4.2 Other countries’ experience
New Zealand’s application of RIA through Regulatory Impact Statements (RISs) was closely based on Australia, which itself drew on OECD experience. Australia re-issued its guide to RISs in December 1998 to strengthen the scrutiny of quasi-regulatory measures (Australian Government 1997 and PC, 1999a). Australian practice will be of growing importance for New Zealand with the increasing trends for trans-Tasman regulatory harmonisation (Guerin 2001 and 2002a).[8]
Australia has an Office of Regulation Review whose responsibilities include overseeing RIS compliance and publishing annual reports on departmental performance in this area (PC, 1999b, 2000, 2001 and 2002). Those annual reports cover compliance with RIS requirements in terms of whether statements were prepared and their adequacy for Commonwealth regulation, National Competition Policy Reviews of Commonwealth legislation, and on statements prepared for Ministerial Councils and national standard-setting bodies[9]. They can also address specific regulatory issues. The results continue to show incomplete compliance, including for significant proposals and a lack of integration of RIA into policy advice development. A recent report has suggested scope for improvements (see Table 5).
Table 5 – Options for improving regulatory quality in Australia
- RIA
- Integration of RIA into consultation processes
- Better targeting and clearer guidance on threshold tests
- More formalised coordination of regulatory review and RIS preparation within regulatory departments & agencies
- Increased ministerial involvement and accountability
- More effective sanctions for non-compliance
- Other tools
- Minimum standards for public consultation
- Integrating preliminary impact assessments into regulatory plans
- Strong independent regulatory reform advocacy body
- Improved guidance materials and training on alternatives to prescriptive regulation and improved evaluation and sharing of experience with their use
- Improved measurement of compliance costs
- Regular and systematic monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes of regulatory review and reform strategies
Source: PC (2003)
The United States has operated RIA systems for two decades but still has problems such as agencies treating it as the end of rather than the starting point for analysis, lack of quantification of costs and benefits, lack of consideration of alternatives and inadequate transparency (Hahn, 2000).
Whether these experiences reflects the insolubility of such problems even with much greater resources than New Zealand can provide, or differences in political and institutional factors and the resistance of such institutions to change is an open question.
Notes
- [8]Australia is also following international precedent in establishing a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments in which new regulations must be listed before they are enforced. In 1986 Sweden established such a register, required agencies to cull unnecessary or outdated regulations, and automatically cancelled hundreds of regulations not listed by the cut-off date. In 1995 the register was being built up electronically with text on issues such as motives, magnitude of costs and effects. A new Australian Bill proposes to require all legislative instruments in Australia to be registered before enforcement and impose a consistent 10 year time limit. “Legislation to clean up administrative black hole” The Australian Financial Review Friday 11 July 2003 p51.
- [9]As part of their commitments under National Competition Policy (NCP), all Commonwealth, State and Territory governments undertook to review and change legislation that restricts competition. The National Competition Council was established by all Australian governments in November 1995 to act as a policy advisory body to oversee their implementation of National Competition Policy (NCP). <http://www.ncc.gov.au/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=215>
