There is a lot of criticism expressed on OLO about the quality of government regulation of all sorts of laws, from the police to departments that administer environmental and water regulations and the like. This involves all levels of government right across the country.

A lot of regulatory management is pretty poorly done, compared to the ideal situation. But we need to consider a couple of things;

How bad is it really, compared to no regulation or to a considerably tighter and more socialistic regulatory regime and...

How can we make it significantly better?

This thread follows on from discussions on the ‘Ideas the engine of new growth’ thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284

“What you are suggesting is ‘compromise and mediocrity’ can produce an acceptable solution or stand-in for acceptable performance.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129920

No I’m not Col. I’m saying that if something is less than ideal, it is still a lot better than nothing. Let’s face it; precious few services are ideal or even of particularly high quality, right across the gamut of health, education, civil and criminal law, environmental protection, etc, etc. But in just about every instance, no service or a lesser level of service would mean a worse service.

Of course no one wants as a first choice to be involved in a struggle that by all indications will be a mediocre effort to do a job due to restricted resources, but there are many good people who are only too happy to have the opportunity to do what they can within the restrictions rather than not be given the chance to do anything, and have to just sit back and watch bad things happen as a result of a lack of regulation or service.

That’s pretty straightforward.

“If it cannot be achieved properly, it is better it not be attempted…”

Well we do indeed have a fundamental disagreement here.

“Remember, government and the civil servants are there to serve the needs of the tax-paying electorate, not to direct them.”

Serving the needs of the community most definitely mean directing people to do certain things and preventing them from doing others.

*Where outside of the public service would you find a much better standard of commonsense or intelligence, or managerial capability?*

To transfer your question from the other thread, Ludwig.

I can't comment on the particular Dept where you work, for I know
nothing about it. What I can comment on, is the many sectors
of Govt that I have dealt with and there is enormous variation.

I think there is actually a similar kind of pattern, to do with
human behaviour. Anywhere where there is a reasonable amount
of competition, like in small business, I've seen some bad
management, but they usually go broke. I've also seen some
amazingly good management, efficiency, common sense and intelligence,
unlike anything I have seen in large institutions.

Some of the most efficient companies that I have dealt with,
have been those who operate in the export sector, for they have
to compete on a global basis, which raises the level of competition
substantialy.

I've dealt with large corporations who deal mostly locally. If they
are in a sector, where there is little competition, they can be
as bad as the Govt sector, when it comes to waste and bad management.
For instance I had some severe run ins with Ansett at the time,
for I felt that the sector that I was dealing with was more then
useless. They eventually went broke, which vindicated my point :)

With Govt Depts I have yet to come across a Dept which is subjected
to any kind of serious stress, as occurs in the private sector.
Some of these people have never lived in the real world, they
don't understand how private enterprise functions. If we ran
businesses like they run their depts, we'd go broke pretty quickly!

I think that Govt needs to be able to fire people who are useless
and have no aptitude for a job. But then these days, they can't
even do that in the private sector, so they use contractors to
avoid the problem.

“What I can comment on is the many sectors of Govt that I have dealt with and there is enormous variation.”

Yabby, yes there is a huge spectrum.

The natural tendency is for us to project bad experiences onto the whole section, department, public service, company, etc, and think the worst of that whole section or organisation.

I was like this with the police as a result of a small number of really quite horrible experiences scattered over a lot of years. But I’ve had good experiences too, and I can now see that there is indeed a lot of good, as well as a very dodgy element, in our police force.

I’ve also battled over the years to hold a more balanced view with respect to my local council, having thought very poorly of them for a long time... although our recent ex mayor certainly deserved absolute condemnation!

In fact, if we get anything other than very good service or the exact outcome that we want, we strongly tend to think poorly of regulators and managers.

There is certainly a strong pattern of human behaviour there.

continued

Alright so companies that are operating within a strongly competitive regime tend to have much better management practices than those who can afford to take it easy and let the profits role in without too much effort and with a fair bit of room to move as far as efficiency goes.

Well, the same sort of behaviour exists in the public service, except that the motivation is not profit, it is outcomes. This takes us back to resources. If the resources are good and the desired outcomes can be reasonably be achieved, then the management regime, motivation and commitment will follow.

If it is all ominous right from the start, then there is not much motivation at any level to maximise efficiency.

I don’t think that injecting stress into government departments is the answer to making them perform a whole lot better. The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.

In answering my question, you have not suggested the privatisation of some or all public services. I thought you might advocate this, given that you see great value in competition and the profit motive for engendering maximum efficiency.

I take it that you feel that privatising the police force or the policing of fishing or building or land-clearing regulations or whatever would not be a good idea?

*Well, the same sort of behaviour exists in the public service, except that the motivation is not profit, it is outcomes.*

Ludwig, there are plenty of people in private enterprise whose
goal is outcomes, for they enjoy what they do. In fact most
entrepreneurs that I know enjoy what they do, or they would
not have the passion and devotion to do it well. Profit is
essential or the business closes its doors. It's also sometimes
used as a measure of the outcomes. But it is certainly not
the only goal that is being worked for.

Lets even take an extreme example. Do you think that Rupert
Murdoch, who is close to 80, does what he does, just for money?
When is he going to spend it? At his age you can only handle
one young wife at a time :) The guy simply loves what he does.
He much prefers running newspapers to golf, gardening or anything
else.

*I don’t think that injecting stress into government departments is the answer to making them perform a whole lot better. The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.*

Yup but there is a limit to the resources that hard working taxpayers
are prepared to cough up. For as you know, no matter how much money
we give Govt Depts, they will spend it.

So the question arises, how do we achieve a desired outcome,
with a bit more efficiency then we see in so much of the public
service. If you did a time-motion study, about how much time,
ie wages and salaries, are simply wasted in Govt, it is enormous.
Few in Govt even think about these things, they just ask for
more resources. They lack flexibility. Why not bring in a contractor
to do some jobs?

