Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 1:32:03 to 1:35:49
Analysis of the $2.3 million regulatory efficiency charge intended to fund ongoing process improvements, such as electronic certification and audit systems.
Topics: Export cost recovery, Government IT systems
Speakers: Tina Hutcherson, Speaker 5, Speaker 1, Speaker 19, Speaker 9, Ms. Tina Hutcherson, Speaker 12, Speaker 20
function. Is that correct? uh that was part of the agreement of government. Yes.
>> What's the what's that mean? What does
regulatory efficiency mean? >> So, it's a a stream of ongoing funding to ensure that regulatory functions delivered by the department remain fit for purpose um and can be adapted and changed into an environment. So the cost recovery arrangement is currently set to deliver the business as is um and over time as um everyone understands and we get feedback as do you from um our industries all the time about the fitness um for purpose of those um arrangements. So this is a mechanism to um provide capacity within the system to engage with industry and deliver ongoing improvements and updates to make sure we remain fit for purpose and don't find ourselves in the situation where we're we've got a system or a process that's 10 15 20 years old
and hasn't kept up kept up >> 2.3 million a year or is that over >> a year? >> 2.3 million a year >> correct? >> Well I mean just I couldn't understand a word of what you're saying to be honest. I what do they actually what does what does the money do >> I think >> and you don't get more efficient there's no efficiency dividend so what's the what what is the point of this money
>> it will be invested in improvements to processes so for example we have spoken at at these um hearings before senator about certification assurance audit systems where we might have duplication overlap um those things are not fit for purpose they need to be improved and Investment needs to be made by the the department and industry in improving that process to remove complexity from the system so that you can have electronic certification instead of manual certification. You can have um one step in a process rather than three steps in a process. It is designed to enable the capacity to um continually
improve the system. >> It sounds like it sounds like when I was in accounting the code thought leadership that's what it is. It's just a it's just a a catch all to cover extra
costs. the way so the way this has been um uh designed in the in the cost
>> actually we didn't charge I should say we didn't charge the thought leadership we just that was for internal purposes but no client would ever pay us for thought leadership they pay us on
results not confident getting to the end we could get the outcome >> such was answering the question is I saw that line of question coming to an end anyway senator can mean more for Um
well um just on this one. Yes. Um so I'm just trying to wonder how that's been set. That the cost base is 60 million. >> No.
>> No.
>> How much is the cost? >> The gap is 60 million. The cost >> Oh, the gap is 60 million.
>> The gap is 60 million. The cost base is about 190 million. >> 190 >> 190 million. It's about2% of the value that we get overseas each year.
>> All right. Um now I have a lot more questions on this. Um, I'm just just give me a second to see if I should ask any in here because I realize it's um split across both. Um, jumping around a little bit.
Uh,
yeah. Right. I might leave the others to the outcome,
I think.
Absolutely. Senator Brockman,