Delivering Solutions to Issues Raised during the Review
16. While the overwhelming message from the Review is that New Zealand's regulatory environment is in good shape, there is room for improvement. In particular, in how people and businesses are made aware of regulatory requirements, how regulation is enforced, and how requirements are implemented.
17. Several of the solutions proposed by contributors of issues to the review have been identified by departments as being outside the scope of the review because they relate to underlying policy. In particular, these include many issues relating to the provisions of the Employment Relations, Holidays and Tax Acts (among others). However, I consider that in some cases, officials have been too conservative. I list below the areas which I think should be considered as inside the scope of this review. I recommend that Cabinet directs departments, in consultation with affected parties, to consider further the following issues raised during the Review, and report back as part of the Second Milestone Report on with proposed solutions or a reason why maintaining the current arrangements is the best of the feasible options:
- The process for obtaining and renewing liquor licences has been identified by many businesses as needing reform. The main issues are timeframes (e.g. the need to re-apply for a licence every three years no matter what the business track record), the renewal process and the need for multiple licences (e.g. off licences, on licences, special licences). Therefore, I recommend that the Ministry of Justice report on the liquor licensing regime.
- Many businesses raised concerns about the stringency of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, its apparent impracticability in many circumstances and its duplicative requirements. I recommend that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), in association with the MfE and DoL, report on the cost of compliance with HSNO.
- Variability in territorial authority approaches to regulation was frequently identified by businesses as problematic, and particular concerns have been raised about excessive detail and prescription in some district plans. DIA and MfE should report on variability in territorial authority approaches to regulation, the level of prescriptive detail in district plans and the alleged creep in coverage of plans, recognising that the report back for common approaches to the Resource Management Act 1991/Building Act 2004 consistent approaches is July 2007.
- The requirement that audits of local authorities' long term council community plans (LTCCPs) be undertaken by the Auditor-General is seen by submitters to the Review as impacting significantly on the costs of audits to councils. I recommend that DIA report on long term council community plan audit requirements.
- Multiple audits of health, hospice and residential care providers by District Health Boards, Ministry of Health and accreditation bodies have been raised by business as duplicative and expensive. I recommend that the Ministry of Health report on multiple audits of providers funded by the health sector.
- Many businesses regard the requests of Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) and other government and non-government agencies as excessive and costly. Key concerns are the increasing number of surveys from both government and non-government sources; and duplicative and/or irrelevant surveys. Stats NZ are asked to report on reviewing the multiple and extensive requests for information by Stats NZ and other government and non-government agencies.
- Some businesses appear poorly informed about a number of existing procedures/requirements. This means that better information is needed by affected parties. I recommend that reports be provided on:
- regular automatic payments (IRD);
- use of client overpayments (IRD); and
- parental leave and paid parental leave entitlements (DoL).
18. As well as delivering individual solutions to issues raised by contributors, the Review is expected to make recommendations that enhance the regulatory framework generally. The enhancements to the Regulatory Impact Analysis regime agreed to by Cabinet in October 2006 are an example of this.
19. A recurring theme during the review has been the degree of misinformation and misunderstanding amongst businesses about what regulations mean and what is required to comply with them. I believe that an additional useful outcome of this review would be a cross-government "high-quality information delivery" campaign where information delivery practices are improved and the misinformation being passed by word-of-mouth in the business world can be described and corrected. Therefore, I propose that Cabinet direct the QRR Taskforce includes in the Second Milestone report proposals for how such a cross-government "high-quality information delivery" campaign might be developed.
20. In addition the Second Milestone report will include the overall report of the sector studies and an update on policy work being done on the issues of enforcement and regulatory flexibility.
21. To ensure that as the Review progresses other issues are not quickly ruled out of scope I recommend that Cabinet agree that the Ministerial Group be delegated the authority to decide if issues are out of scope. The full list of solutions agreed by the Group to be in scope will be presented to Cabinet. The final decision on solutions will rest with Cabinet.
Ongoing Work That Will Address Issues Identified in the Review
22. In a number of areas government agencies, individually or together, are currently working to assess whether they can adapt the rules and/or their administration of them to be more business-friendly. Annex Three contains a list of the areas where work is being undertaken relevant to concerns raised during the review.
23. The Review process also highlights a number of issues that are already being addressed through legislation, information provision or process changes. Annex Four contains a list of initiatives that departments are progressing as part of on-going improvements in their service provision. While these initiatives have not been initiated by the Review, they nevertheless directly address issues raised during the Review.
International Treaty Exemption from the RIS Requirements
24. In October 2006, Cabinet agreed to strengthen the regulatory impact analysis requirements and directed officials to clarify the international treaty exemption from the RIS requirements (CAB Min (06) 40/4C refers).
25. The exemption is currently that a RIS is not required for a regulation that "is required to meet an obligation under an international agreement and the regulation primarily repeats or adopts the terms of the agreement, or part of the agreement". However, these words do not achieve the objective of the exemption, which is to remove duplication so that departments do not have to prepare a RIS where a RIS was prepared prior to New Zealand becoming bound by the treaty.
26. I propose to change the exemption so that "a RIS is not required where the proposal is necessary to implement a treaty for which an extended national interest analysis (NIA) (which includes the RIS elements) has been prepared." The RIS requirements will still apply to any subsequent regulatory proposals relating to actions under the treaty that were not covered by the extended NIA.
Back to Top