At a glance:
- The government is launching another deregulation drive, prompted by a Productivity Commission report.
- Decades of deregulation reviews and task forces have brought little meaningful change.
- Governments should look at why previous reviews have so consistently failed.
A few days before Christmas 2025, the federal government took delivery of a new Productivity Commission final report, titled Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy.
The commission, under chair Danielle Wood, has recommended another new deregulation drive. It wants “a stream of regulatory reviews, focused on sectors or regulatory systems where complex and enduring thickets of regulation have emerged”.
Small business might be expected to applaud. The sector has long complained about costly and unjustified regulation in everything from tax, superannuation and insurance to sustainability and reporting.
A 2019 Treasury report, Regulation and small business, agreed. It noted that “small businesses have fewer resources and are unable to take advantage of ‘economies of scale’ in order to understand, comply with and benefit from regulation.”
And the federal government seems to be on board. Andrew Leigh, federal Assistant Minister for Productivity, has gone so far as to decry Australia’s “thickets of regulation”.
But the federal government’s new enthusiasm for general economic deregulation is also just the latest in a long string of government pushes for deregulation. That history gives little hope of serious reform.
The decades of deregulation drives
“There have been so many reviews and inquiries, and we’re still doing them constantly,” says Vicki Stylianou, IPA Group executive advocacy & professional standards (and a former Treasury official herself). “But you have to ask, what’s really changed?”
This history, she suggests, should prompt governments to look more deeply at why deregulation reviews have consistently failed.
“We’d do well to have a look at all the reviews from the last ten to 20 years that were tackling red tape, analyse what were their recommendations and find out whether they were implemented. Or, are we just repeating the same mistakes?”
Below is a short history of Australia’s mostly unproductive history of government-wide regulatory reviews.
ABS counts the cost – 1978
Small business has long grumbled about regulatory burdens. In 1978, the Australian Bureau of Statistics commissioned a survey to quantify the costs of meeting local, state and federal demands.
Bell’s task force – 1996
The Howard Government launched the Small Business Deregulation Task Force in 1996. Chaired by former McDonalds CEO Charlie Bell, it was announced with a proclamation: “The Government understands that small business is the engine room of the economy … Labor was content to allow small business to drown in a sea of paperwork and excessive compliance costs.”
The Task Force’s goal was to cut compliance costs by 50%. While some outcomes were achieved, by the early 2000s small business groups were again asking for relief.
Banks’ 178 recommendations – 2006
Gary Banks, then chair of the Productivity Commission, head a 2005-06 task force that published Rethinking Regulation. The Banks Review outlined the rising regulatory burden, its drivers and the need for reform. It offered 178 recommendations, most of which were accepted by Government.
This report did not focus specifically on small business. Instead, it looked at regulation broadly – covering pharmaceutical schemes, aged care, labour markets and more.
“There have been so many reviews and inquiries… But you have to ask, what’s really changed?”
Vicki Stylianou
PC under Harris – 2013
2013 brought a new Productivity Commission study under a new chair, Peter Harris. It benchmarked regulator approaches to engagement with small businesses, “to improve the delivery of regulatory objectives for communities and reduce unnecessary compliance costs”.
The report concluded: “The challenge for governments appears to be ensuring that the right institutional, governance, transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place to encourage the wider adoption of good engagement practices”.
Abbott/Turnbull government Deregulation Agenda 2013-2015
The Coalition government’s whole-of-government deregulation push – formally named the Deregulation Agenda – targeted $1 billion annually in net red tape reduction. Portfolios set internal targets, and the agenda was headed up by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).
An Australian National Audit Office report said: “By the end of 2015, the Government had publicly announced measures to deliver estimated total net savings of $4.8 billion. Portfolio reporting to PM&C advised that some $3.97 billion in net savings had been implemented in 2014 and 2015 – exceeding the internal target of $2.65 billion by $1.32 billion.”
Belcher Red Tape Review – 2015
This was an independent review across all government internal regulation. It aimed to identify regulations for removal. It also recommended the minimum rules required for entities to meet government needs. Known as the Belcher Red Tape Review, it was led by former senior public servant Barbara Belcher.
In October 2015 the Secretaries Board agreed to implement all 134 recommendations. The Department of Finance reported that “significant benefits are expected for small entities”.
Senate aims at red tape – 2016-2018
The Select Committee on Red Tape was established in 2016 to “to inquire into effect of restrictions and prohibitions on business (red tape) on the economy and community”.
The committee’s report looked at environmental and sustainability matters, health, agriculture and alcohol. The Australian Government responded in July 2018, with 12 of 15 recommendations “noted” and the other three “not agreed”.
PC’s Wood takes up the fight – 2025
The Productivity Commission under current chair Danielle Wood has again recommended a broad government offensive against unneeded regulation.
Among its recommendations: “a whole of government statement that sets out a vision for more efficient regulation, sets out immediate concrete reforms as a downpayment towards meeting a targeted $10 billion reduction in net regulatory costs by 2030, and commits to broader monitoring of regulation, through a newly created ‘annual regulatory review’.”
We need to understand these failures
The Institute of Public Accountants has long advocated for a reduction in compliance responsibilities for small businesses. Vicki Stylianou argues that genuine progress requires hindsight. To have impact with some new deregulation review, government must first understand why previous reviews achieved so little.
“Why isn’t anything changing?” Stylianou asks. “Why are we so incapable of moving on and making real progress around small business deregulation? Why do we keep going around in circles?”
Learn more about how the IPA is advocating for the profession here.
