Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 8:10:08 to 8:24:32
The Office of Impact Analysis discusses regulatory burden, red tape, and staffing levels required to monitor government policy impacts.
Topics: Procurement, Public service staffing, Workplace culture
Speakers: Joanna Abhayaratna, Andrew Bragg, Hon Penny Wong, Unknown Speaker, Karen Grogan
>> Thanks very much. Um good afternoon. Can I please speak to the office of impact analysis? Feel like I'm on a longdistance phone call there. >> Yes. Are they available today? >> So you're the office of impact analysis. >> Yes. Joanna Aber and I'm the executive director of the office of analysis. >> Thanks for coming. Um so in broad terms your role is to do quality assurance effectively on the bills that the government wants to pass as laws. in terms of the regulatory cost. >> Uh so senator the office of impact analysis ad ministers the government's um impact analysis framework um which is available on uh the office of impact analysis website. So our role is to work in agencies in administering that which involves making decisions around um uh triggering an impact analysis. So so which policy proposals require an impact analysis as well as um part of our role is assessing the quality of the um of impact analysis coming forward.
>> Okay. So in lay terms effectively a minister or a department has to provide an impact analysis when they're bringing forward a new policy proposal. Is that
>> U partly Senator I'll just clarify a bit. So the an impact analysis under the framework um the government's framework an impact analysis is required for any any policy or proposal coming forward to government that has an expectation of compliance and more than minor impact on people businesses or community
>> and again in lay terms is this is it reasonable for me to assert that this is designed to be a restraint on unnecessary red tape
Uh so part of the framework is to look at the regulatory burden changes both positive and negative. Um and part of the requirements of the framework is that departments will develop an estimate um of the regulatory burden changes um associated with the policy. The uh framework also asks departments to consider the broader impacts of that proposal.
>> Okay. So effectively if there is a new proposal the department has to do the impact analysis and present it to your
>> Yeah. Um yes senator. So that what they would do is they would provide it to um the decision maker and we would but we'd have to they would have to reach out to the office um to assess the quality.
>> Do you then look at that and say this is a good impact analysis or a bad impact
>> So, Senator, yes. As you said before, part of the role of the office is to assess the quality of that analysis. We also provide training and workshops. Um and uh in doing that we uh look at the the seven questions um in the guide that talk about what would make a good quality impact analysis and and we work through I have a rubric that look works through those seven questions. Yeah,
>> that sounds very very bureaucratic. But uh Okay, great. So then you only look at the flows of regulation, don't you? You don't look at the overall stock.
>> That's correct, Senator. So, we look at proposals coming forward. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, if I asked you how many laws are on the books, that's not a question for you.
>> No, Senator.
>> Okay. But, um, I could ask you how many laws did the government pass in the last
I'd have to take that on notice in terms of I don't have that information with me but our our policy process would look at the it we'd engage with agencies through that policy development up until legislation process.
>> The answer is about 400 um and as part of that 400 new laws passing the parliament of course there were these uh impact analyses done. Um, so what's your general sense of these flows over the last few years? Are we getting more expensive compliance costs or are we reducing compliance costs and red tape in Australia?
>> So Senator, when an impact analysis is required, um, it's it's published once announced onto our website. So uh the role of the office is to provide part of the role is to provide transparency once a decision is made about so when an impact analysis is required and it's announced it's published on our website so it's transparent about what those particular estimates by the department around the regulatory burden changes
>> okay but do you look at the overall impact of this new regulation new red
>> so for the flow of estimates senator we provide some compliance summary reports um on our website that um based on the information uh provided by departments on the regulatory estimated regulatory burden changes we provide some summary information.
>> Okay. So of those 400 new laws how many of those did you send back to the
>> Uh Senator um not quite sure what you mean by the question but what we would do is we'd engage with agencies over the process. So we provide a uh we'd provide an initial assessment with comments to the agency around how we think the impact analysis could be improved. Um and then we provide a final assessment and that final assessment is that that rating by the OA is published
>> right because um there is like objectively according to your own department's data a lot of new red tape. There's the 400 new laws which according to your department cost $4.6 6 billion in the last parliament. Surely some of these you sent back to the keeper or sent back to the bowler and said, "Look, this is this is way too expensive. Um the country can't afford this level of red tape and ridiculousness. Can you please find a better way to do it or don't do it at all?" How many times did
>> So, Senator, we would engage with departments multiple times on an impact analysis. Um so you know in terms of an impact analysis our role is to put support them in developing anal uh a quality analysis that um meets the framework the stone government's guide to policy impact analysis.
>> So what about getting rid of red tape?
>> So it's not the role of the agency of the sorry of the office um to provide advice about should policy proposals go forward or not.
>> So who in Australia is going to get rid of red tape then because I worried that this has become a bureaucratic It's a bureaucracy trying to stop red tape can't get rid of red tape. Who
>> So Senator, the uh Department of Finance is in charge of regulatory policy more broadly and you may maybe your questions are best directed there.