*I take it that you feel that privatising the police force or the policing of fishing or building or land-clearing regulations or whatever would not be a good idea?*

Removing one monopoly and replacing it with another monopoly, is
not going to solve anything.

I wrote; “The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.”

Yabby replied; “Yup but there is a limit to the resources that hard working taxpayers are prepared to cough up.”

So the first point is to match the task with the resources. It is a fundamental role of government to make sure that their revenue base matches or exceeds the expenditure that is needed to uphold a decent quality of life and equity in the community, and not just in the short term.

That’s as basic as all buggery. But it doesn’t happen very effectively at all. So the primary issue in this discussion, as I see it, is a very hard one to deal with. And it is rapidly getting worse, right at the time when we need a strong rule of law, in the face of mounting pressures that threaten to unravel the fabric of society.

Beyond that, I agree with you – there is plenty scope for better management and accountability in much of the public service….just as there is in the private sector.

In my experience, there have been some woeful examples of management, which have taken a considerable toll on my motivation at work and on my quality of life. And my best efforts to deal with them have not met with good results.

But I think that we also need to accept that things are never going to be ideal or even particularly close to it. It is just one of our human foibles that management and efficiency are all too often well short of the best level.

I hope Ludwig is not feeling too disappointed with the seeming slowness of this discussion to take off. It is, after all, an important question, and he did the right thing in separating it from the comments thread to the article 'Ideas the engine of new growth' by Federal Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson, even though it had legitimately emerged in that thread.

Could I suggest that one reason for the slowness of take-off may be due to the dearth of authoritative commentators? Persons who have been eyewitness to the application of regulatory process generally tend to be bound by professional ethics not to reveal details, especially at times when such revelations might assist in attaining a just outcome. Persons who have been the subject of regulatory process have generally been utterly disillusioned to the point of walking away from the field, or personally destroyed by the determinations made. Regulators, in general, tend to leave no witnesses behind.

There is an important difference between 'law' and 'regulation'.

Law is objective, and set in concrete as to its applicability at the time in question. You can know where you stand, and plan accordingly; you have rights. Regulation, the process, as distinct from printed regulations published under an Act, is inherently subjective. You can never know where you stand, and consequently cannot plan with confidence in reliance upon your own abilities; you have no rights.

I would like to ask how good our regulatory regime has been shown to be in this case I first became aware of on OLO. This is the article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7215

This is a comment to that article I made in April 2008: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7215#110649

Charges were laid by the regulator, the ACCC, in June 2008.

Here is a commentary by a well-known law firm upon that case to date: http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2008/Sep/9586437w.htm Read it and tell me how good our regulatory regime is.

I have no connection with the accused. Yet.

Apologies Ludwig for not catching this thread earlier..

My view on government regulation at all levels is

It should be up for regular review and subject to sunset clauses which declare it defunct if it is not reviewed.

We are not the chattels of the state.
We do not need bureaucrats deciding anything for us.
Worthwhile legislation is there to balance disproportionate power which may exist, not to become a source of disproportionate power ; the basic argument against governments running commercial businesses, where conflict of interest will prevail against the individual through institutionalization of government monopolies.

Regarding “Serving the needs of the community most definitely mean directing people to do certain things and preventing them from doing others.”

The problem with that is who should decide what is actually “Serving the needs of the community” when lobby groups influence the shape and nature of regulation?

I remain skeptical of anyone promoting the merits of government simply being to ‘serve the needs’ when we could ask everyone and their expectation of ‘needs’ would each be completely different and where ‘needs’ gets mixed up with ‘wants’.

One of my primary needs is to make my own way in life. excessive regulations mitigate against that need.

Too many people expect government to shelter them not only from exploitation of monopolies and undue abuses of power (like I also need) but expect government to also shelter them from the outcomes of their own stupidity, which they should really be responsible for.

Example… someone came here recently and lobbied for help for those on fixed interest rate mortgages

Forrest, yes I am a bit disappointed by the lack of interest in this subject. One of my major themes on OLO is law and liberties, particularly the mismatch between the written law and policing of the law. I am dismayed after broaching this theme in relation to a number of different subjects (road safety, nude beaches, environmental regulations, police, public service, etc), that the responses are pretty minimal.

I would have thought that this sort of stuff would be of major concern for just about everyone….and that a forum such as this would be full of such discussions. Afterall, we all need to know just where we stand with the law, and know that it applies fairly to all…don’t we?

Anyway, I thank you for your interest here.

“There is an important difference between 'law' and 'regulation'. “

I’m not so sure about that. The law is not set in concrete if different or inconsistent interpretations or the blind-eye treatment are practiced by the police and other regulators, which is very often the case. The law is effectively what is practiced, condoned, accepted or tolerated, not what is written in black and white in legislation or council bylaw literature. Of course, there should be no difference, but there is, sometimes to a very significant extent…much to my great disgust!

It certainly seems like there are some fundamental problems with the Visa and Amcor alleged collusion case. But I then this is a very difficult area of law.

I’m much more concerned about simple regulations, which are black and white in written law and even black and white in advice given by regulators, but then not so black and white in practice. Examples: speed limits and nude bathing on some Queensland beaches.

VISY, you moron Ludwig….not Visa !!

Fwaark |:>(

God that pisses me off! It was Visy when I wrote it, Visy when I proof-read it.........and Visa when I came back some hours later and read it again!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

*It is a fundamental role of government to make sure that their revenue base matches or exceeds the expenditure that is needed to uphold a decent quality of life and equity in the community, and not just in the short term.*

True, but it is also a fundamental role of Govt, to see that
hard working taxpayers (many work far harder then Govt employees do)
have their money spent wisely and efficiently.

