print this page

related pages

on our site

news

Home page
> About the Commission > Public Service Commissioner > Speech
> Media
‹ Previous page

Canberra Evaluation Forum — Regulation
Helping the APS to address future regulatory changes

17 April 2008

Introduction

I would like to thank the Canberra Evaluation Forum for inviting me here this morning to discuss regulation and consider how evaluation can assist with identifying better regulatory approaches in the future. One of the key first steps, however, is to consider what is meant by regulation.

When we think about regulation, it is common to immediately focus on our formal regulatory institutions such as the high-profile Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and others. It also common to think about the obvious legal frameworks put in place to manage the economy and the operation of businesses, or to ensure a safer, healthier environment for all of us.

But it’s also true that regulation is present in some way or other in the execution or delivery of most government services. There are laws governing social security entitlements, tax requirements and customs and immigration arrangements. There are also many rules and requirements in place to guide the way we as public servants provide access to government funding for external organisations. So in effect, most public servants, in their everyday business will be acting as regulators.

As the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, puts it “a day in the life of any of us is one in which we are sometimes protected, sometimes intimidated and almost always touched by the hand of regulation”.

Why Do We Regulate? 

Regulatory activity is part of mainstream government business. We have different sorts of regulation—for economic reasons and for health and safety reasons and to implement government policies in the main.

I’ve adopted the definitions of regulation provided by the Best Practice Regulation Handbook (issued by the Office of Best Practice Regulation in 2007) which state that in its many forms, regulation comprises any ‘rule’ endorsed by government where there is an expectation of compliance, for example, primary legislation (Acts), subordinate legislation (legislative or non-legislative instruments), treaties and quasi-regulation. Quasi-regulation includes the wide range of rules or arrangements where governments influence businesses and individuals to comply, but which do not form part of explicit government regulation. In its broadest sense, it can include any government action to put pressure on business or individuals to act in a particular way, and it’s often a mix of regulatory measures that may be the most appropriate way to influence citizen’s behaviour.

Against this backdrop of regulation being one of the core functions of many of us in the APS, we now have a new government committed to:

• a more open, transparent, and accountable Westminster style of government
• a strong, independent and capable APS
• a less regulatory, more streamlined approach to business and other types of regulation.

This requires new approaches to regulation and a critical assessment of whether the current regulatory arrangements are able to meet future challenges. For those involved in more of the “behind the scenes” regulatory activities, new ways of doing things will also be required. Performance management frameworks and evaluation will therefore be essential elements in achieving better regulatory outcomes.

 

Regulation is put in place to ensure the best outcomes from the implementation of government policies, but continues to be dogged by the term “red tape”. In Australia and overseas, there has been much consideration and effort since the 1980s to progress regulatory reform, which may mean deregulation,  re-regulation, and the use of new forms of regulation, including, a move away from command-type ‘black letter law’ to behaviour-based ‘soft law’ regulatory approaches along with the use of complementary policy tools.

In preference to the traditional “regulatory policy” approach, a wider notion of “regulatory governance” is increasingly being adopted. It recognises the need to implement regulation, and makes provision for employing regulatory tools to assist in reviewing existing regulation, as well as providing guidance on the design and development of new regulations. In some cases, it also provides for the formation of independent regulatory institutions such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

This broader “regulatory governance” approach to regulation has led to a major rethinking of regulatory norms and practices both across governments and within the APS itself.  So, the Australian Government Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business produced a new  Regulatory Impact Analysis process for all Australian jurisdictions to  improve the assessment of regulations before they are introduced. Similarly, the regulation reduction guidelines outlined in the Management Advisory Committee’s 2007 report on reducing red tape in the APS provide valuable guidance to this broader regulatory governance approach.

The “regulatory governance” approach emphasises the need for effective performance management, sound evaluation, and feedback loops to inform the regular review of regulation. It also recognises that governance, and implementation issues such as transparency, accountability, efficiency, adaptability and coherence are critical to getting the regulation framework right. And as well, this broader approach emphasises that it is critical to achieving the appropriate balance between the burden of regulation on users and its potential costs against the policy objective it gives effect to.

At the same time, though, and despite all our best regulatory reform efforts, there has still been an exponential growth in the amount of regulation and there appears to have also been a similar strong growth in quasi-regulation.

In State jurisdictions, too, there has been enormous growth in the amount of regulation.

