Reducing red tape 
Text version Home page
> Management Advisory Committee > Reducing red tape in the APS > Periodic review > Next: Opportunities for reducing red tape
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 1 March 2007
Reducing red tape in the APS
Chapter 7. Periodic review
Most regulatory and administrative requirements are implemented for good reasons. However, once they are in place, it is important to review them regularly to determine whether they continue to meet the three underlying principles of effectiveness, efficiency and benefit.
Requirements can become redundant or inappropriate with time. This may be due to:
- behavioural changes
- changing government priorities
- better understanding of the issue of concern
- the emergence of alternative technologies or options to streamline processes.
Regular review also helps to address the risk that requirements may, in practice, become ineffective in meeting the objective, or produce unintended negative effects.
This chapter describes an approach that promotes timely review of internal requirements by agencies, and proposes a mechanism through which agencies can seek review of requirements that they consider contentious or problematic.
An example of the benefits of review of requirements is foreign exchange (forex) reporting. Requirements for all General Government Sector (GGS) entities to report forex exposures, gains and losses were implemented in 2002 to monitor the implications for the Budget and to promote good management of exposures by entities.
Subsequently, it became apparent that a very small number of entities had material forex exposures. The requirements were therefore reviewed by Finance in the context of the 2006–07 Budget.
The review led to significant streamlining and less red tape. Further details are provided at Appendix 1.
Agency review programmes
To ensure that requirements remain appropriate, each agency should develop a programme for the periodic review of requirements under its control. The programme should be reassessed regularly, and adjusted if bringing forward or deferring review is beneficial.
Timing of reviews
The timing of reviews will depend on the nature of the requirements.
Internal requirements
Given the operational nature of many internal requirements, it should be sufficient to review them on a rolling basis every three to five years.
However, reviews may be warranted sooner than originally planned. For example, if a new Chief Executive is appointed to an agency, it may be sensible to bring forward a review of the agency’s CEIs.
A small survey of FMA Act agencies found that their CEIs and operational guidelines ranged from a few hundred pages to over one thousand.
Across all agencies, these requirements totalled around 65,000 pages; an average of 700 pages per agency.
If an internal requirement is subject to a sunset provision, it will need to be reviewed well in advance of the sunset date. This will ensure that the requirement can be replaced or renewed in good time if either is necessary.
Whole-of-government requirements
It will sometimes not be possible to assess Cabinet matters and other new whole-of-government requirements fully under this framework before their implementation. In such cases, the requirements should be reviewed after one year of operation.
Reviews of other whole-of-government requirements may involve significant effort. The time frame for reviews should take this into account, as well as the risks (including costs) of deferring review. Review every five to ten years would usually be appropriate.
Whole-of-government requirements that are subject to sunset provisions will need to be reviewed well in advance of their lapsing dates.
Additional opportunity for review
A sustained reduction in internal government red tape will require an ongoing focus and support. To facilitate this, the Secretary of Finance could provide an annual paper to the Portfolio Secretaries’ Meeting. This paper would propose priorities for review of significant whole-of-government requirements for the forthcoming year. Priorities would be based on consultation between the Red Tape DSG and agencies, including those responsible for requirements nominated for review.
As outlined in Chapter 5, the use of the Red Tape DSG as a source of independent advice is an important mechanism, which has a whole-of-government red tape perspective. It will support agencies in ensuring the adequacy and completeness of their considerations and in the development of efficient and effective whole-of-government requirements.
The Red Tape DSG would be the source of independent advice on all reviews of whole-of-government requirements instigated by Portfolio Secretaries and undertaken by a responsible agency. The responsible agency/Chief Executive should be consulted in the development of this advice. The Red Tape DSG would provide advice to the Chief Executive of the responsible agency through the Secretary of Finance. It is then a matter for the responsible Chief Executive or other agency decision maker to consider the advice in taking a final decision.
In addition, the Red Tape DSG would provide an annual summary of independent advice provided to agencies during the previous year, along with the agencies’ advice on the decisions subsequently taken. This report would be provided to Portfolio Secretaries through the Secretary of Finance.
To perform these functions, the Red Tape DSG would need to meet as necessary, probably at least quarterly.
Achieving this focus on internal red tape of course raises issues of resourcing. The anticipated benefits can only be achieved if these functions are adequately resourced by government.
Table 3 summarises points to consider in developing, maintaining and implementing a review programme.
| Develop a review programme |
|
| Timing of reviews for internal requirements |
|
| Timing of reviews for whole-of-government requirements |
|
| Additional opportunity for review of whole-of government requirements |
|
