Performance benchmarking of Australian business regulation: Quantity and quality / Cost of business registration

Quantity and Quality

  • The quantity of regulation that business must comply with is one indirect indicator of compliance costs:
    • as regulation is not classified in any jurisdiction by who is regulated, only the total quantity of regulation can be measured
    • significant differences were found across jurisdictions in the number of acts and other regulation and their size, and the relative use of different regulatory instruments.
  • The number and scale of regulators, and the extent of their interaction with businesses is another such indicator. Estimates provided by business regulators showed considerable differences in the number of regulators, their average size, the number of business licences issued and the value of fees and charges collected, not fully explained by the relative sizes of the jurisdictions.
  • The quality of the processes for developing and administering regulation was used as a proxy for the quality of regulation itself. There are significant variations across jurisdictions in the processes for developing and reviewing regulations and in the way regulators interact with businesses. However, some common patterns emerged:
    • there are few mandatory requirements for consultation on regulatory proposals
    • the proportion of regulatory proposals actually subjected to regulatory impact analysis or compliance cost estimation is generally low
    • few regulators have facilities for online lodgement of forms, renewal of licences, and payment of fees and charges
    • few regulators will allow businesses licensed in another jurisdiction to operate in their jurisdiction without obtaining a separate licence.
  • Local governments play a major role in business regulation. Limited survey responses meant benchmarking quality and quantity of regulation was only possible for the capital cities. Large capital city councils appear to exhibit similar characteristics to business regulators of similar size.
  • The exercise points to significant differences across jurisdictions in the quantity and quality of regulation. These reflect some inherent differences, such as in business structures and industry intensity, as well as different approaches to regulation by the jurisdictions.
  • Indirect indicators have limitations in providing a measure of comparative regulatory burdens across jurisdictions. However, the lessons from this study are that such benchmarking could be improved:
    • for quantity indicators, by targeting more closely business regulation
    • for quality indicators, by assessing the application of best practice principles in each jurisdiction's regulatory decisions.