Issues Paper Measuring and Reducing the Burden of Regulation

August 2012

Level 19, 12 Creek Street Brisbane Queensland 4000 GPO Box 2257 Brisbane Qld 4001 Telephone (07) 3222 0555 Facsimile (07) 3222 0599

[email protected] www.qca.org.au The Authority wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the following staff to this report

Alex Dobes, John Fallon, Dan Kelley, Sean Moroney and Ana Zolotic

© Queensland Competition Authority 2012

The Queensland Competition Authority supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright protects this document. The Queensland Competition Authority has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered.

Queensland Competition Authority Submissions

SUBMISSIONS

The Authority has been directed to investigate and report on a framework for measuring and reducing the burden of regulation. This Issues Paper outlines key issues relevant to the investigation.

Public involvement is an important element of the decision-making processes of the Queensland Competition Authority (the Authority). Therefore submissions are invited from interested parties on how to measure and reduce the burden of regulation. The Authority will take account of all submissions received.

Written submissions should be sent to the address below. While the Authority does not necessarily require submissions in any particular format, it would be appreciated if two printed copies are provided together with an electronic version on disk (Microsoft Word format) or by e-mail. Submissions, comments or inquiries regarding this paper should be directed to:

Office of Best Practice Regulation Queensland Competition Authority GPO Box 2257 Brisbane QLD 4001 Telephone: (07) 3222 0555 Fax: (07) 3222 0599 Email: [email protected]

The closing date for submissions is 31 August 2012.

Confidentiality

In the interests of transparency and to promote informed discussion, the Authority would prefer submissions to be made publicly available wherever this is reasonable. However, if a person making a submission does not want that submission to be public, that person should claim confidentiality in respect of the document (or any part of the document). Claims for confidentiality should be clearly noted on the front page of the submission and the relevant sections of the submission should be marked as confidential, so that the remainder of the document can be made publicly available. It would also be appreciated if two copies of each version of these submissions (i.e. the complete version and another excising confidential information) could be provided. Again, it would be appreciated if each version could be provided on disk. Where it is unclear why a submission has been marked “confidential”, the status of the submission will be discussed with the person making the submission.

While the Authority will endeavour to identify and protect material claimed as confidential as well as exempt information and information disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI)), it cannot guarantee that submissions will not be made publicly available. There is a possibility that the Authority may be required to reveal confidential information as a result of a right to information request.

Public access to submissions

Subject to any confidentiality constraints, submissions will be available for public inspection at the Brisbane office of the Authority, or on its website at www.qca.org.au. If you experience any difficulty gaining access to documents please contact the office (07) 3222 0555.

Information about the role and current activities of the Authority, including copies of reports, papers and submissions can also be found on the Authority’s website.

i Queensland Competition Authority Glossary

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

ACCI Australian Council of Commerce and Industry

ARI Annual Recurring Interval

Authority Queensland Competition Authority

BCC Business Cost Calculator

CCIQ Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland

NCP National Competition Policy

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

OBPR Office of Best Practice Regulation

QCA Act Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997

RCM Regulatory Change Measurement

RIS Regulatory Impact Statement

SCM Standard Cost Model

ULDA Urban Land Development Authority

VCEC Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission

VMA Vegetation Management Act

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

ii Queensland Competition Authority Task, Timing and Contacts

TASK, TIMING AND CONTACTS

Task

The Treasurer and Minister for Trade and the Attorney General and Minister for Justice (the Ministers) have directed the Authority to investigate and report on a framework for reducing the burden of regulation. The Ministerial Direction Notice is in Appendix A.

This Issues Paper outlines key issues relevant to the investigation and seeks submissions from interested parties on how to measure and reduce the burden of regulation.

Key Dates

Receipt of terms of reference: 3 July 2012

Release of issues paper: 3 August 2012

Due date for submissions: 31 August 2012

Consultation with interested stakeholders: August – September 2012

Interim report for government: 1 November 2012

Final report for government: 31 January 2013

Registration of interest

If you are interested in participating in this review, please provide your contact details by email, fax or mail as per the Submissions Page above.

Contacts

Dan Kelley: 07 3222 0516 [email protected]

Website: www.qca.org.au

iii Queensland Competition Authority The Role of the Authority

THE ROLE OF THE AUTHORITY

The Authority is an independent statutory authority established by the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 (the QCA Act).

The QCA Act was recently amended to allow the Authority to be directed to: (a) investigate, and report on, any matter relating to competition, industry, productivity or best practice regulation; and (b) to review and report on the adequacy of regulatory assessment statements prepared for proposed legislation.

These amendments have led to the establishment of an Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) in the Authority, which has responsibility for the current review of the regulatory burden of regulation.

