Below are just a few questions to start discussion:

1. What lessons can we learn from good regulators?

2. How could regulators use technology to regulate better? What are the barriers to its uptake?

3. Do you know of examples where alternative regulatory systems such as self regulation, co‑regulation or standards have delivered better outcomes than a traditional command and control model?

I will be logging in daily next week to participate in the discussion and look forward to talking with you.

My interest in the debate surrounding regulation is perhaps a little philosophical. I understand the Minister's committment to streamline regulation across the different states, to make it easier for businesses to grow and prosper, however I question a committment to de-regulation as such.

As we're seeing from the current global financial malaise, it's short sighted and quite frankly irresponsible for governments not to regulate the private sector. Especially those sectors of the economy on which we all depend. It is important for governments to set standards for the amount of credit banks can provide and the solvency of the individuals to which that credit is provided, just as it's the use of chemicals in agriculture, a base level of wages accross the community, a base level of education to which we all should reach regardless of economic circumstance and so on ...

My concern is that regulation has become a negative concept within the economy because we focus on poor regulation whilst not recognising the successes of our regulatory system. For all its faults Australia is a progressive, strong economy, where most people have access to the basic necessities of life, and most good business ideas have a chance to suceed. This is all due to good regulation, and good managment.

A CEO implements rules, projects and practices within a company in order to be successful and productive, and the goverment, especially the Federal Government should do the same at a macro-economic and macro-social level.

While it sounds cheeky I'd encourage the minister to change his title from minister for de-regulation to minister for strategic regulation, because while I agree there are many areas where regulation needs to be changed, updated and streamlined, regulation itself is not the enemy here.

Poor regulation is the enemy.

Thank you for participating in this forum, and I'm looking forward to reading the minister's response.

Just quickly, I have a few immediate thoughts about the three questions Minister Tanner has raised.

The lesson that governments need to learn from good regulators is to be adaptive. Regulators need to be ready to change when necessary to stay connected with society.

The vision, or intention, of any regulation will only translate into an actual outcome when the vision, settings and incentives are aligned.

Regulators should use technology because it provides marvellous opportunities for stakeholder engagement, particularly online collaborative processes. The main barriers to uptake are transparency issues, rules of engagement between public servants and the regulated entities. To be effective, people need to feel confident there will be a genuine, two-way dialogue that can occur within a reasonable timeframe.

Second Track processes have demonstrated a capacity to produce better outcomes in many instances than the traditional command and control models. Global Access Partners (GAP) has initiated a number of second track pilots in fields such as urban water, philanthropy, health and many more, which have produced some remarkable results.

To read more about how second track processes work, click here.

To read more about why I think they are so important please see my blog The 'Second Track' Process: a Civil Solution.

Peter Fritz

Thanks for your early comments

Douglascomms, while I won't be asking the Prime Minister for a change in title, I agree with you that deregulation is more sophisticated than simply trying to cut down the number of regulations on the books. We want better regulation. In some cases this will mean getting rid of outdated, unnecessary regulation, but in others the focus will be on improving the existing regulation.

The recent global financial turmoil has highlighted the importance of having good regulation. Australia's strong prudential regulatory framework means that we have very well-capitalised financial institutions. The four pillars policy, which promotes competition between the banks, is more important than ever.

Another part of improving regulation is to make sure we have regulation which is fit for purpose. As Russell points out, in markets with high levels of transparency or repeated interaction models of self or co-regulation can operate effectively. For example, the UK ‘Scores on the Doors' program makes the results of food hygiene inspections publicly available, encouraging consumers to vote with their feet rather than relying only on administrated penalties or sanctions.

In other markets where the consequences of non‑compliance are very serious (for example, aviation safety) prescriptive regulations with serious penalties for breach may be more suitable.

Russell, I was also interested in your comments about how small businesses become aware of regulation. The Victorian model you mention sounds interesting and I will look at this in more detail. It sounds quite similar to the new Business Enterprise Centres we announced in the 2008-09 Budget. These centres are designed to operate as one-stop advice shops for small business.

One thing I am investigating is how we can reduce the compliance burden for business, especially for small business, by making it easier to find out which regulations apply to your business and when new regulations are coming into force. Are there other small business people out there who think this would be useful?

