Browse regulations

A federal regulation from 1912 establishing compensation schemes for seafarers injured or killed during maritime employment, administered through government oversight with prescribed benefits and claim procedures.

Obsolete 112-year-old regulation imposing compliance costs on maritime industry for a function that private insurance markets can provide more efficiently; creates government monopoly, distorts employer incentives, and likely fails to address modern maritime work arrangements, with costs borne ultimately by consumers through higher shipping costs and reduced competitiveness.

A 1913 regulation establishing bounty payments (subsidies) for the production of wood pulp and rock phosphate, representing direct government intervention to support specific industries through financial incentives.

This century-old bounty system represents precisely the type of market-distorting intervention that Mises, Hayek, and Friedman identified as destructive. It picks winners and losers, misallocates capital toward politically-favored sectors, and creates dependency rather than competitive advantage. Any perceived benefits are outweighed by the unseen costs: suppressed price signals, inefficient resource allocation, and the moral hazard of expecting government handouts. Its age suggests either irrelevance or a zombie regulation imposing compliance burdens for no rational public purpose.

No regulatory content provided; only metadata (title, registration date, collection) is available. Cannot assess purpose, scope, or mechanisms.

Instrument lacks any substantive text; appears to be an incomplete registration entry. Such placeholder should be deleted from the register.

Amendment to Land Tax Regulations 1912, registered provisonally in 2014, relating to the administration and compliance requirements for land taxation in Australia.

A 1912 regulatory framework governing land taxation represents over a century of accumulated compliance burden. Land taxes inherently discourage land development and ownership. The provisional nature and 2014 registration date against a 1912 base suggests either obsolescence or that it has been incorporated into more recent legislation. Such antiquated regulations impose ongoing compliance costs without commensurate benefit, add complexity to an already labyrinthine tax system, and represent the type of regulatory accretion that burdens property rights and economic activity. The unseen costs include compliance officer time, legal advisory fees, and the chilling effect on land development transactions.

Treasury Regulations (Amendment) (Provisional) - Registered 2014-08-22. A provisional amendment to Treasury Regulations, presumably relating to taxation, financial markets, or economic policy within the Treasury portfolio.

Cannot properly assess without the actual regulatory text. However, based on the Austrian school framework emphasizing that regulations create unintended distortions, any amendment that adds complexity to Treasury Regulations likely adds compliance burden without demonstrated net benefit. Provisional amendments often become permanent despite lacking proper scrutiny. Without access to the specific provisions, the default assumption should be deletion - regulations should prove their worth before being retained, not after.

Amendment to the Telephone Regulations, registered on 22 August 2014 and designated as 'Provisional'. This instrument was made under the Telecommunications Act 1997 and appears to have been a transitional or temporary measure modifying existing telephone regulatory requirements.

The 'Provisional' designation indicates this instrument was always intended as a temporary or transitional measure, not permanent legislation. A provisional instrument that remains on the statute books over 10 years after registration has clearly outlived its purpose—either it should have been replaced by permanent regulations or allowed to sunset. Keeping temporary regulations that have become de facto permanent undermines the rule of law and regulatory certainty. Additionally, telecommunications regulations typically impose compliance costs, create barriers to entry for new market participants, and can protect incumbent operators from competition. Without evidence that this instrument addresses a market failure that cannot be corrected through private action or that its benefits exceed its regulatory costs, Australians are better served by its deletion.

Regulations providing for the organization, discipline, administration, and operational procedures of the Australian Defence Force under the Defence Act 1903.

Australians would be worse off because a national defense without a unified regulatory framework would be ineffective, risking national security and the stability essential for prosperity. The regulation achieves its desired outcome through centralized command, standardized training, and coordinated logistics—elements impossible to replicate via market mechanisms, which would produce fragmentation and inadequate deterrence.

Amends regulations governing financial payments and allowances to members of the Australian Defence Force, updating rates, eligibility, or administrative procedures.