The Rudd Government and regulation—a big appetite for making sure regulation is right

For this reason, the new Government is demanding a renewed emphasis on less regulation supported by effective performance management and evaluation of new government initiatives, to monitor and ensure an effective regulatory environment that supports its big policy agenda. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation said in a recent speech “Our deregulation agenda is central to building a better Australia .”

The Government’s emphasis at this stage is on removing impediments to business and looking first at the more obvious areas of government that administer regulation. Under COAG a business regulation and competition working group has been established. This will revisit and expand the work of the National Reform Agenda. Its objectives include accelerating and broadening the regulation reduction agenda; expediting the existing COAG “hot spots” agenda; improving processes for regulation making and review; and delivering significant improvements in Australia’s competition, productivity and international competitiveness.

At the March 26 meeting of COAG, 27 areas of regulatory reform were agreed to, including areas which have been particular bug bears for business for some time. The Intergovernmental Agreement to harmonise occupational health and safety laws by May 2008 has been welcomed by the business community. Initiatives were also progressed in 12 other regulatory reform areas, including in relation to rail safety regulation, product safety, trade licensing and further payroll tax harmonisation. Nine new areas for reform were also identified, including business reporting, food regulation and maritime safety. Reforms to enhance competition were also agreed to and a comprehensive work plan to oversee progress in all areas adopted.

Within the Commonwealth, it is clear that the Department of Finance and Deregulation intends to ensure that departments considering new legislation meet the revised and stronger Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements, including in relation to meeting the consultation requirements and producing green papers. The Office of Best Practice Regulation’s move to Finance has ensured its activities are given a higher profile and are well integrated into the Budget process.

The Government’s agenda will require those developing, implementing and testing the need for regulation to take risks, and to be bold and innovative. The role of evaluation will be to ensure a good fit over time. The aim will also be to avoid situations that have occurred in the past where it is clear regulations are outmoded and no longer relevant.

A classic example recently cited by Dr Nicholas Gruen, deregulation adviser to Finance Minister Tanner, relates to the car industry in Australia which had (through a subsidiary of Bosch) developed the technology to do away with car keys and manual locking systems in cars but was precluded from introducing this innovation into Australian car design because of a Design Rule aimed at deterring car theft that required car manufacturers to install mechanical door, ignition and steering lock arrangements. The move to electronic locking devices was delayed for over 5 years while the industry awaited a change in the design rules.

The present regulatory framework

We are now in an exciting period of transition—one in which the APS has a central role to play in crafting a more responsive and cohesive regulatory agenda to address long-standing but worsening problems like obesity and emerging ones such as climate change. In tackling these regulatory challenges, it is necessary to understand the public and private sector environments in which the APS operates.

Approximately 600 regulators now operate across the country defining and administering regulation at a cost of some $10 billion. One hundred of these are federal bodies which employ over 34,000 people and have a combined yearly budget of more than $4.5 billion.

A far greater number of public servants are involved in regulatory activity than most Australians commonly assume, and many public servants perform regulatory functions even though many do not see themselves as regulators. They deal with and administer regulation pertaining to health, the labour market, consumer protection, environmental requirements and building standards, financial and corporate matters, taxation, superannuation and trade-related issues.

While we’ve seen significant advances in the regulatory environment,  including adoption of the broader “regulatory governance” approach,  it’s also proper to acknowledge we have had some notable regulatory failures in Australia in the few years—reflecting both organisational capacity and individual capability issues. The most serious examples, are the treatment of Ms Cornelia Rau and Ms Vivian Alvarez, the Oil-for-Fuel Programme case and the horse flue epidemic. The findings of former Commissioner Palmer, Mr Comrie and the Cole Inquiry have provided the APS with valuable guidance on how to prevent such problems arising again.

The current judicial inquiry into the handling of the case against former terrorist suspect Dr Mohammed Haneef and the Callinan inquiry into Australia’s equine influenza outbreak last year—along with Roger Beale’s independent review of AQIS now underway—will no doubt provide us all with further food for thought on how to design an effective regulatory regime that manages risk and still provides the appropriate framework for innovation and expansion in our economy.

We all acknowledge the need for simpler and more streamlined approaches to regulation, but at the same time seem to have burgeoning amounts of regulation. Yet we are still not able to avoid high profile regulatory mishaps. This typically reflects the narrow focus on process and compliance at the cost of broader regulatory governance considerations and can lead to serious administrative and policy implementation failures. It is exemplified by the problems experienced in DIMIA and AQIS, and highlights the need to monitor and check regularly on agency health.

It is instructive to think about the broader policy framework and requirements of government, which is making it difficult for policy advisors and regulators to get the balance right.