Michael, thanks for your comments about ways we could fully utilise Web 2.0 tools. As part of the online consultation trials I am hoping we can do some experiments with crowd-sourcing along the lines you suggest. I'd be interested in what others think about these options.

Thanks again for your detailed comments. I will be logging back in tomorrow and look forward to further discussion throughout the week.

Regards

Lindsay Tanner

Michael Gill makes an excellent point "The Minister may consider the use of Web2 technologies to develop regulatory responses from "the bottom up".

Facebook and the like for most Ministers are push rather than pull.

Continuous improvement requires continuous inflow of ideas and we should harvest the ideas as people think of them rather than in the confined time-lines of consultation.

Try to reduce the frictional cost of policy input. The good idea thought of "on the road" and smsed or the like can now be harvested and used with automated response and utilsed when the policy process permits the resources to be allocated to the idea or set of ideas.

The challenge is to to set up active communities of interest.

If Government as a recipient of ideas notes related concepts across Departments, it could invite several correspondents to produce a brief to the Minister with minimum public service resources. The pay-back for participation is a meeting with Minister or head of department to present the idea for follow-up or reaction (negative or otherwise).

The Second Track Process is a good model for implementing/modelling/institutionalising this.

First of all, it is good to see a Minister want to participate in a forum as opposed to being pushed into it.

Let me first set the scene - at the moment I am sitting in my office trying to come to grips with a document nearly 400 pages long that talks about a new compliance framework and why it is better for a particular Government Department as opposed to the citizen or its service market. No, it is not an Australian Government Department. But it provides the impetus for the following thoughts:

For those who were able to attend the recent GAP Congress on Regulatory Affairs you would have taken heart in the work of Gail Greenwood and the Government of British Columbia where there has been a commitment to reducing regulation and red tape. In many ways, the Government and Institutions of Canada are very similar to those of Australia where we have various layers of Government from local authorities through to States and Provinces ultimately governed by a form of Federation. For those unable to attend the conference let me sum up the presentation by saying an Opposition, as part of its election campaign, wanted to reduce red tape and regulation, stimulate growth through friendlier and easier business terms tied together with transparency and openness.

The Opposition went on to win Government and the British Columbian experience is now part of the public record. In Australia we have an opportunity, through the commitment of the Minister and the current Government to implement something similar. The questions however need to be how, who, by when, who leads it and who needs to sign up to it to ensure it is a success. In doing so, we need to recognise that there are two fundamental forms of regulation. The first is domestic regulation and un-cluttering the myriad of duplication that exists between the Local, State and Federal layers. Everything from simplifying car and truck licenses to aligning standards for teacher registration. Bio-security and payroll taxes, translation of State awards into National awards and the removal of barriers that hold back business investment.

The second major category of regulation generally governs global markets or those sectors that are impacted by global trends, the international business system etc. Such regulation can be seen in the recent financial crisis that has gripped the global market and how different countries tend to deal with issues independently or as a group. There are regulations for regulations, systems for systems and red tape for blue tape. We also tend to categorise regulation dependant on segment, industry or sector - over the years, as this has developed and individual regulators and agencies have taken on responsibility for each specific area, regulation becomes disconnected from itself. For example, as we saw with the collapse of HIH each of the regulators who had a stake in that segment of the market HIH operated in, weren't always around the same table. As we have seen with the current global financial crisis the regulators across the world came together because they had to - not necessarily because they felt, prior to the crisis, that there was a need to.

As the Minister points out - we want better regulation. We need to keep something pretty important in mind and that is simply this - at the moment there is a discussion on how much we need to do to lessen regulation from a business perspective. Yes, there is the obvious economic argument that with less regulation and compliance costs, the more business is able to spend on employment, or it can be the impetus for increased business investment in the economy or sectors of the economy - benefits of which flow through to the community. The thing we tend to forget, however, is that for the vast majority of Australians they don't necessarily understand the regulatory framework or the implications of less versus more (let alone the benefits).

If you were to ask a taxpayer in the suburbs of Western Sydney or my own suburb of Redfern if more regulation on financial institutions as the result of the current financial crisis was a good thing, they would agree. I dare say the banks and industry may disagree. Herein lies the missing link for all of us - and that is the firm understanding that at the end of the day we need to engage the citizen in the discussion and the solution. That rightly brings me to the attractiveness of the Second Track Process that Peter Fritz advocates. Finding a medium that provides a balance between the needs of business and industry and the needs and demands of the citizen. Of course there is the political reality in all of this and that is the citizen elects the Government, not business and industry.

