 Most of us do we think of regulation in terms of reams of rules and paper trails and doing things that we don't really want to do to please someone else but in fact that's only a small part of regulation and that's not very good regulation. Good regulation should be mainstreamed, it should be part of what we take for granted as being important in our daily work. This is how we do things around here. When regulation comes on board and it's new to us of course we all resist and you know we don't like doing things differently and we signal to authorities what we think of that regulation and we do that through motivational postures. Motivational postures are coping strategies that we develop to communicate with authority and we learn them when we're very young. In fact one of the best ways of understanding motivational postures is to think about parents and their children. Children will signal whether they like their parent at that particular point or not and they'll also say whether or they signal whether they will obey or not. So they're the two important dimensions of motivational posturing liking and deferring. In the work that we've done in Regnet on motivational postures and we've looked at them in tax, in child protection, in work health and safety, in nursing homes, we find five types of postures. We have a posture of commitment which means that we think the regulatory system should exist and that the regulators are doing an important job and in a democracy you'd expect everyone to, almost everyone anyhow, to support a regulatory institution. It shouldn't be imposed on them. It should be supported by the democracy. But as well as commitment we then have to turn that commitment into action and so we have a posture called capitulation which means that we don't really know why we're doing it and we don't understand what it's all about really but we'll do it just to stay out of trouble. The tax system provides a good example. Most of us feel committed to a tax system and our survey work shows that that we believe we should have a tax system to help government govern and also to care for those that need some help along the way because of floods or disasters or whatever it happens to be. But when it comes to paying tax it can be a different matter. It can be a bad time for instance or perhaps not and if tax is being automatically deducted from our salaries which happens with many Australians then we just capitulate. We don't really know what they're doing but we accept it and we say fair enough let's just get on with it and go to the football instead of worrying about our tax. But some people will resist small business and may resist if it comes at a very bad time and they certainly then they don't have the income to be paying their tax at that point in time and they may also think it's unfair that the tax system is unfair. So we get resistance in regulatory systems and that's a posture that I argue that governments really should be taking notice of because that's telling them when their regulatory system is not working as it should. Now commitment capitulation and resistance are very healthy postures. They keep a regulatory system making adjustments when it should. The harder postures for an authority to deal with a disengagement and game playing. Disengagement occurs when we just shut off. We just have nothing to do with the authority and we regard it as irrelevant. So there are probably people who have never paid any tax and never intend to and the tax authority doesn't even know they exist. But then there are others who will play with the tax rules to minimise the tax they pay or pay no tax at all. We call those people game players. So the disengagers and the game players are not accepting that they're part of a system. They don't want to change the system. They really want to beat the system. And those regulatory postures can be very threatening for a regulatory authority, not just the tax authority.