tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/repeal-day-9540/articlesrepeal day – The Conversation2014-08-07T20:30:57Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/244772014-08-07T20:30:57Z2014-08-07T20:30:57ZMetadata and jobseeker plans contradict red tape target<p>The Australian government’s target of A$1 billion of red-tape savings for the year is now in sight ($700 million up to March 2014 and a claimed $300 million from the carbon tax repeal plus Future of Financial Advice repeal). But just three months before the next repeal day - slated for October 29 - the government has announced two new regulatory measures which will squander much of the savings and defy the very process established to prevent red tape. </p>
<p>Deregulation, or red-tape reduction has been a “thing” for all governments. Regulatory Impact Statements, which are supposed to weed out poor proposals, have been around for 20 years. In March the government mandated impact statements for all proposals with regulatory implications.</p>
<p>Accompanying the red-tape reduction bills is <a href="https://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbook/australian-government-guide-regulation">“The Australian Government Guide to Regulation”</a> with 10 principles and seven “critical questions” for regulatory impact statements. The guide spells out how policymakers should do their job and the clear message is: no impact statement, no regulation.</p>
<p>The principles, nine of which are sensible and already widely used, are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Regulation should not be the default option</p></li>
<li><p>Regulation should only be imposed where there is a net benefit</p></li>
<li><p>The cost burden of all new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in other regulation</p></li>
<li><p>Every regulatory policy change must have a regulatory impact statement</p></li>
<li><p>Genuine and timely consultation will be undertaken with all stakeholders</p></li>
<li><p>Policymakers must consult one another to avoid overlapping burdens</p></li>
<li><p>Information used to make regulatory decisions should be published at the earliest opportunity</p></li>
<li><p>Regulators must implement regulations with common sense, empathy and respect</p></li>
<li><p>All regulation must be reviewed periodically</p></li>
<li><p>Deregulation units must be involved in the policy making process.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Principle 3 requiring that proponents of new rules must fully offset their costs by reducing existing regulatory burdens, even though all other policy aims are met, is irrational in that it imposes an obligation independent of the merits. </p>
<h2>Blowing the savings</h2>
<p>Within three months of the next repeal day, measures have been announced which apparently ignore most of the principles and will chew up much of the claimed savings. Plans to require many of the nation’s 740,000 plus job seekers to apply for 40 jobs each per month as a condition for receiving unemployment benefits will result in what a small business journal described as “a red tape nightmare”. </p>
<p>Under the new policy, which was released without a now mandatory impact statement, job seekers will be forced to apply for 40 jobs a month (up from 20), and for those under 30 years of age, perform up to 25 hours of community service. No costings are given for the burden on the unemployed nor for the administrative costs to employers of dealing with nearly 15 million extra job applications every month. </p>
<p>The Council of Small Business of Australia warns the scheme will result in small businesses being inundated with job applications from people who do not want jobs. In an extraordinary response, the government claims businesses will not have to respond to the deluge of applications. </p>
<p>Another policy that will contribute to the mountain of red tape is the more quantifiable costs of recently announced plans requiring telecommunications and internet service providers to retain data related to online activity. According to ISP iiNet the scheme, which it has <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/data_retention_policy_chaotic_confusing_eVIJIr7yj2ZfPcpKV0R19H">called</a> “chaotic and confusing”, will cost A$130 million a year increasing to A$200 million after two years. </p>
<h2>Have we seen this before?</h2>
<p>Following a decade of declining productivity and economic difficulties in 1995, all of the states and the Commonwealth agreed to implement Australia’s National Competition Policy. A key element of the policy was systematically reviewing 1800 national state and local laws to reduce anti-competitive elements.</p>
<p>Implemented over a period of 10 years the policy led to major microeconomic reforms which yielded a significant payoff in productivity and income growth. In a thorough evaluation of the national competition policy and related reforms, the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/46033/ncp.pdf">Productivity Commission found</a> that productivity and price changes in key infrastructure sectors in the 1990s – to which the policy reforms contributed – have increased Australia’s GDP by 2.5%, or $20 billion per annum.</p>
<p>The take-home message is that carefully planned and serious economic reforms are possible and beneficial, however measures based more on theatrical display are unlikely to enhance welfare in any meaningful or lasting sense.</p>
<p>October 29’s Repeal Day has slated changes to coastal shipping, corporations law, heavy vehicle transport and the 457 visa system in the firing line.</p>