So, let's explore some of the questions the Minister poses and then proposition a few more:

1. What lessons can we learn from good regulators? First of all, Australia now has some of the best regulators in the world. That said, they have developed more as a result of baptisms of fire than through natural evolution. HIH is a good example. That said, we have still got a way to go when it comes to engaging the citizen into the world of regulation and what it means for them. In 2002 I chaired the Global Knowledge Management Conference at which I asked a good friend of mine to speak on the subject of Energy Regulation and Information Management in the United States. His name was William Bennett and he was the Chief knowledge Officer of the United States Federal Energy Regulation Commission. FERC for short. The challenge was not only managing knowledge internally to ensure best practice and better regulation, it was also providing that knowledge and information to the citizen. Now, six years later, the FERC website is an example of what Australian regulators can learn in terms of interaction with the citizen.

The site, www.ferc.gov, is targeted to both business and the citizen, there are forums for interaction, knowledge repositories and data stores. Access to hotlines, rules and regulations - ASIC has some of the functionality, but not all. In the bottom left hand corner is a section specifically for the citizen, links to guides, projects near you and informing people of their rights. Regulators need to think outside of the square - the ASX for example is not servicing business alone - therefore, be more inclusive. Our regulators could learn a lot from FERC. I should say when I led the Knowledge and Information Management Review of the former Australian Communications Authority in 2003 a lot of great best practice ideas came from FERC!

Question: isn't about time we thought outside the box we live in? What FERC may do could be relevant to ASIC or the ASX in terms of its aim and intent when it comes to communication - maybe we need to break down the barriers that have built up separating individual regulators and therefore there thinking. Why is that whenever we want to learn something new, we feel the need to go to another regulator in our industry to get the best practice?

2. How could regulators use technology to regulate better? What are the barriers to its uptake? Yes they could - the FERC is the best example. The barriers are, as always, cost and time - but there is a third, understanding. Regulators need to understand how, who and why people interact with them. This is, again, the whole notion of push as opposed to pull - something Victor references in response to web2 technologies. At the moment I am reading through a recently published document from a Government (let's just say a Government in a land far, far away - and no its not here or across the ditch). The document talks about the development of a new online portal where the Government can interact with its citizens - the reality hasn't quite hit this particular Government yet, but the last time they tried this approach there was no time taken to understand who interacted with them back. Instead, I am half way through a review advising them that maybe, just maybe the people who do interact with the Government are mainly recipients of benefits and pensions and therefore cannot afford a computer and internet connection in order to interact back - so, how do we get them engaged? We take technology to the communities where they gather and we develop portals that provide information that is easy to understand and navigate. Technology, however, is not the only solution - content is the real hidden gem.

Question: here's a novel thought, lets establish a Commission for the eCtizen. A forum that brings together a raft of information and knowledge into one single repository. An repository who's construction is guided by the citizen, informed by the citizen and therefore with the citizen in mind. Underpinning this could very well be a range of formal processes and a combination of Second Track.

Question: can the software development companies stop making the pitch for why there software is world changing and the best thing since sliced bread? How about we look at the question in reverse - how can technology companies build better software to help regulators better inform business and the citizen - think collaboration platforms people!

3. Do you know of examples where alternative regulatory systems such as self regulation, co‑regulation or standards have delivered better outcomes than a traditional command and control model? First of all I need to say that I am a product of the New Zealand social and economic experiment of the 1980's and early 1990's. My Gough Whitlam was David Lange. Many people believe that for better regulation there is no closer place to look than New Zealand. What people forget is that New Zealand's environment was established out of a pressing need - to keep the country from going under. It took more than a decade of reform by a raft of ideologically opposed Governments all faced with the same dilemma. Some would argue that the economic and regulatory reforms went too far, David Lange also lamented that maybe the Government should have paused for a cup of tea. Some would also argue that New Zealand has been too far gone for too long and it is now in need of "pull back" reform. The school sector is one example of this where education and its management was devolved in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Called "Tomorrows Schools", management, education policy, curriculum and qualifications were all unravelled and the day to day operations of public schools were handed over to elected parents on Boards of Trustees. Nearly twenty years on there are schools in the far north of the country whose members are unemployed and the school is in debt. Deregulation of the banking system has bought problems as has deregulation of social services and mental health. That said, there are shining lights - the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards organisation is one example where consistent regulations and best practice are in place.