Given the monopoly situation in which most Govt Depts operate,
peeing in their pockets with ever more taxpayers money is not
the way to solve it, holding them to account about their
efficiency, certainly has a role to play. If private enterprise
has to be efficient to survive, why should Govt Depts not be
efficient, when it comes to spending taxpayer Dollars?

A bit of stress occasionaly, might do you guys no harm at all :)

Just imagine how I felt about this one Ludwig: "Lead Zeppelin, and could have been Chancellor....", see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2364#52734

'Lead', a spellink mistake, off course, unt zen Spikey goes unt picks me up on it unt tries to schtick me mit invitink Led Zeppelin, ze punk rokker or vottever he/zey are to ze dinner! I meant "Led Zeppelin (as in led Luftschiffsbau Zeppelin, the airship company; Eckener being then CEO thereof) unt now I am accuszt of bringink badd musik upon ze scene! You vill see vot I mean: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2364#52765

Dis ist goink to to be ein badd nacht fur somm! Blondenkopf or deliberatische dennsenkopf?

Schpellink! Bahh! Hummbugg!

Ludwig “God that pisses me off! It was Visy when I wrote it, Visy when I proof-read it.........and Visa when I came back some hours later and read it again!!”

Damn that auto-spellchecker!

I remember a lady I worked with complaining her spell checker failed to pick up her misspelling of ‘Manager’ until I pointed out to her that ‘manger’ was a real word….

Maybe she would have been better off "away in" one…..

Yabbys point about the dangers of government monopolies is a very real and serious concern.

The USSR displayed of the failings of central planning (which demands monopoly direction. The most graphic example being everyone with jobs but nothing spend wages on because there was nothing to buy in the shops.

Margaret Thatcher spent a decade ripping down the edifices of socialism and British nationalized industries because they starved the economy of the funds needed to advance the economy.

‘Laws’ and ‘regulations’ are synonyms for one another.

I have had the pool police come to my house but not anymore, I filled the pool in – do I need a permit for that? – I would need one to fill it with water,

the graffiti patrol telling me I must clean my front wall or they will charge me to do so…

I have not been fined for cutting some trees down on my block but know other folk who would be.

Do I need a spotty moron checking the height of my wood fire flu before passing me as a responsible citizen, permitted to burn the trees I cut down (they were dead or diseased and one was a public hazard, spreading over the pavement)?

Why do I have to pay $150 for annual workcover for myself through my own business why can I not selfinsure?

Could I live without all those regulations and bye-laws?

You betcha

and we would save a bucket on the rates by not employing pointless council officials to annoy me.

Another annoying little OLO quirk: what you see in the preview window just before you post is not the same as what gets posted! The preview is supposed to show EXACTLY what your post will look like. All the ems in my last post were on one line in the preview. Then in the published version, they ran into a second line!

Forrest, I guess you’ll appreciate my annoyance at things like this, but I presume anyone else will think I’m a complete nork for even mentioning it ( :>/

.

Col, you wrote; “My view on government regulation at all levels is – it should be up for regular review…”

Definitely.

“We do not need bureaucrats deciding anything for us”

‘Bureaucrats’ administer various laws which are declared by government. But as part of that process, they need to make all sorts of decisions about outcomes or courses of action. We can’t escape that.

“Worthwhile legislation is there to balance disproportionate power…”

Absolutely! One of my major gripes with the regulatory regime is unfairness.

“One of my primary needs is to make my own way in life. Excessive regulations mitigate against that need.”

Inadequate regulation could have the same restrictive effect, by allowing big and powerful operators to totally override small players, or your neighbour to cut down his trees and let his topsoil blow onto your property or have 20 dogs barking at all hours of the night metres away from your core living space or by allowing dangerous and aggressive drivers to rule our roads…and a thousand etceteras.

You are very concerned about ‘excessive’ regulation. But you seem to just take for granted all the good regulation.

Of course the whole regime is far from perfect. But silly regulations comprise only a tiny minority amongst lots of good and necessary stuff.

“Could I live without all those regulations and bye-laws?”

You could live without them, but do you think the lives of those in your community would be better for their absence? Just imagine if people could do whatever they liked in regard to pools, graffiti, trees, etc.

Ludwig says:

"The preview is supposed to show EXACTLY what your post will look like. All the ems in my last post were on one line in the preview. Then in the published version, they ran into a second line!"

It seems it may be a browser issue. In my browser, Firefox, the ems (all 59 of 'em) plus their following full stop all display on one line. Granted, about two thirds of the last em obtrudes into the narrow light green border to the posting area, but at least its not as bad as in this instance: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#43711 and the immediately following rant. Perhaps you are using Internet Exploder as your browser?

OLO, it seems, is not a perfect cyber-world.

Further to the Visy-related issue that gave unanticipated rise to this typographic trauma, this seems an interesting development: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24767669-2862,00.html

It seems that we see a regulator, in this case the ACCC, seeing itself 'in loco parliamentarius'. If we are to believe the explanations in the lawyers' commentaries as to the Trade Practices Act specifically precluding the ACCC from offering an indemnity to a ring-leader in a price-fixing cartel, then the failure of the regulator to lay charges against the relevant Amcor executives in this case would seem to constitute a contravention of both the letter and spirit of the Act. A regulator posing not as a little Hitler, but as a mighty big one!

I guess it just highlights the necessity for the objective of regulation to be itself defensible. For competitive advantage to be able to be striven for without invoking criminal sanctions while a market remains 'competitive' but the identical striving for advantage to suddenly become potentially criminal in the circumstance of a natural duopoly is a nonsence. No commercial monopoly has recourse to the force of law to make people buy its products or services. Its time people accepted that.

Perhaps the ACCC has outlived its usefulness, and should be disbanded.

*You are very concerned about ‘excessive’ regulation. But you seem to just take for granted all the good regulation.*

Ludwig, given the huuuge amount of money spent on all this, I should
hope that there is some good regulation! What do you think we pay
these people for ?