A number of new regulatory trends are apparent.

Australians expect regulators to focus on the things that matter—the quality of services and regulatory effectiveness—rather than unnecessary procedural requirements. In effect, we are seeing the emergence of a concept of “good regulation” which both enhances productivity and maximises well-being.

The courts are demanding a standard of “care” from Governments that reflects contemporary community expectations—in other words, regulatory standards are rising. This probably reflects our strong economy; our highly educated, well informed and wealthy population; and the fact that minimum health and safety standards have now largely been met.

Along with these rising standards, we are seeing more regulation, not only from governments but also from private sector codes. This necessarily means more consultation and partnerships with industry, and increasing demands for more efficient processes or “best fit” regulation.

In the public sector, there is growing recognition that governments can only manage risk, not remove it, and that the costs and benefits of regulations must be weighed carefully. This is not always appreciated in the wider community, however.

Producers and major companies are demanding national regulatory consistency to position Australia in the global market. This is in order to reduce the resources and effort required to comply with differing State regulatory requirements and was reiterated very clearly in the Business Council of Australia’s recent submission to the 2020 Summit.

Economic regulators have moved from out and out controls to a balance of company’s, capital investment needs against price controls as they set business operating regulations.

Where regulations are interrelating or overlapping (including across jurisdictions) there is the risk of confusion, or for regulations to work against each other. The compliance burden resulting from different road transport regulatory requirements applying across different States and Territories is a good example. There needs to be systematic consideration of how interrelating regulations combine, so as to ensure the coherence of the regulatory scheme, including ongoing review and assessment of its impact.

Fewer and fewer regulations are succeeding through rules imposition alone. Today, success tends to be achieved through changing cultures and relationships—with governments seeking to get people to conform to sensible practices (the carrot approach), rather than punish non-conformance—although the right punishment remains a very important regulatory stick to prevent gaming or other harmful behaviours.

New areas of regulation are emerging, which are:

• challenging regulators’ capacity and community ethics—such as gene technology, biotechnology and various other new fields of science; or
• challenging trading norms or imposing extra costs on business or on the community in order to protect the public—such as, transport security regulation, dangerous goods regulations or water use regulations.

Many countries are also having another look at their governance frameworks for regulators. To what extent should regulators be at arm’s length from governments?  Who should write regulatory policy?

Britain’s recently-established Risk and Regulation Advisory Council is seeking to address this issue by working with ministers, civil servants and external stakeholders to develop a more considered approach to the twin subjects of public risk and policy making. One of the chief questions posed by the Council is: ‘When should the state manage a risk on behalf of everyone through regulation, and when should another body or individuals themselves be allowed to manage the risk?’

Where a regulatory scheme aims at prevention as well as enforcement, regulators need to consider how to manage the relationship between the two. Is there a conflict between the role of educator and prosecutor?  How should resources be shared between the two activities?  While prevention is a better outcome, it has to be balanced against the risk that if compliance activities are insufficiently resourced they will lose their power to act as a compliance incentive.

How do we work smarter?

The APS has recognised these challenges and has been looking at ways of meeting them within the regulatory governance framework. We have already seen adoption of new regulatory approaches—what I’ll call “smart” or “smarter” regulation. We are also working more closely in collaboration with industry partners to produce more successful regulatory outcomes in some key areas and, as always, have looked to other countries to learn about better ways of doing things.

I would like to quickly examine recent developments in each of these areas, highlighting that the APS will have to use all of these approaches to meet the Government’s new agenda for better but less onerous regulation that does not constrain competition or reform.

First and foremost, is the basic requirement that those engaged in regulatory work are experts or can access expertise to enable them to perform their roles effectively.

1. “Smarter” regulation

Smart or smarter regulation typically refers to a better mix of regulatory approaches with a better thought out balance between “white letter law” or “soft” forms of regulation and the traditional so-called “hard” forms of rules—or compliance-based regulation. Chief among these is engaging citizens and stakeholders more fully in APS efforts to secure better policy and regulatory results, such as the means employed to achieve the natural resource management of the National Landcare Programme and the health benefits generated by the National Tobacco Strategy.

The Australian Public Service Commission itself is pursuing a number of initiatives along these lines. Our focus is on identifying the processes and principles that underlie the design of “smarter” regulation. We are going back to first principles and asking:

• in what circumstances and to what extent can regulation be safely left to industries themselves?
• when government intervention is necessary, what are the implications of adopting one form of regulation in preference to another?
• are there insights from behavioural theory that can inform regulatory design?
• in what circumstances are regulatory tools more effective when complemented by other policy interventions?  and
• can third parties such as NGOs, businesses and consumers play a greater role in regulatory systems?