Information about the role and current activities of the Authority can be found on the Authority’s website at www.qca.org.au.

iv Queensland Competition Authority Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SUBMISSIONS I

GLOSSARY II

TASK, TIMING AND CONTACTS III

THE ROLE OF THE AUTHORITY IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VIII

1. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR REDUCING THE BURDEN OF REGULATION 1 1.1 Measurement of Regulatory Burden 1 1.2 Prioritisation Criteria for Regulatory Reform 2 1.3 Whole of Government Regulatory Management System 3 1.3.1 Coverage 3 1.3.2 Ministerial Responsibility 3 1.3.3 Departmental Responsibility 4 1.3.4 Local Government Responsibility 4 1.3.5 Incentives for Reform 4 1.3.6 Review process 5 1.3.7 OBPR Responsibility 5 1.4 Review Priorities 6 1.4.1 Priorities for Fast Track Reform 6 1.4.2 Medium Term Priorities for Reform 7 1.5 Summary of Key Management Features and Timing 7 1.6 Consultation Issues 10

2. THE AUTHORITY’S APPROACH TO THE REVIEW 12 2.1 Scope of the Review 12 2.2 Ministerial Reviews 12 2.3 Consultation 12 2.4 Assessment of the Information 13

3. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR REVIEWING REGULATION 14

4. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE REGULATORY BURDEN 16 4.1 Administrative and Compliance Costs 16 4.2 Delay Costs 17 4.3 Other Regulatory Costs that Affect the Community as a Whole 18 4.3.1 Regulations that Apply to Individuals 18

v Queensland Competition Authority Table of Contents

4.3.2 Regulations that Restrict the Optimum Operation of Business 18 4.4 Consultation Issues 19

5. APPROACHES TO IDENTIFYING AND MEASURING REGULATORY BURDENS 20 5.1 Framework for Measuring Administrative and Compliance Costs 20 5.1.1 Aggregate Measures of Administrative and Compliance Burden 20 5.1.2 Cost Models for Measuring Administrative and Compliance Burden 21 5.2 Delay Costs 25 5.3 Net versus Gross Burden Reduction 26 5.4 Surveys 26 5.5 Case Studies 27 5.6 Invitation to participate in a field study of the overall burden of regulation 28 5.7 Other Costs that affect the Community as a Whole 28 5.8 Regulatory Burden Benchmarks 29 5.9 Consultation Issues 31

6. APPROACHES FOR CONDUCTING REVIEWS OF THE EXISTING STOCK OF LEGISLATION 32 6.1 Management Approaches 32 6.2 Programmed Review Mechanisms 33 6.3 Public Stocktakes and Principles-Based Reviews 33 6.4 Cost Effectiveness of Approaches to Managing and Reviewing the Stock of Legislation 34 6.5 Departmental Considerations 34 6.6 Governance Principles and Arrangements 35 6.6.1 Incentives 35 6.6.2 Independence and Resourcing 36 6.6.3 Consultation and Transparency 36 6.6.4 Government response 36 6.7 Consultation Issues 36

7. IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITISING AREAS FOR REGULATORY REVIEW 38 7.1 Classification of Legislation and Regulations 38 7.2 Criteria for Prioritisation of Regulatory Reviews 39 7.3 National Competition Policy 40 7.4 Market Failure Test 40 7.5 Linkages to Management Approaches and Programmed Reviews 41 7.6 Progress in Reducing Regulatory Burdens in Other Jurisdictions 41 7.6.1 New South Wales 41 7.6.2 Victoria 42 7.7 Consultation Issues 43

vi Queensland Competition Authority Table of Contents

8. A REGULATORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR REDUCING AND IMPROVING REGULATION 44 8.1 A Coordinated and Comprehensive Regulatory Management System 44 8.2 Clarity of Objectives 44 8.3 Clarity of Roles 45 8.4 Incentives 45 8.5 Capability 46 8.6 Consultation 46 8.7 Organisational Issues 46 8.8 Reducing duplication 47 8.9 A permanent formal mechanism for firms and individuals to seek a reduction in specific regulatory burdens 47 8.10 Consultation Issues 48

9. SOME EXAMPLES OF THE BURDEN OF REGULATION IN QUEENSLAND 49 9.1 Introduction 49 9.2 Regulation by Local Government in Queensland 49 9.3 Examples of Specific Regulatory Schemes 50 9.3.1 Native Vegetation Regulation 50 9.3.2 Water Sensitive Urban Design Regulation 51 9.4 Consultation Issues 52

10. CONSULTATION ISSUES 53 10.1 Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Regulatory Burden 53 10.2 Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden 53 10.3 Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burden 54 10.4 Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Legislation 54 10.5 Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review 55 10.6 Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation 56 10.7 Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland 57 10.8 Field Studies 57

APPENDIX A: MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NOTICE 58

APPENDIX B: CLASSIFICATION OF QUEENSLAND LEGISLATION BY BROAD FUNCTION 60

REFERENCES 92

vii Queensland Competition Authority Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Queensland Competition Authority (the Authority) has been directed to investigate and report on a framework for reducing the burden of regulation. The framework report is to provide recommendations for measuring the regulatory burden of legislation and an assessment of the progress of Queensland Government departments in reducing regulatory burdens. The Authority has also been asked to propose priority areas for targeted regulatory review.