<p>By departing from its own red tape rules in relation to changes in the unemployment benefits system and the data retention scheme, the capacity for the government to deliver is very much on trial. It seems that good economics of the regulatory impact statement process will be ignored when the political benefits of new regulations trump them.</p>
<p>It is too early to tell but perhaps the government’s current anti-regulatory mantra of “deregulation good, regulation bad” may one day change to “deregulation good, sensible regulation better”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24477/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allan Asher is affiliated with the Regulatory Institutions Newtwork (REGNET) at the Australian National Universityand The Foundation for Effecetive Regulation and Governance (FEMAG)</span></em></p>The Australian government’s target of A$1 billion of red-tape savings for the year is now in sight ($700 million up to March 2014 and a claimed $300 million from the carbon tax repeal plus Future of Financial…Allan Asher, Visitor, Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) & Chair of Foundation for Effective Markets and Governennce, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/246592014-04-01T00:42:51Z2014-04-01T00:42:51ZCharitable treatment by regulator belies church complaints<p>The <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Med_R/MR_010.aspx">Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission</a> (ACNC) was created by the former federal Labor government and began operation in December 2012. It is so new that some charities are yet to be required to submit their first annual information statement. But the Coalition government, acting on an election promise, has introduced <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5202">legislation</a> to abolish the commission as part of its <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/red-tape-repeal-to-scrap-charities-watchdog/5330788">red tape reduction</a> program. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/03/acnc-creates-%E2%80%98red-tape-nightmare%E2%80%99-catholic-education#">Catholic Church</a> is among the loudest voices against the ACNC. Cardinal George Pell <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/church-lobby-in-win-over-charities-watchdog-20130831-2sxqs.html">reportedly lobbied</a> the government to abolish it. The church claims that the ACNC places an unreasonable burden upon it and its associated organisations.</p>
<p>Religious charities have some of the lowest reporting obligations of all ACNC-registered charities. </p>
<p>Registration is voluntary. However, charities wishing to access <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/FTS/Fact_ConcAvail.aspx">tax exemptions</a> must register with the ACNC. The <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/FTS/Fact_CharSize.aspx">size of the charity</a> determines the level of reporting required. Charities are classified as small, medium or large depending on their revenue.</p>
<p>All charities are required to provide annual information statements to the ACNC. <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Pblctns/Factsheets/ACNC/FTS/Fact_CharSize.aspx">From 2014</a>, the content of these statements varies depending on the size of the charity. Medium and large charities must also submit audited annual financial reports. </p>
<p>Basic religious charities are not required to provide any financial information to the ACNC. They are exempt from financial questions in the annual information statement and do not need to provide annual financial reports regardless of size. Basic religious charities are the only type of charity to receive this level of exemption from reporting obligations. </p>
<p>Even this low level of reporting may appear onerous to a small religious group. However, the annual information statement primarily consists of basic identifying information and questions, which require charities to select an answer from a drop-down menu or from a <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Multimedia/VidComCharityTipsFillingAIS2013.aspx">check box list</a>.</p>
<h2>What is a basic religious charity?</h2>
<p>A basic religious charity is a special subgroup of charities for the advancement of religion. The ACNC recognises <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Pblctns/Factsheets/FS_Charity/ACNC/FTS/Fact_Charity.aspx?hkey=052e737a-59f4-4af7-a460-27386217863d#purposehttp://example.com/">12 different charitable purposes</a>, including advancing religion, advancing health, advancing culture, promoting or protecting human rights and preventing or relieving the suffering of animals. </p>
<p>Which type of charity an organisation registers as depends on its purpose. For example, the <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=C48443BE-FE4F-4306-969F-030BC63BC474&noleft=1">University of Western Australia</a> is registered as a charity for advancing education. A charity with more than one purpose must register all of these purposes. For example, the <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=A3CB62C3-69ED-41F1-ADC8-7F5276625A0C&noleft=1">Mandandanji Charitable Trust</a> is registered as having seven charitable purposes. </p>
<p>Charities that register as having the purpose of advancing religion can register as basic religious charities if they meet the criteria. Most individual churches and parishes would qualify as a basic religious charity.</p>
<p>To register as a basic religious charity the charity must:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Be entitled to be registered as a religious charity; and</p></li>
<li><p>Not be entitled to register as any other type of charity.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In addition, the charity must not:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Be a corporation registered under the Corporations Act 2001;</p></li>