My point is, Australia needs to find a balance between the interests and needs of business and those of the citizen - also, a happy medium between consistency in regulation when it comes to regional standards. I remain an ardent advocate of Standards Australia and have for many years - even though I have never said so publicly let alone behind closed doors. An improvement could be made to the consistency in education and employment standards between Australia and New Zealand - the old Ministerial Council for Education, Training and Youth Affairs could be improved.

So, sadly, it is back to my 400 page document, then turning my thoughts on how to diplomatically inform this particular Government that sometimes just because it's 400 pages doesn't mean it is meaningful....to anyone other than the expensive consultants engaged to write it in the first place. Such is the work of a militant self regulator who is a product of the New Zealand Social and Economic Experiment.

Lindsay, I wonder, where would you place the Lange years in the greater context of the history of the Labour movement?

Matthew Tukaki, Director of Government Policy & Strategy, SansGov (Sanseman Government); PO BOX 3295 Redfern Sydney NSW 2016; mobile +61 (0) 449 703 118 matthew.tukaki@sansgov.com; www.sansgov.com

One policy area crying out for regulatory reform is conveyancing.

The current paper based process seems remarkably inefficient in this technological age.

The four major banks made it quite clear back in 2004 that they would only participate in a national system. In response to this the states and territories embarked on the National Electronic Conveyancing System (NECS) initiative.

The National Electronic Conveyancing Office was established in 2005 and has been doing some excellent work in determining the requirements for the national system. At the COAG meeting on 3 July 2008 all jurisdictions agreed to develop a national e-conveyancing system. This should have been the circuit breaker necessary for NECS to progress.

However electronic conveyancing was not discussed at the COAG meeting on 2 October.

When can we expect to see the national initiative operating?

Stan Goldstein is right to advocate this.

Minister, why not experiment with a draft Regulatory Impact Statement as a wiki document? Why not experiment with a draft regulation as a wiki? Perhaps you could start with the new regulations arising from the government response to the global financial crisis?

Having recently had some insight into the mechanics of a national review, a couple of things popped into my head that made me uncomfortable (I'm hesitant to call them flaws).

1. Appointment of a limited inner circle of "experts", who determined the questions to be answered and then interpreted the answers.
2. Responses were then made to these questions by a tiny group of Australians, almost all of which are remunerated to provide responses that support the agenda of the group they represent.
3. There was strict information controls in place.
4. We then provided public recognition and reward to the inner circle, for overseeing this process.

Without wishing to be overly cynical ( I'm trying really hard not to become my father :) ) I feel concern that this type of arrangements are unlikely to generate truly innovative and optimal new regulations for Australia.

But as a counterpoint, I'd like to compare those arrangements for creating an outcome with that used to govern Open Source software developments. Open Source software is developed by a community that has a number of interesting structures and principals in place.

1. The project has agreed goals when started by its initial community.
2. There is open access to all information in the community by all members.
3. The community is free for all to join or leave (taking a "fork" of the project with them). Therefore communities dealing with important issues the most professionally tend to flourish (its a market of ideas with winners getting the most energy!)
4. Community members can contribute in a variety of ways; writing core code, writing optional modules, writing manuals, or simply writing feedback on stuff they do or don't like. No one is remunerated to be involved.
5. The community decides the big issues and addresses the big issues.
6. The more a community member contributes to the project, the more say they have in project direction - this rewards those with passion.
7. There is normally a benign dictator role so that any deadlocks can be broken (and surprisingly this works).

Minister I am not a software developer, just someone who has become interested in the area and recognised that its governance structures are producing some fantastic outcomes (eg 50% of all web servers on the Internet run open source software and it has generate household names such as Wikipedia).

I am wondering what would happen if you opened up an area of regulatory development to this alternative type of methodology?

Brendan Lewis

From David Stephens, Standards Australia:

Great idea. Well done, Open Forum, and Minister. Threads so far raise a couple of issues.