A substantial focus of our work is helping agencies maximise opportunities to develop innovative “win-win” solutions to policy problems for government, private sector organisations and consumers.

The Commission’s recent research- and case study-based publication, Changing Behaviour: A Public Policy Perspective, sets out key approaches government agencies and businesses can pursue to influence the behaviour of Australians. Better training of public servants (especially senior managers) in taking greater personal responsibility for their decision-making—what I call a public servant’s professional” duty”— would also help to improve regulatory outcomes.

2. Collaborative approaches

Often the starting point for designing smarter regulation is to consider whether there is scope to collaborate with industry in designing a better regulatory framework. A notable successful example has been public sector collaboration with refrigerator repairers via certification and training in efforts to reduce the unacceptably high levels of ozone depleting substances found in existing commercial refrigerators.

Other successful outcomes have been based on the recognition that ‘product stewardship’ can be built into a regulatory regime, whereby larger retail or manufacturing firms undertake to influence the behaviour of their medium-sized or small suppliers. Dow Chemicals and Du Pont, for example, have introduced relatively sophisticated forms of product stewardship which involve suppliers being encouraged to meet high environmental standards and consenting to have their performance assessed by independent auditors.

3. International approaches

The experiences of a number of international jurisdictions are also influencing Australian regulatory debate and practice. Canada’s “Tools of Change” initiative has facilitated greater regulatory cooperation and coordination across government and increased citizen participation in regulatory reform. These tools of change have been used in the environmental and health areas and provide case studies of behavioural change interventions that the public sector can learn from in formulating responses to major public policy challenges. There is no doubt that citizen-centric approaches will be an increasingly significant feature of our regulatory landscape in understanding regulation’s effect on individuals, businesses and the voluntary or “Third Sector”.

Another overseas example is the UK Behaviour Change Forum model called “The New Approach”, which combines the insights of behavioural theory and traditional policy tools to produce a comprehensive model of behavioural change of value in addressing complex issues such as over-regulation. Britain’s Risk and Regulation Advisory Council focuses on achieving regulatory change through better practice guidance initiatives such as workshops involving all affected stakeholders, rather than relying on the traditional centrally driven report and recommendations approach. An OECD mechanism, known as the SCM model measures regulatory pressures on business using a series of “reducing the regulatory burden” targets. The Victorian Government has adopted this model as a key element in its regulatory reform programme.

4. Role of Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Feedback Loops

Evaluation has an important contribution to make in assessing the likely effectiveness of both traditional and more innovative regulatory approaches; in devising tools to complement established forms of regulation and quasi-regulation; in decision-making about whether to implement “hard” or “soft” forms (and when it is appropriate to combine these approaches); and in weighing up the likely outcomes of allowing third parties a bigger share in regulatory work.  Examples of current evaluation activities in the sphere of regulation are the Productivity Commission’s yearly sectoral regulation reviews and its ongoing work on benchmarking regulatory burdens across jurisdictions.

Evaluation must be part of the sound performance management framework put in place, along with ensuring effective feedback loops at all stages of the process to ensure that regulation is right and not acting as a constraint on the economy. Evaluation should ensure regulation is appropriate and can meet the more stringent tests of its potential use within an environment where it is clear we must reduce the regulatory burden.

Our regulatory workforce

Another area I would like to touch on today is the regulatory workforce—those employees who consider their main function to be regulatory in nature, and those who devise the regulatory policy and its implementation.

So, what do we know about the different groups of employees who see “regulation” as their formal job? The annual State of the Service employee survey asks respondents what best describes the type of work they do and this graph shows that in 2007 around 12% of APS employees see themselves as ‘exercising regulatory authority’. This is a significant proportion and tends to be even bigger at around 13 – 19% outside Canberra.

Demographically, regulatory workers (those exercising authority) tend to be older than workers in other types of APS work, with nearly half over 45 and only 14% under 25. This age profile is reflected in the length of service regulatory employees have accumulated in their agencies. Regulatory workers are over represented in the ‘20 plus years’ group in their agency when compared with other types of workers. A relatively large proportion 40 – 50% will reach the nominal retirement age of 55 over the next ten years. Not surprisingly then, regulatory workers are around 30% more likely than average to retire over the next two years.

