Whilst many of us are aware of over regulation and legislation, I am wary of this move by the Federal Government. Many of the items listed for review coincide with the discussions and agreements between Australia and the USA on the FTA. The fact that this agreement passed through Parliament with little or no public discussion and comment says much about the nefarious dealings of this Government with the USA. The fact that a Multinational company operating in Australia can sue a local council or threaten to, should their business be 'discriminated against', as in invoking Environment Laws to prevent them spilling waste into our river systems, is also going to be part of this straightening out of the over regulation. The cynic in me would suggest that this is just another part of the friendship and alliance that Mr Howard has struck with his pals in Washington.

By all means, review the over-regulation and legislation but keep in mind that is Australia and Australian Business we need to be looking after and not Foreign investors.

A few tales from the Deep North. As part of the Mutual Recognition process, occupations regulated only in some States/territories were identified. Most of these were regulated in Queensland. My investigations showed that few if any of these regulations achieved their aims, most achieved nothing. Yet only the BRRU and I opposed their continuance. In the same period, Treasury's microeconomics branch identified many "nuisance" fees and imposts on business, many bringing in gross revenue of <$1000 a year. Our simplification proposals were ignored.

The costs of Queensland's CFC clean-up regulations were estimated to exceed benefits by >$1 billion.

Around 1996-97, a Red-Tape Reduction Taskforce appointed by the Queensland Goverment recommended abolition of 100 business regulations. I knew, and argued, that these regulations were without merit, their mass abolition would encourage business. But all departments concerned persuaded their minister to defend their turf - only three were repealed.

Government regulation should be a last resort, used when there is a clear and signififcant public benefit which can not be obtained by other means. The Beattie government regulates as a knee-jerk response, without regard to CBA or alternative approaches.

As a former public servand and drafter of regulations the problem of volume is chiefly keeping jobs for the boys/girls.

Both sides of politics, in State and Federals governments, are expanding legislation expodentially. Its a self perpetuating, cover-the-officials/pollies-arses, you-can't-sue-me, industry.

Keeps bureaucrats, including lawyers, busy. Kind of a make-work campaign because office automation genuinely means fewer bureaucrats are needed.

Luckily there are personal gigolo jobs out there for retired bureaucrats :)

I am wondering how much of this paper work is due to the rather overly complicated wording used in documents today.

What ever happended to the Plain English push for the contracts laws and regulations etc that was on about a decade ago?

For example of the overboard regulations, I hear that a mobile phone contract can have pages of fine print? Why in you know whos name does it need all that??

Big Fish, to be able to write plain English law, contracts, rules you need to have a firm grasp on English grammer, something our insightful leaders decided was not important some 20 years ago. We are now suffering the results of this disasterous decision by having to deal with politicians that can't string 2 words together intelligently.

These are the same individuals that are creating our public policy and law.

But, maybe it was their plan to drag the rest of Oz down to their level.

Big Fish, in my experience the language element is secondary to the extreme propensity by governments and (career-promoting) bureaucrats to regulate, and reluctance to deregulate as circumstances change. Within public service bodies, particularly at the state level, there are some genuine public servants and many more bureaucrats and time-servers.