The point is, there is also a heap of trivial regulation, perhaps
with good intentions, but the effects are often stifling and
application of the law shows no common sense at all.

Let me give you an example. A friend recently spent a few weeks
working for the Govt, but she said they never got alot done,
as she had not done an accreditation course to drive a 4wd, so
was not allowed to drive one, despite driving them all around
the farm for most of her life.

Anyhow, I then heard the story of a farm owner in the East, who
sent some guys to count the cattle and they had an accident. The
owner was fined a huge amount, for being negligent. (worksafe)

It turns out the staff were not wearing their safety belts and he
had never sent them to a 4wd accreditation course, so was liable.

Sheesh, I can think of so many occasions when I've asked someone to
hop into one of the 4wds and help me move some machinery, or go
and pick up something, or whatever.

Does this now mean that all this needs to end, unless they have done
a 4wd accreditation course?

On a farm there are literally hundreds of jobs to do. From fixing
wind mills to machnery repairs, to a bit of welding or plumbing,
to animal husbandary to you name it.

Given the 4wd rule, one would assume that they would need to do
courses on all these things, before it is safe enough for them to
undertake them. Now that is fine for Govt with its resources,
but in the real world of farming, when would these employees actually
get any work done?

.

“It seems that we see a regulator, in this case the ACCC, seeing itself 'in loco parliamentarius'. “

Forrest, I agree that ACCC’s position on this is not looking too reputable. But do we know that it is anything other than unusual circumstances that had has led to this?

It is a very difficult area of law. Hasn’t the ACCC proceeded with the best of intentions and then found itself in this murky position, without any ill-intent?

Didn’t they give Amcor immunity before they realised the possibility of them acting in an unscrupulous manner of entrapment of Pratt?

I don’t know. I’ll let the lawyers sort it all out. But at this stage – and I haven’t delved into it in great depth – I’m not willing to condemn the ACCC.

Bad collusion needs to be eliminated or at least minimised. But then, not all collusion is bad. I can envisage the situation whereby two competing companies reach an agreement to price their products at such a level as to maintain healthy profits that protect their workers’ jobs and give the companies a good financial buffer for the bad times. There is a lot of merit in this, as opposed to two companies competing so hard that they minimise their profits and necessitate short-cuts in quality and lay-offs and increase the risk of collapse if the market even turns slightly south.

Extremely difficult territory. But I’m sure that attempts at regulation of this type are far better than nothing.

“Perhaps the ACCC has outlived its usefulness, and should be disbanded.”

I support the need for a body like the ACCC all the way, and I think that even if they are shown to be quite seriously wrong in their approach to this issue, with the great benefit of hindsight, and with no ill-intent, they should remain in operation.

.
Mein gute dis schpellink hus to be perfectimundo or elz Herr Ludwig iss goink to chucke a spastiche attacke!

“The point is, there is also a heap of trivial regulation, perhaps with good intentions, but the effects are often stifling and application of the law shows no common sense at all.”

Yabby, all of this regulatory stuff amounts to a highly complex balancing act. There are so many grey areas where it is just so difficult to know just what sort of regulatory regime should be implemented. I’m sure we agree about this.

It is also very much a case that in the attempts to stop bad behaviour by some people, others will be restricted, because fairness of treatment is extremely important…and we can’t separate good and bad people and direct the law only at the baddies. There are plenty of basically good people who would become bad in one way or another if they could get away with it.

So, what might seem like trivial or unnecessarily restrictive laws mostly aren’t when we look into them a bit deeper.

There seems to be plenty of common sense in the very law that you have held up as an example. How responsible is it for a business operator to ask (or tell) someone to operate a vehicle or piece of machinery that they are not particularly familiar with or don’t fully understand the risks of using?

I agree that regulation of this sort of thing could easily be taken too far or be a big imposition on some people that have had free reign for decades with no problems. But the other side of the coin is that accidents do happen pretty damn often, and they are arguably largely due to inexperience or lack of respect for risk factors and error margins. This situation could be very considerably improved if people were required to do a bit of formal training and accreditation.

Yes of course it comes at a cost to employers. But just imagine if an accident happened which was eminently preventable by way of a bit of basic training. How would you as an employer feel in that situation?

ACCC is one of the best institutions of government.

It is empowered to address the imbalance of power between the supply versus the demand elements of trade.

The Visy:Amcor is but one example.

I can recall a Queensland concrete cartel and of course, the Qantas:BA airfreight cartel.

However, I would acknowledge, secret cartel activity is, like any other ‘conspiracy’, notoriously difficult to prove in court hence without immunity, Amcor would have likely not been forthcoming on the scam.

I also recall the imbalance which they did not address (and imho should have foreseen) when Coles and Myer merged around the time Safeway and Woolworths merged. That concentration of wholesale market purchasing power has had a significant negative influence from which many small manufacturers, food processors and growers are suffering from.

I lived in USA when the FTC sorted out the funeral industry, which was operating as a cartel and were ripping off families with excessive pricing and a no-third-party product policy. The FTC broke the monopoly and allowed third party products. My ex-wife and I even opened a discount casket store. My pricing policy was to double the wholesale price I paid and add on $250 + for freight to get my selling price and I used to come in at about 45% the funeral parlor price for equivalent quality.

The FTC are still chewing on Microsoft… I am waiting for the ACCC to get stuck into Telstra and their domination of the wholesale telecomm market.

The point with government it is designed to legally maintain a balance which it cannot do if it is a market participant. The problem is, when taxes are lean, they can swing into monopoly mode and invent charges.

An instance…
licencing people to use the beachfront for exercise activities
placing parking meters where there was previously a free parking arrangement.

forcing some individuals out of business to protect a ‘nice little earner’ for the municipality.

These ‘commercial revenue earners’ come at a price and the price is the monopoly power which is abused to protect them.

