3 Moderation and review
It is important that the QA criteria are applied consistently across proposals and over time.
3.1 Moderation arrangements
There is a variety of moderation arrangements that can be put in place, such as:
- having centralised oversight of all QA assessments (eg, the chair of the review panel)
- ensuring all QA is subject to peer review by others within the panel or pool of reviewers, or
- rotating QA responsibilities for types of proposals (ie, particular policy areas) so that they are not always reviewed by the same person.
3.2 Evaluation and review
Periodic evaluations of QA assessments can provide a further check. One way of obtaining this is by having an independent party (such as a consultant) review a random sample of QA assessments.[13] To assist this process, agencies should maintain a register of RISs assessed and the outcomes of these assessments. Where a RIA panel has been established, this could be undertaken by the secretariat or a nominated panel member.
Keeping track of regulatory proposals in this way will also assist agencies in providing information requested by Treasury for their report backs to Cabinet on the operation of the regulatory management system and how the Government is meeting its regulatory commitments and any other reporting Treasury may undertake.
Notes
- [13]The inter-agency Regulatory Impact Analysis Reference Group (RIARG) has previously commissioned two such reviews, and may commission further reviews in the future. The most recent is available on Treasury's website at http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/regulatory/riareview.