Quality regulation needs to be based on an assessment of risk. Too often we go for detailed, black-letter options when lighter touch options would be sufficient. These options would balance, as Matthew Tutaki says, the interests of business (in free markets) and those of the broader community (in physical and economic security). Aviation safety, as the Minister says, is one area where prescriptive regulation is certainly appropriate. Others could manage with much less black-letter law.

Some of these lighter-touch options involve standards, either as self-regulation or in various forms of co-regulation (eg calling up standards in generalised regulation). Standards Australia produces Australian Standards and is working hard to do so more efficiently.

Going to the Minister's 3rd question, there are many examples on the statute books of where standards are working well in co-regulation. The Building Code of Australia, electrical regulation calling up the Wiring Rules (Australia New Zealand Standard 3000) and occupational health and safety regulation are some examples and there are plenty of others.

The difficulty is that Ministers and public servants are frequently not aware of these examples. We have put these arguments to Minister Tanner, Minister Emerson, their advisers and State and Territory Governments involved in the COAG Business Regulation and Competition Working Group. We will continue to do so.

Which leads to the issue of consultation. While this forum is a great idea there is, as Stan Goldstein says, for wider consultation beyond the usual suspects. I'm afraid public servants do tend to be a little protective and defensive of regulation that they have put their heart and soul into (I was a public servant and I know and have been in the same position). It is important therefore that consultation about alternatives to regulation be opened up beyond the bureaucracies.

Specifically, it would be great if the COAG Working Group could be extended to include non-Government representatives, the actual stakeholders who benefit (or suffer) from over-regulation and who have ideas to contribute about how regulation could be done better.

Standards Australia would be a willing participant in such an exercise and I'm sure others would be as well.

David Stephens

Government and Stakeholder Relations Advisor

Standards Australia

02 6251 5842 0413 867 972 clamshred@ozemail.com.au

Minister Tanner, I've heard you tell a story about how you were inspired to advocate government consultation with the community using Web 2.0 projects after an experience with the notice board at your local gym. In the instance you described, the humble tools of pen, paper and cork board provided an opportunity for gym members to not only make a comment, complaint or suggestion, but to do so in a public space where other members of the gym could see it. Importantly, gym staff wrote a reply on the cards and posted it back on the public notice board so all members could also see how things had been followed up. For community consultation to be effective people need to take it seriously, to develop such trust it is critical that people can be confident that their issues will seriously looked at by someone in the relevant department and that they will get a genuine response.

The gym notice board scenario definitely represents a good ethos of collaboration and transparency. It is nice to think this could inspire a better model for governmental community consultation using web 2.0 technologies. I am surprised there are not more suggestions being posted on this forum here. I suspect many people don't feel there is much point.

I would suggest that another important aspect that contributed to the success of your gym's notice board system was access and availability.

The comment cards were on display at the front desk where everybody could see them and utilize the notice board service at any time. If the comment cards had only been available for one week of the year, it is unlikely they would have been as useful. It is natural that people only want to talk about the cardio machine when it is broken. Likewise, constituents want to be able to access government as issues arise.

Initiatives such as this discussion forum are a great start, but fall far short of providing a mechanism for the sort of meaningful ongoing dialogue we really need.

Would you consider instituting a permanent Better Regulation Electronic Notice Board?

Minister,

I would be delighted to elaborate on the use of wiki in relation to regulation. I can't take credit for the idea, but have had some input into a process developing around cancer care guidelines. Not quite regulation you may remark, but the way expert clinicians develop these guidelines is so similar to the way regulators consult around regulation that I'm confident the lessons will translate.

The interesting thing about that project compared to the usual wiki environment, is that there are protocols to both protect and collect comments and changes based on the degree of confidence one has in the contributor. Anyone can comment, some people can act on those comments and maintain a commentary, and experts can make changes that would almost reflect a drafting or report level.

The standard approach to wiki allows all manner of people to edit, making the outcome unpredictable and almost unusable as a reference.

Harvard has adopted an approach of having a very large panel of experts as wiki contributors, improving the standard of contribution, but again requiring an expert panel to review, reflect, consult further, and then form an opinion. That would be similar to a call for submissions, but iterative.

The approach we're looking at is to have a call for open comment parallel to the potential for experts to submit, but also to reflect on the open comment, along with a parallel distillation by a panel, whose deliberations would then draw comment from any or all. Sounds complex but isn't really.