*But the other side of the coin is that accidents do happen pretty damn often, and they are arguably largely due to inexperience or lack of respect for risk factors and error margins. This situation could be very considerably improved if people were required to do a bit of formal training and accreditation. *

Just think about that for a minute Ludwig. Every single driver on
the roads has been trained to drive well enough to pass his
driving test. Does that mean that there are no hoons on the roads,
where too much testosterone and bad judgement are the real problems?

Nearly the whole of agriculture operates on a basis of on the job
training and good common sense. People would literally need
to do hundreds of courses, for the job is so varied. Forget it,
it is great in theory or in the eyes of a beureaucrat, but totally
impractical in the real world of agriculture. If you insisted
on that law, you would shut the industry down overnight.

That’s interesting Col. I wouldn’t have picked you as an ACCC supporter.

When it comes down to it, I don’t think our positions are too far apart at all out of the four of us: Col, Yab, Gumpp and Lud.

We all want the good part of regulation and want to do away with what we perceive as the bad part or refine it a make it good. And we want it all to be effective and efficient.

.
Balance, Yabby. It’s all about finding the right balance. A certain amount of basic training with any equipment more complicated than a hammer and nail (or even including them!) would be damn good idea. On the job training is not always sufficient. Yes, some of it should be formalised in law. But too much would be prohibitive to the smooth operation of farms, companies and economies.

As far as driving and road safety goes, do you think it would be better, or not significantly worse, if there was no initial training in order to get a licence, all else being equal? I think it would be a whole lot worse.

Of course there should be formalised training when it comes to driving and all sorts of other machinery operation. But that’s not the end of the story. There also has to be an effective policing regime to make sure people uphold the standard of training that they learnt or something close to it….or cop it big-time if there is a serious accident that can be shown to have occurred due to practice that has run contrary to their training.

I’m not advocating detailed training courses for every little thing. We’ve got to place the responsibility for safety in many instances fairly and squarely on the individual, and the employer, without implementing laws. But for a lot of things, there is a role for the law and regulators.

It comes back to that eternal struggle to find the right balance.

*Balance, Yabby. It’s all about finding the right balance. A certain amount of basic training with any equipment more complicated than a hammer and nail (or even including them!) would be damn good idea*

Ludwig, sure its about balance and also about the law being
consistent and not burdening business with unneeded costs. For
competitive business operates on a level that many in the public
service simply don't understand, for they have never been exposed
to it. Thge result is that every dept seemingly loads up business
with more costs, often just to clear their own arses of any potential
liability.

Now lets look at this example. You Ludwig, can go out and buy a
4wd vehicle, with nothing but a driving license. There is no
legal requirement for any kind of formal training. The same applies
to a chain saw, an ATV and many other pieces of equipment that you
might decide to fool around with.

You can go out and be a hoon, you can abuse the vehicle and kill
yourself. In the end, if you refuse to use common sense in your
life, that is your choice and decision.

Yet if you come onto my farm and drive one of my 4wds to say help
me move some machinery, then make a hoon of yourself and role and
crash the vehicle, I should be to blame, because I have not sent
you to an accredited 4wd course?

Can't you see the double standard that applies here?

This it the problem. Every Govt official in every Govt Dept seems
to think that business has plenty of money, we'll just load them
up with all these regulations and they will have to wear it.

No wonder so many businesses are saying "stuff you lot" and are
going offshore to do business, if at all possible. Next they
will be talking job creation schemes once again in Australia,
as Kim Beazely used to

“You can go out and be a hoon, you can abuse the vehicle and kill yourself. In the end, if you refuse to use common sense in your life, that is your choice and decision.”

I’ll have to disagree with that. It shouldn’t be your free choice to make decisions like that. The major problem is that your actions very often affect others…and hoonery on public roads is likely to end in tragedy for innocent people. If it only involved the idiot perpetrators then fine, I’d say; go right ahead and kill yourselves or incur permanent injuries or whatever.

So we should most definitely have a regulatory regime that strongly discourages public hoon behaviour. Directly because this aspect of the human brain especially in young males is so prevalent, we absolutely need to have strong laws to mitigate it.

Yabby, wouldn’t you endeavour to make sure that anyone who comes onto your farm to work has experience with a 4WD, in the conditions that it will be used on the property and understands the safety aspects… and of course never behaves like a hoon? Wouldn’t you want to know how capable someone is with a chain saw before you plonk it in their hands and tell them to go cut down that old dead tree down by the dam?

Ok so there are no legal requirements to have formal qualifications or a certain grade of competency in order to operate a wide range of machinery. But be careful, I bet there would be some legal come-back on you if a person was to seriously injure themself while carrying out work as directed by their boss, when they had no or insufficient experience or guidance on how to do the job or on what hazards to look out for.

Your example of a perceived double standard needs to be resolved by way greatly improving the regulatory regime regarding public hoonery rather than having no or minimal safety or experience requirements for workers in the private sector to apparently match the appallingly bad regulation of hoons and road safety issues in general.

* If it only involved the idiot perpetrators then fine, I’d say; go right ahead and kill yourselves or incur permanent injuries or whatever.*

Well in this case, that is what I was referring to. Farms are
perfect places for teens to let their testerone flow and they do
sometimes, no matter how much training they have had. Its just
young guys cutting loose and being stupid. You can't blame
employers for that and it has nothing to do with being accredited.

*Yabby, wouldn’t you endeavour to make sure that anyone who comes onto your farm to work has experience with a 4WD, in the conditions that it will be used on the property and understands the safety aspects*

Ludwig, if you came to visit my farm and I was moving machinery for
seeding, harvest etc, if you could drive a 2wd I would let you
grab a 4wd, for that is all there are here, 3 of them. No, I would
not expect you to be accredited in driving 4wds. If I then went to
town or something and you went out and cut loose, whilst I was
away, I could not be blamed for that.

