7 Preparing the Cabinet paper
All Cabinet papers must include a section entitled Regulatory Impact Analysis. This section comprises the following three parts, with sub-headings.
7.1 Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements
Statement explaining whether the RIA requirements apply to the proposal or any alternative options in the paper which Ministers may select, and if so whether a RIS has been prepared and attached to the Cabinet paper (and if not, the reasons why).
7.2 Quality of the Impact Analysis
This is a government agency opinion on the quality of the analysis and will state the following:
“[Name of team or position of person completing opinion - either from authoring agency or RIAT] has reviewed the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) prepared by [name ofagency] and associated supporting material, and
[Statement on whether the reviewer considers that the information and analysis summarised in the RIS meets/does not meet/partially meets the quality assurance criteria
[Comment on any issues that have been identified in relation to any of the dimensions of quality specified in the quality assurance criteria].”
7.3 Consistency with Government Statement on Regulation
On 17 August 2009, the Government released a Statement on Regulation that commits to introducing new regulation only when Ministers are satisfied that it is required, reasonable, robust and reviewed. This applies to any Cabinet paper proposing to introduce or amend primary legislation or regulations.
Ministers are required to certify in the Cabinet paper that they have carefully considered whether the proposal(s) in the paper are consistent with the expectations set out in the Government Statement on Regulation. This text is to be entitled “Consistency with Government Statement on Regulation”.
There are various options for this text, depending on the circumstances. Four possibilities are set out below:
“I have considered the analysis and advice of my officials, as summarised in the attached Regulatory Impact Statement and I am satisfied that, aside from the risks, uncertainties and caveats already noted in this Cabinet paper, the regulatory proposals recommended in this paper:
- are required in the public interest
- will deliver the highest net benefits of the practical options available, and
- are consistent with our commitments in the Government statement “Better Regulation, Less Regulation.”
“I have carefully considered the analysis and advice of my officials, as summarised in the attached Regulatory Impact Statement. I am satisfied that regulation is likely to be required in the public interest but, as further policy details and implementation issues still need to be considered, I cannot yet be certain that the regulatory proposals in this paper will deliver the highest net benefits of the practical options available or are fully consistent with our commitments to deliver better regulation and less regulation. Consequently, this paper seeks only in principle policy decisions, and agreement to further policy development work.”
“I have considered the analysis and advice of my officials as summarised in the attached Regulatory Impact Statement. While this advice suggests that the benefits of the proposals I am recommending are highly uncertain, and may not provide the highest net benefits of the available policy options, they are necessary to deliver on our (election commitment/confidence and supply agreement with the XYZ party) to …... ”
“In the timeframes for developing a response to …….. my officials have been unable to undertake proper regulatory impact analysis of the proposal in this paper. Consequently I cannot confirm that it is consistent with the commitments in our Government Statement on Regulation, but I believe it is necessary for us to act on the issue now regardless, due to the risk presented by…….. ”
- If the quality assurance has been provided by, eg, an internal RIS review panel, the name of this panel would be stated. Otherwise the position title of the reviewer should be stated (eg, Manager, [ … ] Team).