<li><p>Be an Indigenous corporation under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006;</p></li>
<li><p>Be a corporation registered under the Companies Act 1985 of Norfolk Island;</p></li>
<li><p>Be an incorporated association in any state or territory;</p></li>
<li><p>Be endorsed as a deductible gift recipient;</p></li>
<li><p>Have been allowed by the ACNC to report as part of a group; or</p></li>
<li><p>Have received more than $100,000 in government grants in the current or previous two financial years.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This may appear to be a long list of exclusions, but most parishes and individual churches would meet these requirements – including Roman Catholic parishes. For example, the <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=DA45636E-E504-47D9-9690-2FE19D76ABF2&noleft=1">Catholic Parish of St Mary North Sydney Lavender Bay</a> is registered as a basic religious charity. </p>
<p>Not all religious charities will qualify as a basic religious charity. A religious school would also need to register as a charity for advancing education. That would disqualify it from registration as a basic religious charity.</p>
<h2>Less red tape or more?</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=643&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44959/original/9xsrmy37-1395964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=807&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social services minister Kevin Andrews says scrapping the charities regulator will cut red tape.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/88279155@N03/10786753425/in/photolist-hrbVZk-7UbtiV-7UeJUj-7UeKHL-7UeKiC-7UeHD7-7UeLFW-995F2E-992DiV-992wtx-995L87-995Jyh-992ySF-995Dzo-992y3P-992Ane-992Cr2-995Jef-995EJ5-992zp2-995Lnb-995GW3-992Cbv-995Hny-992wXv-995FNh-8X8MjQ-8X8Mn1-8X8Me5-8X8Mi7-8X5Lic-8X8Mgd-8X5LbB-8X8MkY-8X5LhH-8X5Lfa-8X8MgW-8X5Lje-8X5L7Z-8X5LiT-dMq4Ly-dMq1EE-dMq1PQ-dMjskz-dMq4Xj-dMq5jh-hrdura-hrctPd-hrcRRN-hrceVG-hrdHEe">Flickr/Tony O'Hare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2012/163.htm&pageID=003&min=djba&Year=&DocType=0">original aim</a> of the ACNC was to “drive work to cut red tape for charities and support transparency and accountability” and to operate as a “report-once, use-often reporting framework”. The Abbott government appears to have deemed it a failure despite <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Med_R/MR_070.aspx">evidence</a> to the contrary. </p>
<p>Most religious charities that are excluded from the category of basic religious charity had reporting requirements to other regulators such as ASIC before the ACNC was created. The aim of the ACNC is to reduce red tape with a system that allows charities to report only to the commission. Other organisations such as ASIC would then access the information they need from the ACNC.</p>
<p>This process is <a href="https://theconversation.com/watching-over-the-helpers-why-regulation-of-charities-matters-19971">already under way</a>. Scrapping the ACNC will not remove reporting requirements to these other organisations and may in fact increase red tape. </p>
<p>Admittedly, prior to the ACNC, most charities classified as basic religious charities are unlikely to have had any reporting obligations. However, the reporting now required is a small price to pay for the tax benefits and status that come with being a charity.</p>
<p>The ACNC has launched a <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Med_R/MR_071.aspx">survey</a> asking charities about their experiences of red tape. It will be interesting to see what the results show.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24659/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renae Barker is the Diocesan Advocate of the Anglican Diocese of Bunbury and an ex officio member of their Board of Trustees. </span></em></p>The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) was created by the former federal Labor government and began operation in December 2012. It is so new that some charities are yet to be required…Renae Barker, Lecturer in Law , The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/244822014-03-25T19:40:09Z2014-03-25T19:40:09ZRepeal day an exercise in deregulation smoke and mirrors<p>Repeal day – a political stunt copied from David Cameron’s government in the UK – will go ahead in Australia this Wednesday. </p>
<p>The very fact the government plans to repeal some 10,000 regulations suggests past governments have failed to undertake inventories of their legislation and regulations, or systematically review which ones should remain.</p>
<p>The government intends (until it forgets) to have two “repeal days” per year, repealing in total around A$1 billion of regulation that has outlived its usefulness. </p>
<p>We are told that we have erected a “culture of compliance and enforcement that stifles productivity” and that by eliminating all unnecessary regulation we will be liberated. These are bold, even courageous, ambitions.</p>
<p>There’s various reasons the government has chosen to go down this route. It gets business off its back for one. Business constantly complains about unnecessary regulation and deregulation is one thing that they can almost all agree upon.</p>
<p>Deregulating anachronistic regulations also doesn’t cost much, which is a plus in a fiscally stringent context. Abolishing “red tape” enables the government to look active, setting the agenda. And the champion of the latest initiative, Josh Frydenberg, will see the endeavour as likely to enhance his promotion from his parliamentary secretary position into the ministry. </p>