*But be careful, I bet there would be some legal come-back on you if a person was to seriously injure themself *

Well this seems to be the core of the problem. Sadly we have copied
the US, in becoming a litigous society, where there is huge money
to be made in being a lawyer, rather then an engineer. That will
cost our economy just like it has cost the US. That is why healthcare
is so expensive in America, its not the doctors, its the lawyers
ready to pounce.

In the country these days, you are battling to find a doctor who
will deliver babies. The insurance is so expensive, its simply
not worth the bother. That is a real shame for our nation.

Ludwig “I wouldn’t have picked you as an ACCC supporter.”

Oh it is one of the best examples of the “Why do we have to have government” question.

Its purpose is to address and level the playing field and the rules of play, rather than equalize the individuals and their dissimilar attributes.

Its objective addresses the imbalance and curtails, contains, prosecutes abuses which will, inevitably exist between a few powerful manufacturers or retailers (due to economies of scale) and a lot of disorganized and un-powerful consumers.

“I don’t think our positions are too far apart at all out of the four of us”

Agree : - ), we simply address the issues from our own diverse perspectives and hence the prominence of different features is larger or smaller, depending upon that perspective.

My personal perspective remains

If a regulation is not working, better to acknowledge the fact, either change it or abandon it, rather than doing a half job.

If the merit of regulation is of dubious real benefit, like government handing money to business corporations under the recent car building regulations, it is better to not pursue it and leave the funds in the pocket of the tax payer to spend as they see fit.

Another maxim I support is

Small government avoids the dangers of large government by minimising the risk that the power and authority, known to corrupt, are not concentrated among just a few or in one place.

“Farms are perfect places for teens to let their testerone flow”

Recreationally, yes. But not white they’re working Yabby, surely.

If they do it in work time with the knowledge and condonement of their boss, then yes you can blame their employer to some extent if an ‘accident’ happens.

A very significant part of good management is to make sure that employees behave is a safe and sensible manner.

The balance has swung too far towards protectionism in the overlitigious US. But the other end of the spectrum is just as inappropriate. There’s got to be a responsibility to uphold a reasonable level of safety. And where this is shown to be significantly lacking, the law needs to step in.

Every employer has surely got to be responsible to some extent for the safety of their staff, inasmuch as providing the right sort of instructions and cautions on hazards. Of course there is a massive grey area where the blame for mishaps is not clear or is shared or is a matter of circumstance rather than any significant neglect. But all the same, the duty of care does exist – and it is directly because of many people failing in this regard that we have laws in many instances.

It is all far from perfect. No doubt some of these regulations overstep the mark a bit, and there are instances that are unregulated that should be. But all in all, I’d be inclined to think that the current situation is a fair bit short of the optimal balance between regulation and freedom to do as one likes. That is, not enough regulation overall. Or perhaps it is a case of enough regulation on the books, but nowhere near enough enforcement.

*If they do it in work time with the knowledge and condonement of their boss, then yes you can blame their employer to some extent if an ‘accident’ happens.*

Sure, if the boss knows and condones it, he can be blamed, but that
is not usually what happens.

The case I heard of, which actually landed up in court and the
employer was fined a huge amount, was that two workers were sent
out to check on the cattle. They rolled the vehicle, one got
injured and the employer was blamed, as they were not wearing their
seatbelts and had not done an accredited 4wd course.

Now think about the ramifications of that. On farms we use all
sorts of welders, power tools, machinery etc, fix windmills,
the list is endless. Yes, people are shown how to use things
sensibly, but you can't go sending people to a course on every
single bit of gear they use, or they would be doing courses all
their lives.

If you are going to lumber employers with all those sorts of
responsibilities, even when employees decide to behave like hoons,
when you are not there, the easy option is to stop employing people.

Let them all work for the Govt, they can all police each other.
Much better to have things made offshore

Col, so you fully support the ACCC in principle. But what about in its overall effectiveness?

You gave examples of other cartel activity; Qantas and BA, and Coles and Woolies. Could it be a case of the ACCC grabbing hold of one or a small number of issues and going full bore at them while just ignoring some others that are just as deserving of action and many others that might be a big less deserving but still need some regulation?

Could the ACCC be delivering a highly unbalanced and selective service?

My answer would be yes. I think ACCC Chairman Graham Samuel would have to agree if he was pushed on the issue. He’d no doubt say that they are doing what they can with the resources at their disposal.

So, if the ACCC can’t tackle the whole gamut of competition and consumer issues under its charter, should it be disbanded “rather than doing a half job”, should it be given much greater resources or do we need to just simply live with a far from perfect regulatory regime in this case?

Yabby, of course we shouldn’t be requiring courses to be run for every possible machine or job in which there is some element of risk. We agree – there has got to be a balance with these sorts of things.

But again I’ll maintain that we cannot have a situation whereby people can just launch straight into serious work with machinery that they are not familiar with and have not received any significant level of instruction over. Basic operation and safety factors MUST be expressed by the instructor/employer. And it is patently obvious to me that if it was left up to the employer to do this, many wouldn’t.

So when it comes to operating complex and dangerous machinery, such as a mustering helicopter, lengthy and detailed training is needed. When it comes to the operation of a motor vehicle, basic training at least to normal licence level should be required, even if the person doesn’t actually have a licence when operating a vehicle on private property. When it comes to 4WD operation, again basic training over and above standard vehicle operation is necessary.

Things like ATVs, chainsaws, drills, lathes, etc need some level of basic instruction and safety awareness. And then the territory becomes murkier with simpler equipment.

I can’t see why on earth the law couldn’t be a whole lot tighter on all of this stuff, with the requirement for employers to show in writing that they have given basic instruction on all equipment, which then gets signed by the employee.

It is surely in the best interests of every employer to do this, and in the interests of every employee to receive this instruction and to sign off on it, only after the instruction has been delivered and understood.

This sort of stuff surely sits totally within the role of good management by employers, and surely does not detract from productivity. In fact, giving proper instruction surely aids productivity.

