largest network of mobile tower sites in Australia. The consortium comprises the Future Fund as its largest investor, Sunsuper and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC), and is managed by Morrison & Co. Telstra InfraCo Towers owns and operates approximately 8,200 tower assets including over 5,500 mobile towers supporting critical digital infrastructure throughout Australia. The transaction values the business at A$5.9 billion, recognising the significant strategic value of the high-quality, well-located assets, with the transaction expected to complete in Q3 2021. Dr Raphael Arndt, CEO of the Future Fund, said, "We are a large investor in Australian infrastructure which plays an important role in our portfolio. This investment further strengthens our exposure to digital infrastructure and the long-term thematic of data growth. We are pleased to partner with Telstra to play an important role in strengthening Australia’s 5G infrastructure. The long-term growth potential and defensive cash flow profile of this investment is a valuable fit with our focus on diversification across the portfolio." Marko Bogoievski, CEO of Morrison & Co, said, "We are pleased to have supported the consortium to secure this investment in essential mobile connectivity for local communities across the country. Telstra InfraCo Towers should deliver consistent long-term returns for our investors, supported by strong data growth and rising consumer and enterprise demand for mobile capacity and coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of 2014‐15 Health Budget: Unfair and Unhealthy
    Analysis of 2014‐15 Health Budget: Unfair and Unhealthy Dr Lesley Russell Adj Associate Professor Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney September 2014 1 About this budget analysis This analysis looks at the health and related provisions in the Australian Government’s 2014‐15 Budget. This is done in the light of current and past strategies, policies, programs and funding, and is supported, where possible, by data drawn from Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, reports and published papers. This year’s analysis has been delayed, due in large part to the constantly changing political landscape as the Abbott Government struggles to sell its policies. This delay does mean that new information about federal health expenditures and the impact of the proposed changes can be included. However at the time of completion, the future for major policy initiatives such as co‐payment changes remains uncertain. Mental health provisions in the Budget have been previously analysed and this report is available at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/10611 Indigenous affairs issues in the Budget have been previously analysed and this report is available at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/11442 The opinions expressed are those of the author who takes sole responsibility for them and for any inadvertent errors. Lesley Russell [email protected] 2 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Select Committee Into the Abbott Government's
    Submission to The Select Committee into the Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts August, 2014 1 Introduction The Queensland Nurses’ Union (QNU) thanks the Senate Select Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts. Nurses1 are the largest occupational group in Queensland Health and one of the largest across the Queensland government. The QNU is the principal health union in Queensland covering all categories of workers that make up the nursing workforce including registered nurses (RN), registered midwives, enrolled nurses (EN) and assistants in nursing (AIN) who are employed in the public, private and not-for-profit health sectors including aged care. Our more than 50,000 members work across a variety of settings from single person operations to large health and non-health institutions, and in a full range of classifications from entry level trainees to senior management. The vast majority of nurses in Queensland are members of the QNU. At the outset, we call on the Australian Senate to continue to reject entirely: the proposed Medicare Co-payment and health funding arrangements; the proposed changes to funding and fee-setting arrangements in higher education; all other outstanding budget initiatives that give rise to entrenched inequality in this country. Following the release of the reports of the commission of audit whose findings influenced many of the budget propositions, the QNU and our peak body the ANMF engaged John Moran an historian and researcher to provide a detailed response. This submission draws on his work to comment on some of the areas where we believe the 2014-5 federal budget will produce detrimental effects to Australian workers and society in general.
    [Show full text]