4 Establishing a QA process
4.1 Options for obtaining QA
The process for obtaining QA is not prescribed, as agencies will need to tailor processes according to their own structures, policy processes and available resources. Some options are set out in the table below - a mix of options may be appropriate for different proposals or policy projects.
| RIA panel | Pool of reviewers | External reviewer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distinguishing features |
Permanent or rotating Can contribute to RIA awareness raising/agency capability building and expertise |
Identified pool of experienced people/experts from which a panel can be drawn on a proposal-by-proposal basis May be used on an ad hoc basis Could comprise internal and external people (eg, from other agencies) Can contribute to RIA awareness raising/agency capability building and expertise |
Eg, people from other agencies, private sector consultants, academics, subject matter experts May be suitable for large or complex pieces of work, or where conflicts of interest are difficult to avoid Less likely to contribute to agency capability building |
| Particular considerations |
Concentrated resource commitment Process for identifying potential conflicts of interest May want chair and secretariat |
Timeframes for arranging reviewers and determining process - some pre-agreement may be useful Consistency of review opinion, across proposals and over time Process for identifying potential conflicts of interest |
Cost Reviewer needs to be familiar with the RIA requirements and the QA criteria Timeframes for organising review arrangements (incl. contracts) Contractual arrangements, eg, how to take account of unforeseen changes in the policy process, allowing for iterations |
4.2 Selecting appropriate people
The Cabinet requirements state that if QA is provided by the agency it must be done by a person or group not directly involved with the preparation of the RIS and nominated by the agency's Chief Executive. This means that:
- The reviewer/s should have suitable capability - including a thorough understanding of the RIA regime, and sufficient experience and expertise in policy analysis.
- Internal reviewers should be sufficiently senior as to have sign-out authority on behalf of the agency.
- A certain level of independence is required.[14]
4.3 Implementing the process
- The QA process should be integrated into an agency's policy development and Cabinet paper submission process. Agencies may elect to review significant RISs before they are submitted to RIAT, but this is optional.
- The PIRA process provides an initial “hook” for engagement. Agencies may see benefit in tracking policy proposals from this initial stage, and internal RIA panels/reviewers may wish to be copied in to PIRA correspondence.
- Regulatory plans provide an additional platform for engagement, and can be used as a basis for communication with those staff likely to be involved in the development of regulatory proposals (ie, identifying relevant staff and raising awareness of the RIA requirements).
- The reviewer should be provided with early warning and have sufficient time to undertake quality assurance (ideally 5-10 working days).
- Time should be allowed for iteration with the reviewer, so that comments and queries can be addressed.
- The reviewer should be provided with the completed disclosure statement, so that any issues raised in this statement can be factored in to their assessment.
- There should be an agreed process for when the reviewer's final assessment is that the RIS partially meets or does not meet the QA criteria. This process may include arrangements for briefing senior management and Ministers' offices.
- If using a pool or panel of reviewers, the terms of reference for the group should cover how a joint view, and hence final decisions, will be reached and deadlock avoided (eg, electing a chair with final decision rights).
The reviewer's opinion should be considered independent and final. There may be instances when the policy team responsible for preparing the RIS is unhappy with the final assessment and/or the wording of the QA statement. In anticipation of such scenarios, agencies may wish to consider the process by which these situations will be managed (ie, identifying the responsible senior management and how they will provide support to the reviewer).
Notes
- [14]The person providing the QA should not be a member of the same team that has prepared the RIS. In smaller agencies where this is not possible, the QA may need to be outsourced in order to ensure independence (see Table 1 for options).