With so many experienced workers likely to retire over the next decade, there is both a challenge to retain regulatory knowledge and an opportunity to reinvigorate the workforce.

Other demographics are also of interest: males outnumber females by a factor of about 1.6 to 1. By comparison, policy makers and programme designers are equally divided between the sexes. In terms of classification levels, regulators evidence a classic structure, one that has more employees at the lower and middle-ranking levels (APS 1–4 and APS 5–6) and which decreases proportionately with higher classifications. This is reversed for policy and programme designer/manager employees who are generally clustered around the higher levels (EL 1–2). This difference is mirrored in the formal qualifications of employees in the different groups: regulators typically have middle-ranking qualifications (undergraduate diplomas and degrees); policy makers and programme designers are over-represented at the postgraduate levels.

This tells us a little about the composition of the workforce and some of the possible effects, but what of their attitudes, values and attachment to their jobs?  Analysis of the State of the Service data produces a number of summary indexes, including employees’ satisfaction and engagement with their jobs. This is done by grouping thematic questions in the survey to give a general insight into relative levels of job satisfaction and employee engagement.

This table shows that those in regulatory roles experience similar levels of job satisfaction to most other groups. However, regulatory workers are considerably less engaged with their work than other groups, being around 10% down on the APS average. At the same time, regulatory workers are amongst those least likely to leave their jobs over the next two years—except, to retire. This implies that there is a proportion of regulatory workers who are uninterested in the outcomes of their work, but are either unprepared or unable to move to different employment, perhaps being satisfied to sit in the job until a not-too-distant retirement.

Career opportunities are an issue. One of the main reasons regulatory workers give when asked what attracted them to their jobs is ‘career opportunities’. But a lack of opportunities is also the primary reason regulatory workers leave their agency. Regulatory workers are the least satisfied of all groups with their career opportunities (at 36%), compared with 53% for policy and programme design workers. This may be linked to the fact that many regulatory workers stay in their jobs for longer than other workers and, consequently, there are fewer opportunities for those looking to move up or sideways.

Development opportunities are also a key indicator of job satisfaction. However, despite reporting similar or above average levels of access to off-the-job training, regulatory workers are less satisfied and more dissatisfied than the other groups with their learning and development opportunities. Regulatory workers are aware of the sorts of learning and development needed for future reform. They report a need for interpersonal and conflict resolution training slightly above the APS average and a significantly higher requirement for technical training (69% compared to 53% for the APS overall).  This confirms the view that there is a strong need for more technical training of those performing regulatory functions. This group also sees a much higher need for training in regulatory development and the exercise of their regulatory role.

A slightly worrying finding from the State of the Service survey is that 16% of regulatory workers doubted that their colleagues at all times behaved ethically, professionally and fairly in decision-making affecting clients and customers.

This compares with 10% for the APS as a whole. A majority also do not believe that their agencies have earned a high level of public trust. Given their role as the interface between regulated entities and the Government, it is critical that employees see themselves as working in an environment of strong ethics and values. Rebuilding trust in how officials exercise regulatory authority is an important goal for regulatory reform.

Moreover, regulatory workers report lower levels of trust in their managers’ honesty and integrity and only 28% agree that recruitment and promotion decisions are fair in their agency, significantly lower than all other groups and the APS average of 43%.

On the positive side, regulatory workers are more likely to report colleagues who abuse their positions of authority. This may indicate a premium on values and honesty on the part of individuals, but may, alternatively, reflect a culture of mistrust among some fellow workers.

Any reforms to the way government regulation is administered must ensure that opportunities for unprofessional or corrupt practices are minimised. This is a significant challenge, since to do so may imply increasing regulatory and administrative burdens.

What about interactions with stakeholders?  Clearly, policy and programme design workers need to engage effectively with stakeholders, but this is core business for regulators. The considerable experience of current regulatory workers means that they are potentially a very good source of information about how best to regulate. A long, close association with regulated entities should have given regulators a keen understanding about what works and what hinders their particular regulated industry from achieving its maximum potential, in relation to government regulations.

However, the State of the Service data reveals that on all measures of stakeholder interaction regulatory workers under-perform compared to other workers in the field

For example, frequent discussions with stakeholders indicate that regulators report this occurs 77% of the time, compared with 89% for policy workers. A similar disappointing result can be seen regarding the frequent sharing of information with stakeholders. Regulatory workers are about 10% down on the policy workers result and considerably more likely to say that it happens only rarely. These figures are quite revealing, but have to be seen in the light of employees’ perceptions that they are not encouraged by their agencies to find better ways to do their jobs.

