If not kept in check, government regulations can become excessive, duplicative and detrimental, writes Harry Cheema.
Well-designed and fit for purpose government regulation is an important aspect of managing market failures in the areas of workplace safety, consumer rights and environmental protection. However, if not kept in check, government regulations can become duplicative, complex and excessive adding to the costs of business, which ultimately is detrimental to the whole system.
In Australia, over the years, there have been multiple attempts at keeping a check on red tape in government, which include Revitalising National Competition Policy by the Treasury and Productivity Commission in 2023-24 and Business Council of Australia’s Better Regulation Report in 2025.
Earlier this year, Queensland announced the formation of its Local Government Red Tape Reduction Taskforce. While it may not have made front-page headlines, this initiative is another important acknowledgement that exhaustive red tape is becoming a true roadblock to necessary innovation, a problem that has plagued governments for decades.
The very systems designed to ensure a level of accountability and fairness can bloat into becoming far too slow, rigid and risk-averse that they simply end up preventing progress altogether. This issue can be seen across critical sectors like healthcare, education, infrastructure and public safety, resulting in Australians missing out on improved services and programs going years without accomplishing much of anything.
When systems block solutions
A great example of this can be seen in the healthcare system, with the pandemic showcasing just how quickly innovation can step in when bureaucracy steps aside. Telehealth was adopted almost overnight, cutting through years of hesitation and leading to mass benefit for both patients and providers. Sustaining this momentum in the subsequent years has been far more difficult due to complicated funding arrangements and jurisdictional complexities slowing the sector’s growth and wrapping the area in a straitjacket of restrictive red tape.
Education, too, saw similar hurdles placed in front of innovation, just as momentum was building. Tech-driven initiatives like digital classrooms and modernised pathway programs seemed to be a true signal of growth, yet by the time approvals are finalised the solutions often feel outdated.
Of course, none of these problems stem from bad intentions, in fact the opposite is usually true. The complex maze of checks and balances is meant to safeguard public money and uphold transparency, it’s only when the processes themselves become so cumbersome that they stand in the way of their own objectives.
The barriers holding back progress
From more than a decade advising government agencies and private organisations, I’ve seen the same obstacles crop up again and again. Projects with high ambitions become trapped in lengthy and complex approval processes, each demanding a sign-off from multiple departments. Decision-making stalls – not because ideas lack merit – but because no one wants to take the first step or the brunt of the responsibility. Similarly, procurement rules often reward the cheapest or safest option instead of the most innovative, meaning projects can often not deliver on their full potential.
Ironically, these measures are designed to safeguard trust, when in practice they can do the complete opposite and hinder the government’s ability to actually deliver meaningful outcomes.
Building smarter, faster systems
This is not to say that accountability should be abandoned for the sake of reckless progress but there is definitely a room for streamlining. Systems don’t need to be dismantled to smoothen out these processes, just a willingness to rethink how they operate and be constructively critical of their effectiveness. For instance, approval processes can be escalated by removing duplication and setting clear timeframes. Another improvement could be that governments could lean more heavily on pilot programs, testing ideas on a smaller scale, refining them, and scaling what works, rather than waiting years for a perfect plan.
It is also important to encourage collaboration between agencies and sectors. When knowledge and resources are pooled, outcomes improve and needless duplication falls away. Procurement, too, should focus on long-term community value rather than the lowest upfront cost. There is a ostensible ‘value for money’ criteria in most government procurement frameworks, however, consistent application of this principle is not evident. You can go and review any procurement audit reports for federal, state or local government sectors to see my point.
The shift we need
Risk aversion is a natural state of the public sector – mostly for a good reason. We don’t want our public institutions to short-circuit due processes. Yet progress demands a willingness to take measured risks. Public sector leaders must champion and reward innovation, encourage experimentation, and focus on efficiency of processes.
The pandemic proved governments can move faster than anyone thought possible. What was achieved in weeks under pressure has since been undone by the slow creep back into old habits. Unless lessons are captured and applied more broadly, Australia will continue to lag behind nations already reimagining how public services are delivered. With a growing population, ageing infrastructure and rising expectations of public services, outdated systems are simply not fit for the future.
Bureaucracy has its place in protecting fairness and accountability, but when it becomes a barrier to progress then it must be rethought. By cutting unnecessary red tape, fostering collaboration and creating a culture that values innovation and working with the businesses, governments can deliver smarter, faster and more responsive services.
Harry Cheema – Partner and Chief Operating Officer, Anchoram Consulting
Leave a Reply