I can’t see any reason why regulations to ensure that this basic level of instruction is given shouldn’t be implemented and be accepted by all.

*So when it comes to operating complex and dangerous machinery, such as a mustering helicopter, lengthy and detailed training is needed.*

Well of course we should, to fly a helicopter you need a license
and to get it you need to be qualified, to drive a car, again you
need a license, you need to be qualified.

My point is, there should not be double standards here, which there
are.

* Things like ATVs, chainsaws, drills, lathes, etc need some level of basic instruction and safety awareness *

So Ludwig the handyman can go to Bunnings, buy any kind of dangerous
equipment and operate it free of any requirement for instructions,
other then his duty of care to himself.

Yet Ludwig the employee can drop that duty of care and blame it
all on his boss, if something goes wrong and he acts foolishly.

Don't you see the double standard here?

Yabby, I don’t see a double standard in your example.

If you purchase equipment at Bunnings or wherever and use it around your home without having a proper operational or safety understanding, then that is your business. The manufacturer has covered his backside by including instructions / safety information with the items. This effectively covers the retailer as well. So it is then entirely up to you to read those instructions and to take it very easy until you familiarise yourself with the machine or risk any consequences of not doing so. You can really only blame yourself if you just practice the old ‘she’ll be right’ ozzie mantra.

But if you do it as an employee, the operation of the equipment is not ONLY your concern. It’s yours and your employers. It is therefore necessary for all parties involved to ensure that correct operation and safety are practiced and understood….especially in the situation where if an accident occurs, the employee could blame his/her employer or viceversa.

“My point is, there should not be double standards here, which there are.”

The whole point of having a better regulatory regime is to eliminate or greatly reduce double standards and make it all the same for everyone as far as is practicable. Let’s reign in the cowboy operators who put their naïve employees under unnecessary risk by expecting them to learn how to use dangerous equipment on the job by themselves without any instruction, while under considerable pressure to get the job done quickly. Let’s bring them up to the same standard as that of responsible managers/employers.

Also, the sort of regulation that I am talking about here is a good middle-of-the-road approach between no regulation and often a lack of basic responsibility exercised by employers, and a situation where you’d need to get employees to do courses on the use of every damn thing.

It is a good balance, and NOT one that would be of a significant cost to companies or end up driving jobs offshore.

*The whole point of having a better regulatory regime is to eliminate or greatly reduce double standards and make it all the same for everyone as far as is practicable.*

Ludwig exactly. That is why, if Ludwig uses say a drill at work
or at play, Ludwig should apply the same common sense and reasonable
judgement. If Ludwig uses a 4wd at work or at play, the same
standards should apply. No double standards.

ludwig>>There is a lot of criticism expressed on OLO about the quality of government regulation of all sorts of laws,from the police to departments that administer environmental and water regulations and the like.>>

i never heard that one before[BUT I LIKE THE IDEA

[personally police should be doing all the policing,but not as revenue raising but public safty and well being of us the principles of the public weal[from consumer complaint,to evironmental,parking,dogs,health,finance,banking,any'crime'or potential injurous or dangerous threat[even a'craked'pavement;HE/she CAN'ORDER'TO BE FIXED[almost]IMEDIATLY;

you name it'anything'that has stolen your[our]time,health,saFTEY, possesions,[s]he can'order'rectified or'replaced'[anything that can hurt you or make you a victim]should be the duty of the'police'to get the right problem to the right person to'fix'it[a one'stop'shop]one cop takes it to the next level,now.

there are of course divergent levels of policing[your basic'cop'is like a first AID OFFICER [ANYTHING THREATENING OUR[THE PUBLIC,OR BUISNESS]SAFTY,THE COP CAN RECTIFY]imediatly

SO SAY A COP SEES YOU'driving'dangerously'[s]he'sends you for a road licence test[case closed]cop sees you with a bald tyre[or an unroadworthy vehicle[he arranges it towed away and or replaired or replaced[and'[s]he'creates the'debt[that goes to debt recovery if not repayed.

your homeless a'cop'can get you instant bed,you need money[or you will steal];he/she can arrange a'job'for you[just orders an'employer'to hire you[govt subsidises their pay]

cops need to be seen as serving us[if he/she suspects you did a crime,his job is to protect your rights
while you go through the process[a peace officer[not a policing persona,one who collects evidence[picks up rubbish[time/date stamped,and sent off for finger printing and dna[proving who was there before he was]

not only does the garbage get cleaned up,it makes us see this local protector on the beat as someone they can really call an honest cop[from giving kids a kick in the butt,to locking you up[accomidating you over night for minimal'cos'[and maximal safty

>>This involves all levels of government right across the country.>>
and across any juristiction[for'any'citizen[world wide[or any'tourist'on'terra-australis'estates[or juristictions owned or supervised by australian regulatory protecorat's

Alright, by way of clarification – you are talking about upholding the same standard at work or play. I’m talking about the same standard across all work environments.

Why should recreational activities be under the standard of regulation as work activities?

People do all sorts of high-risk recreational activities. If they use some of the same equipment in their recreation time as they use for work, and they use it in a riskier manner, well that’s their business, for as long as they are not going to affect innocent people and for as long as anyone else involved understands that there is a considerably heightened risk factor that encompasses the thrill factor, and that if they come unstuck, it is their own silly fault for being involved.

It might not be unreasonable to use a 4WD vehicle for some sort of bush-bashing or rally driving recreational activity, but it would be totally unreasonable to use it in the same manner for work.

It is totally different in the work environment.

At any rate Yabby, if you wanted to level the regulatory playing field for all activities in work and play, you’d have to allow a whole lot more risky activities to happen, or to be able to happen, at work. Or…you’d have to greatly increase restrictions on recreational activities to the point of knocking the excitement completely out of them. One or the other.

