Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 48:33 to 52:10
Discussion on the July 1st framework change where agencies now self-assess the quality of their impact analysis rather than receiving formal OIA assessments.
Topics: Integrity, Government spending
Speakers: Senator The Hon Jane Hume, Speaker 5, Speaker 1, Joanna Abhayaratna, Unknown Speaker
>> So senator on one July this year there was a change in the framework. So the office of impact analysis no longer provides a formal assessment of the quality of impact analyses. It's um but agencies are required to self assess the quality of analysis and to certify that they've um addressed the seven impact analysis questions and again senator that includes a question around the consultation and and how that is um
it themselves. They mark their own
>> Uh yes, Senator. So they assess the quality of it and they um along with published impact analysis, the statement of sufficiency by the relevant deputy secretary or equivalent is published.
>> So they're publicly available.
>> The statement of sufficiencies. Yes. Senator
>> statement of sufficiencies. >> Okay. I'm going to to table a letter that is from the Alliance of Industry Associations. Thank you. Uh, I might just keep a copy for myself if you don't mind. Um, that raises concerns about inadequate consultation on complex legislative and regulatory reforms. And I'm wondering if you've seen this letter before. >> Sorry, who's that? Sorry. >> It is from the Alliance of Industry Associations.
>> Can I just ask who was it sent? What's the um who was it sent to?
>> It was sent to That's a very good question. It was clearly sent to governments. We write on behalf of the undeigned Alliance of Industry Associations to raise a growing concern about the government's inadequate consultation on recent complex legislation and regulatory reforms.
>> Well, I'm not sure that indicates it was sent to government. It just says there
>> I think it's an open letter.
>> Open letter. Do you know where it was published?
>> Uh I think it was actually in the newspapers. It was from all of these I'm pretty sure it's publicly available and I'm probably sure it was um done by the BCA. So the BCA's website published it. There we
go. >> Sorry. So um Ms. Abata because she is a very good official does have a copy of the letter but she has the only copy that I have seen. So we are just looking at it now.
>> We can just provide you with a letter and should we just bear in mind that they're just seeing it now. We're not entirely sure where like if if it had been sent to >> anyone in particular because it doesn't say that on the doc.
>> This is sorry different one different >> Yeah, this is a longer document than the >> I don't think the department has been provided with this one previously. Anyway, why don't you
>> happy to table it? Sorry, I would just
>> Why don't you in your hands, chair? I >> why don't you proceed? I mean, whatever you want, chair, what the committee will need to do with the document as it sees fit, but do you want to just um >> Okay, you can ask questions and we'll if we can't answer them because the document's not necessarily known to us, we'll say so.
>> Okay. I I'm can remember seeing this reported in the newspaper which is what made me go and look for the document.
>> What do you want to do with the >> No, sorry. I was asking the chair how she wanted the committee wanted to handle the document.
>> Um I would really like to know its providence obviously it's got a range of um I've never seen this before. It does have a range of um people listed on the back. Um yes, let's let's table it. But if we can work out its provenence, that would be really useful.
>> Can I be really clear though? Sorry. the department has a version of it. Yeah.