Corporate Australia wants fewer rules? Give us fewer reasons to demand them

Confidence in Australian business is strained after years of corporate scandals and rising inequality, leading to declining public confidence, writes Professor Carl Rhodes.

AS AUSTRALIA looks for ways to boost productivity and investment, business groups insist one answer is less regulation. Australian Business Council (BCA) was especially vocal and made a call earlier this year. 25 percent decrease in regulatory costs by 2030.

In response to the director general of the Federal Budget, Bran Blackhe said this reduce regulatory costs Increase of more than $10 billion per year:

“…a very welcome step towards improving Australia’s productivity and investment competitiveness.”

The message is simple. Prosperity will come when bureaucracy, cost-cutting business and government are out of the way. It’s a familiar morality tale of honest, hard-working firms hampered by bureaucratic hurdles.

But only half the story is told. The other half lies in the incentives, norms, and patterns of institutional behavior that consistently undermine public trust.

trust deficit

The business sector’s critique of regulation often treats it as nothing more than pointless compliance that stifles innovation and growth.

Not all regulations are well designed, and poorly constructed rules can impose real costs on both firms and consumers. But regulation is not just a bureaucratic mess.

When businesses cannot be trusted to act responsibly, governments impose stricter regulations. Rather than reflecting hostility towards firms or markets, it reflects a loss of trust that businesses will act responsibly without oversight.

Confidence in Australian business has been under pressure for years. Corporate scandals, rising inequality, and the perception that economic gains disproportionately benefit elites have undermined public confidence.

inside 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer66 per cent of Australians report they are concerned that business leaders are deliberately misleading people by saying things they know are false or grossly exaggerated.

This creates a dilemma. Business wants fewer restrictions for growth, but many Australians do not trust business to exercise this freedom for the public good.

Trust is both a moral virtue and an economic infrastructure. Markets work better when people believe institutions are competent, fair and accountable. When trust collapses, regulation expands to fill the gap.

So the question is not just why businesses face so many rules. This is why many Australians believe these rules are necessary.

AstraZeneca and the limits of commercial logic

If business wants the public to accept fewer restrictions, it must first demonstrate that more freedoms will be exercised responsibly. Two recent institutional controversies help explain why many Australians remain unconvinced.

pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca withdraws breast cancer and endometriosis drug Zoladex 3.6mg From the Australian market from 1 November 2026. His only statement was “business reasons“.

The drug has been filled 94,000 times in the past 18 months, and patient groups say: The decision worried many women about losing access to a treatment they rely on.

Companies inevitably make decisions based on commercial criteria. The problem is that many patients feel that commercial criteria are given more weight than patient care. The withdrawal, with little public explanation, of a vital drug for women dealing with serious, sometimes life-threatening conditions was bound to deepen mistrust.

Only decisions justified by “commercial reasons” can satisfy the board of directors. They are much less likely to satisfy the public.

KPMG and the price of lost trust

While AstraZeneca shows how commercial imperatives can collide with societal expectations KPMG Show what happens when commercial ambition seems to erode professional obligation.

argument It focuses on whistleblower allegations that confidential Lendlease board documents were used internally to help KPMG pursue audit work with other companies such as Westpac and Dexus.

KPMG’s internal review and subsequent Ashurst’s external review could not prove the allegations.

Despite this, the effects were very severe. KPMG managing director in May 2026 Andrew Yates and audit leader Julian McPherson He resigned due to the handling of the whistleblowing issue.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has existed since launched an official investigationand the Federal Ministry of Finance made a statement. independent review KPMG’s governance, culture, ethics and integrity frameworks. KPMG also agreed No bids for new Commonwealth works by 30 September 2026.

The importance of this case goes beyond KPMG. Control depends on trust. Firms such as KPMG sell technical services but also trade on claims of independence, discretion and professional integrity.

When these claims weaken, so does the credibility of the market institutions that depend on them.

Trust before deregulation

AstraZeneca and KPMG are very different cases, but they fundamentally point to the same problem. Low public confidence cannot simply be dismissed as cynicism. This reflects a growing perception that business imperatives often trump responsibilities to customers, employees and the wider community.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that trust is low. The call for liberalization assumes that businesses will act responsibly when restrictions are lifted. Recent experience gives the public little reason to believe this.

If corporate Australia wants fewer rules, it must first give Australians fewer reasons to demand them. The strongest example of deregulation will be demonstrated not in lobbying campaigns but in behavior that gains public trust.

Carl Rhodes is Professor of Business and Society at the University of Technology Sydney. Wrote several books On the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism. You can follow him on X/Twitter @ProfCarlRhodes.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.