Industry Groups Warn of Poor Consultation on Complex Reforms

We write on behalf of the undersigned Alliance of Industry Associations to raise a growing concern about

government's inadequate consultation on recent complex legislative and regulatory reforms. We represent 30

groups from across the economy including small, medium and large businesses, farmers, builders, retailers,

universities and tax and accounting professionals.

Our organisations support genuine and timely consultation as a cornerstone of good policy making and

democratic governance. This allows government to test its proposals against real-world impact and allows

impacted businesses and professionals to properly understand and respond to proposed change. Indeed,

consultation, when done well, is a critical step in ensuring good policy design and minimising unintended

consequences of policy reform.

Increasingly, however, we are being asked to review and respond to complex exposure draft legislation,

regulations and consultation papers within windows that leave little realistic opportunity for considered input

with recommendations from Departments to limit our submissions to 1,000 words. This leaves us with limited

capacity to highlight complex issues.

This runs contrary to the Government's stated principles

The Australian Government's Guide to Policy Impact Analysis, and the Office of Impact Analysis' guidance note

on Best Practice Consultation, commit policy makers to consulting with impacted businesses and community

organisations "in a genuine and timely way" and point to a minimum consultation period of 30-60 days for

engagement on significant reforms.

These principles recognise that genuine consultation requires sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to

identify practical problems, propose solutions and have those views properly considered before decisions are

finalised.

The Regulatory Initiatives Grid (RIG), maintained by Treasury for the financial sector, is a welcome example of

government seeking to give industry earlier visibility of, and adequate time to prepare for, upcoming

regulatory change. While the RIG is not perfect, we would like to see that same spirit of transparency and lead

time applied consistently across all portfolios and agencies.

The pattern, across portfolios

Recent experience suggests that inadequate consultation is not a one-off issue but is endemic across

portfolios and topics. Stakeholders, businesses, the community or unions – face inadequate opportunities to

consider or provide meaningful responses that will be listened to.

The table in Attachment A provides a selection of recent examples. In every case, the consultation period fell

short of the OIA's minimum, in the shortest cases, government allowed only a third a OIAs suggested

minimum. Government has shown that considerably longer timeframes are readily achievable when it

chooses to apply them. To illustrate:

  • The Budget night announcements of changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing saw legislation promptly introduced and passed in less than month.
  • Consultation on the Budget night announcement around removing tariffs on yarn and mushrooms will continue into January. Consultation on tranche 2 of the Privacy Act reforms were only released this month following passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024.
  • The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the Forests Australia website user experience consultation started October last year and finishes in December - this year.
  • A 65-business day review into the Wheat Port Code.
  • A 41-business day consultation run by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing/OGTR on the commercial supply of a genetically modified vaccine for chickens.

These examples underscore that the constraint on consultation is one of prioritisation, not capacity. At the

same time, the risks are plain to see with policy that may ultimately require further changes, not achieve its

policy intent, or require future delays.

Proposed solution

To address this pattern and restore confidence in the consultation process, we ask that government commit

to the following:

  1. Strengthen Cabinet scrutiny of new regulation, consistent with the rigor applied to new expenditure proposals.
  2. Appoint an independent Office of Impact Analysis Commissioner to strengthen the key role of the OIA located within PM&C.
  3. Adopt standard minimum stakeholder consultation periods across all Commonwealth policy initiatives, to ensure that rushed legislation does not create unnecessary compliance costs or unintended consequences.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns and recommendations directly, and to work with the

government on a more consistent and workable approach to consultation timeframes for policy reforms.

Recent consultation windows

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.