<p>But deregulation exercises are all about smoke and mirrors. Parliament is unrelentingly cranking out thousands of new amendments and regulations each session, yet governments will periodically want to appear to be reducing the regulatory burden on the community and especially business – as a productivity measure. </p>
<p>Reporting requirements, compliance frameworks and other accountability impositions are increasing at a far faster rate than any rolling back of out-dated regulations (ask any small business, NGO, voluntary association or even sporting club).</p>
<p>There are some big deceptions behind the Abbott-Frydenberg initiative. One is that they claim the abolition of these regulations sitting on the statute books will miraculously save millions of dollars and make us more competitive. Yet most of the ones destined for abolition are truly anachronistic laws and regulations (some decades and even centuries old) that hardly apply to modern business.</p>
<h2>Real reform, or abolishing obsolescence?</h2>
<p>The prime minister cited a regulation imposed in the 1970s over the conversion from imperial measures to metric – who seriously believes the abolition of this irrelevant oversight will liberate business to be more productive? Other examples include obsolete regulations that applied to state-based naval installations over 114 years ago and to the construction phase of the Snowy Mountains hydro-scheme in the 1940s. These examples illustrate that the government is largely abolishing obsolescence rather than culling modern-day regulations.</p>
<p>Another deception is that most of the irritant regulations mentioned in the speeches by both the prime minister and the parliamentary secretary are matters of state and local government regulation – shopping hours, retailing restrictions, product size rules and labelling. These are the regulations that can “suffocate small business” (but also sometimes protect them), yet the Commonwealth is not a party to them. </p>
<p>Some areas or regulation involve duplication where previous Commonwealth governments have attempted to over-write its own regulations and requirements onto matters of state jurisdiction (for example, aged care facilities).</p>
<h2>You’re saving how much?</h2>
<p>And who has tallied how much we will supposedly save – the answer is bureaucrats. Officials in every department have been instructed to go back through their old statutes and “find” ones that no-one can remember and dish these up for “deregulation”, and in doing so estimate how much could be “saved” if they were onerous to comply with or administer. The dollars “saved” should be treated with caution.</p>
<p>There is also delicious irony lurking behind the government’s latest deregulation policy – the introduction of a new across-the-board regulatory requirement that every policy proposal to introduce (or abolish) regulation must be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Statement. So, we’ll deregulate by placing another regulatory burden on departments who will have to construct pro-forma assessments of proposed changes.</p>
<p>The government has sneaked through some ideological regulatory cutting along the way. The regulator overseeing charities is being abolished (to please the big faith-based charities) and the regulations governing financial advisers are being watered down (responding to their lobbying, not the public interest). But if one examines the list of acts to be abolished most are irrelevant oversights that have long since been de-operationalised.</p>
<p>Cynics may suggest that a more positive contribution to deregulation might be for the federal parliament to ban all additional legislative activity for a year or two, and give everyone a breather, while investing time in harmonising irksome regulations at the local level.</p>
<p>Legislative instruments such as tax, industrial relations, safety, environment, superannuation are all tinkered with ad nauseum; I don’t see governments reversing this trend with pious announcements of “repeal days”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24482/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Wanna does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Repeal day – a political stunt copied from David Cameron’s government in the UK – will go ahead in Australia this Wednesday. The very fact the government plans to repeal some 10,000 regulations suggests…John Wanna, Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration , Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/246382014-03-25T19:40:05Z2014-03-25T19:40:05ZTackle fast-tracking of approvals to close nexus between politicians and developers<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s planned repeal of 9500 redundant regulations and 1000 Acts of Parliament could loosen dangerously close ties between politicians and developers. While such ties are problematic in many parts of Australia, the recent investigation of the Obeid family by NSW’s Independent Commission Against Corruption has brought this issue to the forefront. </p>
<p>Research that I undertook when I was leading a 2011 bid for a Cooperative Research Centre in Heritage demonstrates that the nexus between politicians and developers in Australia has become perilously close. Over the last decade, red tape involved in the heritage approvals process has resulted in a dramatic increase in direct ministerial approvals for developments. </p>
<p>In New South Wales, for example, the use of ministerial <a href="http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=search&page_id=&search=&authority_id=&search_site_type_id=&reference_table=&status_id=&decider=&from_date=15%2F2%2F2011&to_date=3%2F3%2F2011&x=68&y=17">approvals for major projects or infrastructure</a> rocketed from a total of nine during 2001-2005 to 457 in 2010. Forty-three were approved in the two weeks prior to the state government going into caretaker mode. </p>