I'm not sure a blog is the best place to go into detail, but happy to send something through the Forum.

In any event, the technology required is inexpensive (relatively) and it would be simple enough to establish a trial if you or your Department was sufficiently convinced of the potential. I would be delighted to be able to contribute if that was felt to be of interest.

Good luck. And thank you for taking the time to take part in this conversation.

Stan Goldstein

A couple of years back the Australian Securities and Investments Commission released a disturbing report on an investigation into the nation's $560 billion financial advice industry. No-one was surprised when ASIC found that, despite the introduction of the Financial Services Reform Act earlier this year, some financial advisers were failing to disclose "soft dollar commissions" or their disclosure of kickbacks, bonuses and rebates from financial bodies was vague or confusing.

ASICs executive director of Consumer Protection, Greg Tanzer, explained that the Act's disclosure-based approach came from the view that an informed investor could make the best decision. Consumers are apparently adequately protected "once things are appropriately disclosed".

ABC Radio National's Background Briefing program demonstrated this was a flawed approach to the protection of consumers, whether they be financial or property investors, home buyers or mums, dads and their kids in the market for mobile phones.

Associate Professor of Economics at Sydney University Dick Bryan told the ABC that "ordinary old punters" found "extensive amounts of [disclosure] documentation more likely to be confounding than clarifying."

Principal policy officer at the Association of Super Funds, Brad Pragnell, believed that in the case of financial planning advice, ASIC was sometimes unwittingly doing the opposite of what was intended - pushing for so much information to be disclosed and "just baffling consumers".

So what motivates those legally obliged to disclose?

Pragnall said, "Disclosure is being driven more by service providers and product issuers to protect themselves in terms of their liability as opposed to providing information which is clear, concise and effective and going to aid consumers make decisions."

"Companies are using disclosure to protect their backs rather than protect consumers," concluded Background Briefing.

Chief executive of the Australian Consumers Association, Peter Kell, was concerned about "too much emphasis on disclosure as the only tool in the regulatory tool kit.

"There seems to have been an approach in some areas of anything goes as long as you disclose," he said, suggesting that other solutions were needed, including the introduction of "laws that prohibit unfair contract terms in our national regulatory regime as soon as possible."

When the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Graeme Samuel, was asked if, after kickbacks and commissions were declared, consumers had to embrace the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) and make informed choices, he asked in reply, "Do we try and educate consumers to be careful and to look after their own interest, or do we take away the choice?"

Samuel had two words for consumers: "Be careful."

Professor Bryan's similar conclusion was that it was up to consumers who saw a financial planner, or any other seller of goods or services, to know their legal rights and responsibilities. "The buck stops with the consumer," he said.

I disagree. The "buck", in fact, must start with governments which have to work out how to protect consumers from our own trusting natures.

Even the best and toughest consumer protection laws are worthless unless they are adequately enforced.

While the 19th century English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, suggested that shielding folk from the effects of their folly would fill the world with fools, times have changed, our society is less laissez faire and more caring. So people must be protected from the predatory deceit of others.

Governments have to ensure their regulators have not only the wit and will to do their jobs, but also adequate funding. Whether it is financial advisers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents or legal practitioners, the basic principal of consumer protection funding should be "causer pays". Let those whose conduct needs to be regulated by government pay more for their licences to operate. That way industries and professions themselves will indirectly fund consumer protection and regulation.

Also needed is some really creative consumer eduction. Ship out the public servants and government lawyers who seem to think only in terms of sentences on A4 pages. Consumer protection agencies must begin to consult with and listen carefully to selling and marketing experts, behavioural scientists and advertising gurus. Consumers may need to be educated (and warned) in the same way they are entertained colourfully and cleverly through radio, TV, movies, the internet and magazines. The backs of buses, billboards and even flashing neon signs may be some of the media to be considered to get this message across loudly and clearly: Don't trust anyone, and if you do, assume they will let you down.

