This paper discusses the application of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to the specific context of Australia's Road Safety Remuneration System and, in doing so, highlights two complementary lessons: first; that RIA can provide important information to policy makers, even where complexity and a lack of data prevent the completion of a full benefit/cost analysis and, second; that RIA can only be influential when adopted as part of a well-designed and fully functioning process, particularly where the policy environment is a politically charged one.
This article identifies and discusses several different conceptions of regulatory reform. It subsequently looks at available evidence on trends in regulatory burdens and on the results of regulatory reform activity undertaken over the past 30 years. Thirdly, it identifies and briefly discusses the range of tools that are typically employed in implementing regulatory reform policies. It then examines some of the regulatory problems that implementation of the reform agenda has itself brought forth. It concludes with some comments which seek to assess the report of the Better Regulation Taskforce in the context of the broad overview of regulatory reform set out in the preceding sections of the article.
The concept of transparency has rapidly gained prominence in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It is particularly associated with the rise of the governance agenda, as transparency is a core governance value. The regulatory activities of government constitute one of the main contexts within which transparency must be assured. There is a strong public demand for greater transparency, which is substantially related to the rapid increase in number and influence of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or 'civil society groups', as well as to increasingly well educated and diverse populations.Transparency initiatives now form a major part of the regulatory policies of many OECD countries: in 2000, 20 of the 30 OECD member countries had government‐wide transparency policies (OECD 2002a). Many OECD countries have now made substantial investments in improved regulatory transparency, and have reaped important gains in terms of regulatory quality, legitimacy and accountability.However, despite these gains, the results have in many cases fallen short of expectations. As well, the implementation of transparency has itself led to new stresses and problems within the regulatory process. This article considers why regulatory transparency is important and points to some of the main trends in improving regulatory transparency. It also considers a range of problems and issues that arise and suggests means of resolving these.
This article will first briefly describe the National Competition Policy, then set out some of the major results achieved to date, before focusing on the key lessons that can be learned from the experience of its implementation.
'Mind the Gap!' is an almost iconic exhortation, originating in the London Underground, warning travellers to be careful when navigating the 'gap' between the platform and train. In this volume, Peter Carroll, Rex Deighton-Smith, Helen Silver and Chris Walker retrospectively assess the 'gap' — no less dynamic and perilous in a public policy context — between the promise and performance of successive waves of regulation in Australia since the 1980s. Regulatory bodies exist to exercise what might be broadly termed 'control functions' and, by nature, tend to be conservative both in their culture and operations. Institutional conservatism does not, of necessity, preclude the exercise of creativity and foresight, both of which are sorely required if government is to successfully meet the challenge of delivering more effective and less costly regulation. The business and policy environment is complex, the risks are great and the rewards of success and the costs of failure will be enormous. The true measure of success will be how effectively we are able to close the gap between promise and performance.
