Regulatory impact analysis: Benchmarking

Report

  • Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) requirements in all Australian jurisdictions are reasonably consistent with OECD and COAG guiding principles. However, shortcomings in system design and a considerable gap between agreed RIA principles and what happens in practice are reducing the efficacy of RIA processes.
    • The number of proposals with highly significant impacts that are either exempted from RIA processes or are not rigorously analysed is a major concern.
    • Public consultation on policy development is often perfunctory or occurs only after development of draft legislation.
    • Public transparency - through advising stakeholders of revisions to policy proposals and information used in decision making, or provision of reasons for not subjecting proposals to impact analysis - is a glaring weakness in most Australian RIA processes.
  • While RIA processes have brought some isolated but significant improvements from more thorough consideration of policy options and their impacts, the primary benefits of RIA have been forfeited through a lack of ministerial and agency commitment.
    • One of the main challenges in implementing RIA requirements is the announcement of policy decisions and an associated closing off of policy options by ministers or ministerial councils prior to commencement of the RIA process.
    • Where ministers or ministerial councils do not adhere to RIA principles, agencies see RIA as an administrative burden that adds no value and as a 'retrofit' justification of the policy decision.
  • In all jurisdictions, greater attention to leading practices for monitoring, reporting and accountability would go a long way toward improving the efficacy and rigour of RIA processes. In particular:
    • transparency measures such as a draft regulation impact statement (RIS) for early consultation, and publishing all RISs and RIS adequacy assessments, would better inform stakeholders of regulatory impacts and motivate rigour in analysis
    • requiring ministers to provide reasons to parliament for non-compliance with the RIA process and for the granting of exemptions, could encourage greater commitment to the RIA process and facilitate further discussion on the impacts of proposals
    • accountability measures such as: the auditing of agency decisions on the need for a RIS; the auditing of regulatory oversight body adequacy assessments; and post implementation reviews undertaken through an independent process, would, in time, invoke more effective scrutiny of regulatory proposals.
  • The efficiency of RIA processes would also be improved by more effective targeting of RIA resources through: streamlined assessment of the need for a RIS; devolving responsibility for determining the need for a RIS to agencies (subject to appropriate oversight); and review of subordinate legislation in conjunction with its overarching primary legislation.