Hi Lindsay,

1. I work in the so called ‘deregulated ‘electricity industry; unfortunately for consumers it is anything but that. What I presume is meant as well intended regulation to protect consumers (typically lower socio-economic tiers) ends up adding large costs that flow through to all. All business's are part of , and have obligations to, the wider community , however I can't see the logic in burdening some business's with significant welfare responsibilities , when the proper place for these responsibilities rests with government and the wider pool of taxpayers. The problem here is it doesn't seem to be getting any better with time, just the opposite with increased regulations and obligations being added piece by piece over time, and in different measure in different states. Each piece of regulation may seem OK in isolation, but they all add up to significant costs for business, (and consumers of course) and absorb the energy that a business should be applying to other areas. Short term political gain = long term regulatory pain. Thoughts to fix this?

2. Probably the most insane example of warped regulation I have witnessed recently is in Victoria, whereby the state government has recently gained a draft OK from the Aus Energy Market Commission to regulate and monopolise contestable metering and data services. The irony here is one area of Gov. (Federal - ACCC) works to prevent monopolies, another area of gov. (Vic. state) works to set up monopolies! Electricity Network companies requested the state government set up legislation to grant them a monopoly, so they didn't have to compete in the roll out of smart meters. Energy retailers and innovative Aus. suppliers have developed over the last few years extremely innovative and cost effective smart metering technologies that include the daily remote reading of electricity, gas and water using the mobile phone (data) system and internet. In addition this supports real time remote on /off for electricity (huge cost saving) the add on of wireless colour touch screen in home displays that allow customers to see their real time electricity, gas and water consumption, and receive information services such as weather etc in near real time. These technologies are being rolled out in NZ on behalf of energy retailers, and were starting to be rolled out in Aus. as well; however the Vic government and the AEMC see fit to regulate to block the supply of these to Victorian consumers. These technology solutions enable customers to have visibility of their use of energy/water resources and assist with the management of these in a resource constrained world. To summarise, we have a regulatory process set up to kill competitive supply , destroying Aussie innovation (and some small business' as well) and cost saving the industry, (and their customers) while crippling the industry's ability to enable consumers to meet our countries environmental challenges. Madness.

Regards

To the Minister. Well done in making yourself available in this way. I am just regretting I did not login earlier in the week. I have now spread the word to some of my colleagues from the healthcare industry as I am sure that once they know about this opportunity they will want to make the most of a dialogue with you. I was distracted and left it a little late to inform them of this opportunity. Will this forum be completely closed down tonight, or can we keep talking amongst ourselves? I understand that due to time constraints you've had to limit your official commitment to this week but perhaps it would it be possible for you to pop your head in so to speak once or twice over the coming weeks and respond again as the discussion develops?

On behalf of all the team at Open Forum, I'd like to extend our sincere thanks to Minister Tanner for participating in our e-Democracy challenge. Thank you also, with equal measure, to everybody who has logged in and shared their ideas. I hope you'll all agree it's been an informative collaboration.

Open Forum will be sending a summary of your suggestions to the Ministry of Deregulation for their consideration, and we'll keep you posted on any relevant developments that might occur over the coming months.

Following the success of this week's experiment, I'd also like to extend an invitation to all other members of the cabinet and shadow cabinet to participate in online conversations with their constituents at Open Forum in the future.

By simply talking and listening to each other, exciting things can start to happen.

Thanks again, and all the best.

Sally Rose

Blogger-in-Chief

srose@openforum.com.au

(To keep in touch with our coverage just watch our front page at www.openforum.com.au, or subscribe to our monthly News Wrap - link provided on registration).

Having been a community activist over the last few years in the National fight to reform Builders Warranty Insurance, one of the most stupid and harmful 'regulations' that has ever been introduced, it is has become abundtantly clear that the regulators are too often duped by armies of corporate experts when it comes to managing every aspect of the economy and Government.

To me, the key for Government is to re-write the rule book on how public policy is conceived, written, implemented and managed. I have seen the same results in every sector of every industry whereby the very people 'consulted' on what to do, are the very ones who make extraordinary profits as a result, while the community suffers.

Builders Warranty is but one classic example of how unsuspecting regulators have been completely snowed by vested interest - and once the law is passed or the Ministerial Order gazetted then the fight to reform is damn near impossible because the regulators (bureaucrats) themselves start to close shop because when it is evident that they cocked up, then they metamorpisize into gatekeepers of the status quo.

Anyway, the bottom line is that policy is not for sale and the sooner we change the current regulatory philosophy the better because too many people are hurting over inept, biased, stupid and harmful regulations - the whole picture being anathema to true democracy