This data suggests regulatory workers are not used to providing that important feedback loop with regulated entities and that there is little prospect of regulation through partnership with the regulated. There also appear to be fewer processes in place in regulatory agencies to measure and evaluate overall performance.

Conversely, regulators seem to be very good at working with other government agencies

Regulatory workers were very positive in their reporting on whole of government collaboration (57% compared with 47% for the APS) and whole of government capability (82% and 70%). They also report above average willingness and effectiveness on a range of measures of interagency collaboration and capability.

Summing up, for regulatory workers’ it was notable that they had considerable experience and commitment to their agency, although this can have its downsides, particularly when new ways of regulating are on the agenda. Intuitively, introducing innovative regulatory practices to a workforce that has little experience of other types of work, in other agencies or under different regulatory regimes is difficult. The age, sex, length of service and educational profiles of these workers also imply a lack of diversity in these agencies, making it more difficult to generate new ideas and implement new practices. This is counterbalanced somewhat by the characteristics of those engaged in designing regulatory policy which indicated a better age profile, more positive attitudes, higher qualifications, more mobility and more interaction with stakeholders.

Improving the capability of our regulatory workforce and the APS

I would like to conclude with some observations about improving the capability of our regulatory workforce. Successful regulation depends on a trio of factors—an appropriate regulatory framework, approaches suited to each regulatory requirement and public servants performing their regulatory functions effectively.  Therefore, I would say that our main priorities should be to define regulation more clearly for public servants; to provide them with a better understanding of what the term regulation encompasses; and to improve their capacity to fulfil their regulatory functions. Good intentions and careful planning will count for little if a regulatory framework is unsupported by public servants with a sound knowledge of their regulatory powers, responsibilities and duties.

The first challenge is to ensure that all those involved in the regulatory environment are well-trained, abreast of the latest developments in their field and understand how the business they are regulating works. Communications technology, nano-technology, gene and biological technology are just some examples of the sorts of challenges facing modern regulators. If their knowledge lags behind industry, they will not be able to design, implement and administer effective regulatory programmes—programmes that are sufficiently flexible and forward looking to accommodate future developments in business and technology.

Technical training for regulators is vital but so, too, is a range of other skills. These skills are also vital to the broader APS that is engaged in associated regulatory activity. They include:

• strategic thinking and analytical skills, which are essential for policy makers and regulators in the field, so that they can consider and act on, where necessary, information on the impacts of regulation that has been put in place and take into account the broad mix of existing regulation and what the combined effect of policy and regulatory measures  may be
• strong decision-making capability. As the regulatory demands on APS employees become more complex, the need for them to assume appropriate responsibility for their decision-making increases.  This can be done through training in their duties to the community and their regulatory obligations under sound governance principles.
• research and evaluation skills, which are important for those developing and reviewing regulatory proposals, particularly given the stronger focus now foreshadowed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis process. In light of the Government’s overall expectation that the regulatory burden will be reduced, it will be paramount to consider the need for and assess options that will not add to the regulatory burden in the future
• high-level liaison and client interaction skills are also important for those exercising regulatory powers, along with general personal qualities of practicality, flexibility and a positive attitude towards the work. Without these skills, it will not be possible to develop truly collaborative approaches to regulation or operate in a whole of government, cross-service context where the full gamut of regulation activity and its impact must necessarily be taken into account.

Conclusion

We must continue to keep in mind that real regulatory reform is not the sole responsibility of those charged with its administration, but an intra, cross-agency, inter-jurisdictional and inter-sectorial challenge that can only be tackled through a concerted effort by all players in the regulatory sphere, including the policy makers, programme designers, regulators, other governments, the regulated and other key stakeholders. It is also timely to remind ourselves that, while we do not work necessarily in a specific regulatory agency, our day-to-day work is very often about regulation.

The challenge for us all is to devise the best regulation and get the balance right between managing risk and allowing for growth and innovation in the economy. This will require decisions about the most appropriate type of regulation and whether more flexible and responsive forms will deliver better outcomes. And of course, it will be paramount to work with the Government to lower the overall regulatory burden.

In the APS context we must make sure that we have highly-skilled public servants who, through training and example, are well-versed in their regulatory role and can design and implement effective regulation. The other corollary is to ensure regulatory activities are integrated, responsive to feedback and drive the performance framework of an organisation and the services it delivers.

Start of page

• Australian Public Service Commission • A-Z index • Privacy, legal & copyright • Contact us This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/media/briggs170408.htm