>> Right. So you receive proposals from departments and ministers. They give you a piece of paper that says here's how much we think it's going to cost you say this is a good analysis or a bad analysis or what do you say you engage with them um how many times you said to
so senator we'd engage multiple times in developing analysis um and then we'd provide we publish our final ratings on the um website along with the associated with the impact analysis
>> how many have you sent back and he said this there's no way this can be justified the cost.
>> So in terms of so we have multiple ratings in terms of final insufficiencies. Um we I'll just have to
Cuz surely like one in 400 would have to be knocked back. Surely there's a few
So in 25 26 so this year to date we've had uh well this financial year to date we've had one insufficiency >> one out of 400. So, so Senator, not all 400, not every policy that comes forward or legislation will need a require an impact analysis would have to pass that.
>> You sent back one. >> Who do you send that back to?
>> So, when a when a So, we'd work is a departmental document the impact analysis. So, again, we'd work with the department um you know, iterally as they develop the impact assessment.
>> But it was Mr. Chalmers, was it? Was it
>> Uh for the ones in
>> Was it him? He loves red tape. Was it
>> early warning, Senator Bragg,
>> what a strong where it came from.
>> Well, no, you're trying to make >> You're trying to make a political point as well. It just puts it puts it puts it puts the it puts the public servant in a difficult position. If you ask them to respond to something after you say that,
>> well, we'll just see where it came from.
Senator, all our um assessments for finalized um impact analysis are published on our website. So, all that information is available publicly.
>> But do you know just say there's a lot >> I've read the website. It's good. Good >> Can't you just tell me who it was?
>> Well, it's on the website, mate. She just told you that.
>> I'm in the middle of the hearing. I don't want to be rude to the
>> No, why don't you look at the publicly available information?
>> Well, because I'm Can you remember where it came from?
>> Uh, so that particular one was from the Department of Social Services.
>> Social services. Okay. I thought it might have been Treasury. Okay. So, one out of 400. And did it end up being modified so it could be satisfactory or not or did it never came back?
>> So the information around we do have a web post that um talks about the insufficiency in that case. So under the guide when a impact analysis insufficient it that's the OIA's assessment of the process um it doesn't necessarily stop a decision going forward.
>> All right. So what about the like the YouTube ban? Like did you look at that
>> Excuse me. The social
legislation to ban YouTube and other streaming.
>> You supported that.
>> Well the YouTube thing seems particularly bizarre to me.
>> But I thought you supported that.
>> But did you look at the YouTube? No, it
isn't the opposition's position.
>> Are you asking me questions or am I
>> Well, just confusing that you're asking questions about something that I thought you supported.
>> I think the social media issue is quite separate from streaming. I don't think we live in a country where we're supposed to be, you know, blocking in.
>> So, is this the Andrew Bag or the Susan Lee version?
>> Again, are you asking me questions?
the opposition's position is. Well, I'm
just trying to understand how this all came about that you could have potentially very expensive and very convoluted policy passed through the office of impact analysis. So, did you look at the YouTube ban?
>> Uh, so you're referring to the social media ban for under 16. Uh, there is an impact analysis equivalent process on the website um that relates to that.
>> Yeah. And do you remember what sort of interaction you had with the department
about that one? H I don't recall,
>> Well, could you take it on notice, please?
>> Um, yes, Senator,
>> whether you can provide any further information because I'd like to know whether there was any analysis done on how this particular arrangement could be enforced and whether the cost estimates alongside it would be would be reliable. Um, finally, can I just ask chair, how many people are working in your area at
Senator, the current headcount um is 14 um staff members.
>> 40. So that's down from 20. Yeah. A
>> Oh, which part particular year are you referring to, Senator?
>> Which year? Uh 2022. >> You lost a few of you.
>> So 22 23 financial year. was 20.3 actual ASL.
>> Yeah. Have you got enough people to check on all these new pieces of red tape the government wants to push
>> Maybe rephrase that question, Senator Bragg.
>> Well, do you have enough res? I'm wor worried the government isn't giving you enough people to check on their mad reeregulation of the economy.
>> You can't again. Senator Bragg
even David PCO is shaking. He said you can't put that to a public servant.
>> I think he agreed with me actually.
>> Well [laughter] well if he's a CRA senator if a deregulation goes I'm just making the point you can't put to a public servant the question in the loaded terms you have.
>> Yeah. Well I think he agrees with me
>> Point Senator Bragg. Do you have a final question before we rotate the call to your colleague in arms at the other end?
>> Well, I'm looking forward to hearing his questions, but I guess my my question, if I'm [snorts] allowed to ask it in the way they would like to, is
>> with all the respect for the public servants who are going to answer it.
>> Yeah. I want I want more of them to be doing good work is do you have enough
uh senator we um you know we like we meet the g we um in a way demand driven so what proposals come forward we assess those and uh we work with departments so so and we maintain like that flow
>> so you're happy with the resources you've got you think you can do the job
>> uh so so we meet the you know we work to meet the and support departments and and the government in making decisions
>> I guess um my time's expired
Thank you, Senator Bragg. Senator PCO.