Identifying and evaluating regulation reforms
Research report
Identifying and evaluating regulation reforms - Research report (PDF - 3228 Kb)
Identifying and evaluating regulation reforms - Research report (Word/Zip - 3284 Kb)Key Points
- The regulatory system should ensure that new regulation and the existing 'stock' are appropriate, effective and efficient. This requires the robust vetting of proposed regulation; 'fine tuning' of existing regulations and selecting key areas for reform.
- It also requires that these be performed in a coordinated and cost-effective way, with political leadership a key factor in all this.
- There is a range of approaches to reviewing existing regulation and identifying necessary reforms. Some are more 'routine', making incremental improvements through ongoing management of the stock; some involve reviews that are programmed, and some are more ad-hoc.
- Designed for different purposes, the techniques within these three categories can complement each other, though their usefulness varies.
- Among 'management' approaches, red tape targets can be a good way to commence a burden reduction program. But one-in, one-out' rules have more disadvantages than advantages. Regulator practices can play a key role in compliance burdens, with scope apparent for improvement.
- Reviews embedded in legislation can usefully target areas of uncertainty. Sunsetting can help eliminate redundant regulation and ensure that re-made regulation is 'fit for purpose', but requires good preparation. Post implementation reviews, triggered by the avoidance of a regulation impact statement, are an important failsafe mechanism but need strengthening.
- Public stocktakes cast a wide net and can identify cross-jurisdictional and cumulative burdens. Reviews based on a screening principle, particularly the competition test, have been highly effective and could be extended. In-depth reviews are best for identifying options for reform in more complex areas, while benchmarking can point to leading practices.
- Good design features vary for the individual techniques, but all require sound governance and effective consultation. For significant reviews, public exposure of preliminary findings is a key success factor.
- While Australia's regulatory system now has the necessary institutions and processes broadly in place, there remains scope for improvement in:
- prioritisation and sequencing of reviews and reforms - with greater attention paid to the costs of developing and undertaking reforms
- monitoring of reviews and the implementation of reforms
- advance information to achieve better focused consultations
- incentives and mechanisms for good practice by regulators - with a further review needed to identify the best approaches
- building public sector skills in evaluation and review.