We want work environments to be as safe. But for many recreational activities, safety is not a primary concern, and indeed an element of risk that is considerably higher than for normal day to day activities is inherently present.

It is completely untenable to have the same level of regulation applying to work and play.

Let’s stick to the concept of a level playing field for work environments and drop the recreational bit.

*We want work environments to be as safe. But for many recreational activities, safety is not a primary concern*

Ah Ludwig, so if you kill yourself at work, being a hoon, it is
a major drama and we should tighten up laws, but if you kill yourself
as part of your recreation, it does not matter.

My point exactly, about double standards that you are trying to
apply.

I rest my case :)

Yabby, I’ll go back on what I said about dropping the recreational bit and ask you these questions, in light of the comments in my last post;

How would you level the playing field between recreational and work activities?

Would you greatly reduce regulation of work activities to match the low level of regulation and management of risky activities in sport and various other play activities?

Would you greatly increase regulation in recreational activities to match a reasonable level of responsibility as far as safety is concerned in the work environment?

Or would you do a bit of both?

These are the only options aren’t they?

Why would you want them to be on a level playing field? Isn’t it inherently sensible to want work environments to be reasonably safe, but to allow people to let off steam and exercise some risky activities if they feel so inclined their own time?

*How would you level the playing field between recreational and work activities?*

The point is this Ludwig. Something like an ATV or 4wd or chainsaw,
is either dangerous or not dangerous. If you smash your head in
or cut your foot off, it hurts just as much. So there is no good
reason to discrimate one from the other.

I think that the whole "accreditation" story has become a bit
of a rort. Some of those course organisers sure know how to screw
a dollar out of the system.

Its also very easy to just keep lumping employers with more costs
and regulations and responsibilities. Public servants do it all the
time, usually to clear their own butts.

Manuals are often not the best things, for they are usually full
of totally ridiculous statements, written to comply with American
legal jargon.

So what about a cost effective solution for all? Lets say that
people who make things deemed to involve some danger in their
use, include a dvd of instruction for safe use. They would cost
1 or 2$ a copy, hardly a huge expense. Now you can't force people
to watch them, but if they were practical, I bet you that many would.
Employers could then give them to staff to watch, to satisfy their
duty of care.

If Ludwig or Joe then act the hoon at work or at play, it is then
their own duty of care to themselves that comes into play.

Just lumbering employers with fines of hundreds of thousands of
Dollars is not going to encourage people to employ others.

“The point is this Ludwig. Something like an ATV or 4wd or chainsaw, is either dangerous or not dangerous.”

Yabby, I think it is clear from my last post that it is untenable to attempt to match the regulation of safety of the work and recreational arenas.

We have to treat the two quite separately. We can with the right sort of regulatory regime make workplaces quite safe. But the use of some of the same equipment in a recreational manner would fall outside of that regulation and therefore could well not be anywhere near as safe. That’s just inescapable isn’t it?

So, it is not a matter of an ATV or a 4WD either being dangerous or not dangerous. It is a matter of making sure as best we can that they are not dangerous in the work environment, while accepting that when they are used in quite a different manner in a recreational way, they may well be a whole lot more hazardous.

If you like, there IS a big double standard here. But I glean from your lack of answers to the questions I posed in my last post that this difference is inherently unsolvable and that it should just be accepted that there are big differences on the onus of safety in the two arenas…..and that we should confine ourselves to discussing the virtues of the management of safety within the work environment.

I agree; as part of an employer’s duty of care, they should require an employee to read the instruction manual or view the DVD that comes with some products, even if the employee indicates that they are familiar with that piece of equipment.

“Just lumbering employers with fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars…”

There have to be penalties, otherwise some employees will simply not exercise their basic responsibilities….and the same old very unlevel playing field, with some sticking to the law or strong advice to be vigilant with basic training and safety and others ignoring it, would just continue. We can’t have a level playing field without penalties….and a good policing regime.

*Yabby, I think it is clear from my last post that it is untenable to attempt to match the regulation of safety of the work and recreational arenas.*

Ludwig, I did answer your question by finding an acceptable win-win
solution that efficiently deals with the problem on both sides.

But I simply don't accept your premiss that its fine to kill yourself
through lack of knowledge in your own time, but a different standard
should apply at work. So we will have to agree to disagree.

I remind you however, people are pregnant or not pregnant :), so your
double standards are not very practical, fair, or realistic.

If you want an efficient and productive economy, with efficient
and productive industry, which can compete globally, then the
regulations lumbered onto that industry by the Public Service, have
to be practical and cost effective.

Given that you work for the Public Service, you are perhaps blissfully
unaware about how tight that margins can be these days, for companies
who want to compete globally.

Every extra $ that you add in unneeded costs, is another nail in
the coffin for potential exporters.

No wonder that so many throw in the towel and Australia is little
then a mine and a farm, for they are the only industries where
we have a comparative advantage. Too much red tape makes it hardly
worth the bother to try and establish much else. No wonder they
all head offshore, nobody can blame them

Yabby, your cost-effective solution seems to fit within mine. I’ve been espousing a basic level of training on operation and safety by employers on any equipment that could possibly need any tuition or safety awareness, and you’re suggesting that DVDs should be used where possible.

It seems like we have reached basic agreement.

I certainly don’t want employees to be lumbered with a requirement to put their workers through numerous courses or otherwise incur considerable expense or inconvenience in order to uphold a reasonable degree of safety, and of course I don’t want safety to be sloppily or unevenly dealt with.

We both want the work environment to be reasonably safe and we want it to happen on a level playing field.

So then, it seems like the only thing left to discuss is the level of regulation and penalties that need to be involved.

I maintain that a quite thorough regulatory effort, considerably better than at present in many areas, is needed to make sure that all the cowboy operators tow the line and that we really do have a level playing field. Significant penalties have surely got to be part of this.

You seem to think that the opposite should occur; a winding back of regulatory activity, with a much slimmer public service. Is this right?