For a long time, there has been a prevailing attitude in the business community that regulation is an impediment to business, and that we must press forward with deregulation.

I believe this deregulatory approach, which focuses on throwing out as many of the old rules as possible, is a retrograde step.  

Despite all the rhetoric about it, very few people genuinely support the idea of blanket deregulation. Instead, we think it would be nice to keep the laws which protect us, and throw out the ones which restrict or punish us. Unfortunately, everybody else feels exactly the same way.

This demonstrates precisely why regulation is important: to keep self-interest in check.

It's common sense that a sound regulatory system upholds and supports the interests of the community. Business needs to realise that this in turn raises the standards in our marketplaces by fostering efficiency and innovation. Whilst it's true that too much or inappropriate regulation can have a negative direct effect, too little is likely to have a far more destructive influence.

Instead of characterising regulation in terms of higher taxes and fewer freedoms we urgently need to get over our gut reactions and adopt a more mature mindset. We need to appreciate the security and infrastructure regulation provides for us to operate within.

Even in the instances where they have the best intentions; individuals don't understand the needs of the market: any better than the market understands the needs of individuals. Both entities are driven by self-interest.

Perhaps the anti regulation sentiment is an understandable intuitive position. No entrepreneur likes to feel shackled. The innovative mind is predisposed to rebel against authority; and regulation, after all, is authority manifest.

Myself, I see a new piece of regulation as a business opportunity.  Changes to regulation change the frames of reference within which companies have to work, creating new opportunities.  But, of course, it also means the end for those who are entrenched, able to function in only one way under the old regime.

A feature of the deregulation mindset is that people's first reaction to new laws is often to get busy seeing how they can work around them. Good regulation provides an incentive which, rather than trying to force them, entices people to behave in the way the regulation intended - ineffective regulation makes it easier for people to function outside the rules.

Laws must change in response to new social developments, but the relationship goes both ways. By their very nature new laws immediately illicit a reaction from the environment they are governing.

It's challenging to get the balance right because the world keeps changing, and the future is difficult to forecast; and it's impossible to accurately predict how the real world will react to changes in regulation.

Good regulation has to be an ongoing and evolutionary process.

At the moment we are hampered by a stop/go mentality. We need to take solace in the inevitability that all regulation will eventually become obsolete...because the world moves on. There is no such thing as a law which exists universally and forever. As you enact new regulation you change the world again.  Change is the only constant.  

The secret to better regulation is in these settings; it's about balancing the two main levers of regulation (punishment and reward). We need to concentrate on an ongoing system of improvement, which is responsive and reflexive to reality.

Government's role is to look after the public interest; good regulation is the public sector practicing good business management.

Currently the regulatory process is impeded by relying too heavily on bureaucracy.

One of the key elements of a democracy should be access: access to information, markets and our representative leaders. We are suffering from a lack of access to our leaders - or rather they are suffering from a lack of access to us.

We elect members of parliament to represent our communities, whilst the participation of industry and others is filtered through organisations like lobby groups. This detachment produces a skewed view.

Our system fails because it can only hear the noisiest view and; and the more distorted or biased the views getting heard, the worse the ensuing regulation.

Of course, it is impossible to have a town hall meeting with 22 million people in attendance. But I do believe we have to find a way to provide the opportunity for everybody who wants to, to be able to participate.

To participate meaningfully, people need access to factual information. Then, we need to provide a mechanism for different views, from all fields to meet and build groups.   And I think we need to make sure this has already happened well before we are at the stage of an official decision making process.

Some things are fairly straightforward and can be regulated through a fairly closed consultative process. But most regulatory affairs are not so simple. Some of the most important issues we face, such as climate change, require a multi-disciplinary, multi-tiered approach.

Entering in to better consultative regulatory processes, armed with the best possible information, will better equip us for such challenges.

Often we are too lazy to make sure we are bringing good information to our arguments. The media is so influential in formulating our views. It may be the press's job to raise our awareness; however it is our personal responsibility to make sure we are fully informed. We need to rely on data, not partial reporting, hearsay or guesswork. 

Of course, we must also be aware that, even once we have all the information in front of us we filter it through our own personal, views, experiences and preconceptions.

To foster better regulation the first thing we need to do is to change our attitude. Following this we have an obligation to ensure we have all the information we need. Then we can consider ourselves ready to get involved in a properly representative regulatory process, (second-track processes are a great model for this).

Entering in to a positive conversation about ways we can foster better involvement in the regulatory processes will encourage better regulation, and ultimately a better society for all Australians. 

My vision for the future of regulation in Australia is that of a system which promotes a fairer, more equitable, democratic community. We need a regulatory process that utilises proper representation and good information as the basis for sound law-making, then we need to ensure it is implemented intelligently.  We have to get the incentives right; so people want to make the extra effort, or go to the added expense, to rise to those ideals which the law intended.  

Regulation should be driving innovation.