Military compensation directly affects national defense capability; removing this amendment would revert to outdated rules, harming recruitment, retention, and operational readiness, thereby reducing Australia's security and prosperity. A regulatory framework ensures uniformity and fairness that ad-hoc mechanisms cannot reliably achieve.

The instrument amends the Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth, which set out rules for pay, allowances, and other financial matters for Australian Defence Force personnel. This amendment is provisional and was registered in 2014.

The instrument is a provisional amendment from 2014 that likely is obsolete or has been superseded. Keeping it forces the Defence Force to comply with outdated rules, creating unnecessary compliance costs and administrative rigidity. Even if some provisions remain relevant, they could be maintained through simpler, non-legislative policies. The existence of this detailed regulation also sets a precedent for over-governance in defence administration, diverting resources from core capabilities. Deleting it would reduce red tape without harming national security, as the Department of Defence can adopt more efficient, flexible financial management practices.

Amendment to Military Forces of the Commonwealth Regulations, registered as provisional on 21 August 2014. The instrument appears to modify regulations governing the Australian Defence Force, likely relating to administrative, operational, or disciplinary matters within military governance.

The '(Provisional)' designation indicates this instrument may have lapsed or been superseded. More fundamentally, without specific content demonstrating targeted harm, military regulations governing internal ADF operations are necessary for proper defence force governance and would not impose the types of regulatory burdens on civilians, businesses, or economic activity that characterise the problematic instruments in Better Australia's review mandate. However, the provisional status suggests obsolescence.

This provisional amendment modifies the Military Forces of the Commonwealth Regulations, which set out the rules for the organization, discipline, and administration of the Australian Defence Force.

National defense is a core government function; these regulations provide the necessary legal framework for military discipline, command, and operational readiness, which are essential for protecting Australia's sovereignty and citizens. Deleting them would create a legal vacuum, compromising security and the conditions for prosperity.

Amendment to Universal Training Regulations, registered 2014-08-22, with provisional status indicating temporary or transitional measures for training requirements likely affecting occupational licensing and workforce entry.

Provisional measures from 2014 that are now nearly 12 years old are likely obsolete or superseded. Training regulations typically impose compliance costs, create barriers to workforce entry, and restrict voluntary labor market arrangements. The provisional designation suggests this was never fully integrated into permanent law and should be swept away rather than allowed to linger, creating uncertainty and ongoing compliance burdens without clear benefit.

Provisional amendment to Universal Training Regulations, registered 2014-08-22. Creates uniform training requirements potentially affecting multiple occupational categories. Marked as provisional, suggesting temporary or transitional nature.

The 'Universal' framing implies one-size-fits-all training mandates across occupations, creating barriers to entry and restricting labour market flexibility. The provisional designation suggests this was never intended as permanent legislation, likely indicating it was a transitional measure that has since been superseded or should have expired. Such blanket training regulations disproportionately burden small businesses and can be captured by incumbents to limit competition, contrary to principles of liberty and prosperity.

Amendment to the Military Forces of the Commonwealth Regulations, registered as provisional on 21 August 2014. Without access to the instrument text, the scope and specific provisions cannot be determined from title alone.

Cannot assess - the actual text and provisions of this instrument were not provided. Review requires access to the full legislative content to evaluate costs, scope, and whether the regulation achieves its stated purpose with minimal unintended consequences. The provisional nature suggests it may have lapsed or been superseded, potentially making review unnecessary.

Amendment to Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth, registered 21 August 2014. Provides provisional modifications to pay structures and allowances for Australian Defence Force personnel.

Military pay and allowance regulations serve a legitimate government function in maintaining effective national defense. While government compensation structures can distort labor markets, the alternative—ad hoc, unregulated military pay—would create uncertainty, inequity, and recruitment/retention challenges that could weaken defense capability. Australians would be worse off without predictable, regulated compensation frameworks that attract and retain skilled personnel for essential defense functions.