<p>Red tape is needed to reduce risk and to ensure transparent and equitable processes. However, too much red tape stifles investment. Moreover, frustrated developers seek greater use of ministerial “call in” powers to circumvent slow approvals. </p>
<p>Australia’s current heritage approvals process is fragmented across jurisdictions, between agencies and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage. This has produced mountains of uncoordinated, non-standardised data. This data is inaccessible, often redundant and usually incomplete. </p>
<p>Decision-making power is dispersed across numerous agencies. Decisions depend on the interpretation and knowledge of individuals rather than on a solid evidence base. We need integrated data-sets that make it possible to determine what is common from what is rare or unique. Common approaches to data collection, storage and use should produce consistent decision-making.</p>
<p>The escalation of ministerial approvals for major developments in NSW emerged in 2005. The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 was <a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-us/developmentproposals/developmentassessmentsystems/part3aassessmentsystem.aspx">amended to include Part 3A</a> for major projects of state and regional significance. Part 3A determined that the only planning approval required was that of the NSW planning minister. Each project had a spend in excess of $50 million. </p>
<p>With Part 3A, both concept and project approval from the minister had statutory force. Part 3A projects circumvented local council approval and both state heritage acts. These projects did not need approvals under either the Heritage Act, 1977 or the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974. Moreover, Part 3A projects were protected from emergency protection orders and third party legal challenges under State environmental or planning statutes. </p>
<p>While the aim of Part 3A was to provide up-front certainty for long-term or complex projects, this provision was abused. When the Liberal government came to power in NSW Part 3A was replaced by two separate assessment frameworks. One is for state significant development. The other is for state significant infrastructure. Importantly, the new system constrains the “call-in” powers of the Minister. </p>
<p>It was anticipated that the number of applications designated as state significant would drop by half. Nevertheless, the level of ministerial approvals for major development projects is still way beyond what it was a decade ago. </p>
<p>Throughout Australia fast-tracking major projects through ministerial approval has become a viable alternative to following due process. Occasional exemptions have become routine and the nexus between politicians and developers has grown murkier.</p>
<p>A sustainable alternative to relying on ministerial approvals for large developments is to lessen delays in heritage approvals. Reducing red tape is one part of this.</p>
<p>Developers need access to sound information. A standardised, integrated and coordinated information system would support sound decision-making. A comprehensive database would make it possible to assess if a cultural heritage place is unique, or one of thousands. Such a system would make it possible to classify and rank heritage assets. It would provide an evidence base for determining what can go and what needs protection.</p>
<p>Uncertainty over heritage approvals is costing investment and jobs throughout Australia. In the resource sector, for example, <a href="http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=20902">The Fraser Institute’s annual Global Survey of Mining Companies</a> consistently identifies uncertainty over the protection of wilderness, parks and archaeological sites as a strong deterrent to investment across Australia. </p>
<p>There is an economic need for a streamlined information system that reduces the approvals delay and provides certainty for developers. Such certainty needs to be based on good, irrefutable data. In addition, decision-making should be informed by community values in order to pre-empt conflict and provide long-term confidence.</p>
<p>Australia’s cultural heritage is recognised globally as unique. It includes the world’s oldest continuous cultural traditions, some of the first evidence for modern human behaviours and rich rock art complexes. In addition, it includes the histories of more than 200 migrant groups. </p>
<p>This important heritage needs to be protected. However, we need to grow Australia’s economy and we can’t keep everything. Decisions have to be made about what we pass on to the next generation as heritage and what we let go. These decisions need to be transparent, fair and consistent.</p>
<p>Reliance on ministerial approvals raises concerns about transparency and challenges the integrity of the system. It is possible that the current corruption cases in NSW are only the tip of the iceberg.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Smith has received research and community project funding from a number of mining companies, including BHP-Billiton and Rio Tinto.</span></em></p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s planned repeal of 9500 redundant regulations and 1000 Acts of Parliament could loosen dangerously close ties between politicians and developers. While such ties are problematic…Claire Smith, Professor of Archaeology, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.