A recent report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES): Review of Selected Regulatory Burdens on Agriculture and Forestry Businesses calculates that rural businesses are highly regulated in comparison to some other industries, being governed by around 90 Acts administered by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, as well as those common to all businesses. The report identifies areas of unnecessarily burdensome regulation which, if improved, could raise productivity in Australia?s rural industries. The following are some of the areas that were highlighted as ripe for action and comments are taken directly from the report:
In protecting and managing significant Australian environmental assets, the Australian Government has a role in assessing activities likely to have a significant impact on such assets through the EPBC Act process. If a proposed action (including on private land) is likely to have a ?significant impact?, the action must be referred to the Australian Government environment minister to determine whether approval is required under the EPBC Act.
The report considers that there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes a ?significant impact?. “Although additional advice to stakeholders on the definition of ?significant impact? under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) and the term?s application in general situations has been published since 2007, there appears scope to further improve the provision and uptake of facilities to advise applicants on specific proposed actions,” says the report.
Many agricultural enterprises have been a haven for backpacker and other temporary labour over the years. The report highlights inconsistent taxation of non-resident and resident workers as an issue of potentially excessive red tape. “Research directed at understanding the likely costs and benefits of reducing the Pay As You Go tax rate for non-residents to the rate applied to resident workers in the horticultural industry may be useful for underpinning policies designed to alleviate workforce shortages,” says the report.
The report also suggests that there may be scope for the Australian Government to improve the consistency of work health and safety regulation between states and territories. State and territory governments are responsible for WHS regulation in their respective jurisdictions, however more consistency among states would help to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses.
The report also considered that a number of state and territory issues – such as genetically modified crops, water property rights, chemicals of security concern and food regulation – could benefit from a nationally consistent approach. The report can be read in full here.
*We are Australia’s Biggest Financial Comparison Site. Click here to learn more
This advice is general and has not taken into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Consider whether this advice is right for you. Consider the product disclosure statement and target market determination before making a purchase decision. Canstar provides an information service. It is not a credit provider, and in giving you information about credit products Canstar is not making any suggestion or recommendation to you about a particular credit product. Research provided by Canstar Research AFSL and Australian Credit Licence No. 437917.