Reducing red tape in the APS

Chapter 2. A framework for design and review

[M]anagement is riddled with administrative complexity, often introduced for the very best of policy reasons, but imposing heavy costs even on those that are the intended beneficiaries. There is a tendency for ... guidelines and prescriptive administrative procedures slowly to accrete, tying in red tape the hands of those who help to deliver or seek access to government programmes.⁶

This chapter outlines a framework for the design and review of regulatory and administrative requirements. The framework includes principles of good requirements, as well as a process for agencies to follow when designing and reviewing requirements. Applying the framework will help to reduce red tape in internal Australian Government administration. To assist managers, a ‘Checklist for reduction of internal red tape’ has been included at Appendix 2.

Underlying principles

The framework for the design and review of regulatory and administrative requirements is based on three high-level principles. Requirements should:

effectively address the issue of concern
be the most efficient option
have benefits that substantially exceed their costs.

These principles reinforce and build upon good policy development practices. It is a responsibility of agencies to consider these principles when assessing alternatives. It is best to apply the principles at the development stage, rather than after requirements have been developed.

If principles similar to these had been applied over the past 15 years, there would be less red tape today:

[S]ince 1990 the Australian Parliament has passed more pages of legislation than in the nine preceding decades since Federation. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, with bulging sub strata of delegated and de facto regulation.⁷

Requirements effectively address the issue of concern

To be effective, a requirement must successfully address the specific issue of concern; that is, the requirement should achieve its objective. The objective should not be confused with outputs flowing from the requirement. For example, agencies are required to report procurement contracts and agreements to the value of $10,000 or more in AusTender. The outputs are the entries reported on AusTender; the objective is to promote transparency and accountability in Australian Government procurement.

Requirements are the most efficient option

Requirements should impose the least administrative burden necessary to achieve the intended objective. Moreover, requirements or parts of them should not duplicate other requirements or be unduly prescriptive, which would result in excessive and unnecessary costs to agencies.

Requirements have benefits that substantially exceed their costs

Requirements should only be implemented where the benefits of their implementation can be shown to substantially outweigh the costs, including development and compliance costs.

Process for designing and reviewing requirements

Using these three principles, a framework involving a four-stage process for designing and reviewing requirements has been developed (Table 2). The process can be used to design new requirements and to review existing requirements.

Chapters 3–6 of this report expand on these four stages.

Table 2: Stages of design and review of requirements
1	Design and analysis	Use a systematic and transparent process to define the issue of concern, to identify options for addressing it, and to assess the costs and benefits of the preferred option.
2	Stakeholder consultation	Consult stakeholders to obtain constructive feedback on the preferred option before any decision is made to implement it.
3	Independent advice	Obtain independent, objective feedback on whether options have been adequately considered and whether the recommended requirement meets the three principles.
4	Decision-making	The decision maker considers all relevant information to determine whether the recommended requirement should be implemented.

Applying the process flexibly

This four-stage process can be used for regulatory and administrative requirements of quite different natures and scales. However, it is important to tailor the process to the particular circumstances, with more detailed consideration for more complex and potentially burdensome matters. That is, the application of this framework should reduce red tape, not create more.

In some circumstances, it might not be possible to assess requirements thoroughly before implementation for reasons of sensitivity or urgency (e.g. matters needing urgent Cabinet consideration). In such cases, agencies should still try to apply the process to the extent possible, and subject the requirements to early review. Periodic review of requirements is discussed further in Chapter 7.

6 P. Shergold 2003, ‘A foundation of ruined hopes? Delivering government policy’, SES Breakfast Briefing, paragraph 7, <http://www.pmc.gov.au/speeches/shergold/>

7 G. Banks 2006, ‘Reducing the regulatory burden: the way forward’, speech to the Centre for Regulatory Studies at Monash University, 17 May, paragraph 16, <http://www.pc.gov.au/speeches/>

Downloads:

Downloads from Department of Finance and Administration:

Contents

On our website:

Speeches:

Site help

Site menu