This issues paper is designed to provide an opportunity for interested parties to provide input into the development of the report. Submissions are requested by 31 August 2012.

The Authority is conducting an open consultation process. Interested parties are invited to register their interest in meeting with the Authority to provide further views or information during or after the Submissions date. The Authority is keen to hear the views of business, the community and relevant government departments and regulatory agencies. An Interim Report is due to the Government by 1 November 2012 and a Final Report is due by 31 January 2013.

Section 1 of this paper sets out a proposed framework for reducing the burden of regulation. It is presented in a self contained format to facilitate understanding and comment. The remaining sections provide more detail on the issues addressed in Section 1.

viii Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

1. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR REDUCING THE BURDEN OF REGULATION

This section sets out a proposed framework for reducing the burden of regulation in Queensland. It draws on the analysis presented in more detail in the remainder of the Issues Paper. It provides a complete outline of what is proposed to address the key questions raised in the terms of reference. It also sets out a management system covering roles and responsibilities, accountability arrangements and timing issues.

The proposed framework is presented in this form to facilitate public comment. Submissions and other information provided by interested parties will be used to prepare a recommended plan for government in the Interim Report due on 1 November 2012.

1.1 Measurement of Regulatory Burden

The following approach to measuring the burden of regulation is proposed:

(a) The dollar cost of complying with regulation would be the primary measure of the burden of regulation, provided it is feasible to estimate at a disaggregated level.

(i) The burden of regulation is estimated to be of the order of 1% of Gross State Product, or some $2.5 billion (see section 5.8). This includes administrative and compliance costs and the costs of delay. The total burden could be much higher where regulation leads to inefficient restrictions on economic activity and imposes indirect costs on the community.

(ii) The 20% reduction target of $500 million would be disaggregated across departments based on estimates of the extent to which the regulation for which they are responsible creates a regulatory burden. The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) would develop the departmental estimates based on public consultation in this review, including submissions received and application of a suitable measurement tool such as the Queensland Treasury Compliance Cost Calculator (adjusted to account for delay costs) (see section 5.1.2).

(b) Departmental progress towards reducing the burden of regulation would be assessed and reported annually by the OBPR.

(c) The gross approach to measuring the change in the burden of regulation would be used (see section 5.3). This means that the targeted reduction of 20% would apply to the dollar value of the compliance burden associated with the current stock of legislation. New regulation would be vetted by an improved Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) process including an onus of proof requirement on those advocating new regulation to demonstrate there is a net public benefit from the regulation (see section 6.5).

(d) The British Columbia approach to measuring the burden of regulation (i.e. counting provisions that require individuals or businesses to take some action or provide some information) will also be used to track progress in reducing burdens over time and among departments (see section 5.1.1).

(e) The number of pages of regulatory Acts and Statutory Rules is considered to be too crude a measure and it is proposed that it not be used;

(f) Surveys would be used as appropriate to gather information about burdensome requirements or to elicit suggestions for better, less costly, approaches to regulation. Surveys may be undertaken by OBPR or by individual departments.

1 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

Table 1.1 summarises types of burdens and proposed measurement techniques.

Table 1.1: Defining and Measuring Regulatory Burden

burden definition measurement

aggregate specific

Administrative Paperwork and reporting • extrapolate dollar • activity based and costs, staff training and cost of burdens from accounting models compliance systems, other capital studies done in other • case studies costs upgrades required to jurisdictions comply with regulation, • surveys government enforcement • inventory of costs requirements in legislation or Delay Application and approval regulations delays resulting in higher costs

Costs incurred Time, effort and financial by individuals costs for responding to excessive paperwork or delays before an improvement can be made

Restrictions Regulations that prevent • extrapolate efficiency losses from studies done on the entry, raise the cost of in other jurisdictions optimum entry, delay entry, prevent operation of optimal price or quantity • econometric studies business changes, restrict business hours or prevent or delay • input-output modelling introduction of new technology

While most regulatory review by departments naturally concentrates on the individual pieces of regulation for which they are responsible, the burden of regulation needs to consider the total impact. Therefore, in addition to seeking submissions on the matters raised in the Issues Paper, the OBPR invites individual businesses (large and small) to provide a detailed snapshot of how they are affected by regulation. This could be in the form of a field study setting out how much time and expense is devoted to satisfying the various regulatory requirements that impact on them (see section 5.6).

1.2 Prioritisation Criteria for Regulatory Reform

The following criteria are proposed for establishing reform priorities (see section 7.2):

(a) Regulation that is clearly unnecessarily burdensome, complex, redundant or of questionable benefit;

(b) Regulation that has significant ‘reach’ in terms of interaction between business and the community and government agencies;

2 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

(c) Regulation where there are potentially large net benefits from reform including direct reductions in red tape but also wider benefits for business, government and the community (e.g. greater competition); and

(d) Regulation where the need for reform is well understood.

Particular focus would be given initially to regulation that adversely impacts on economic growth, competition or productivity, especially in the areas of agriculture, tourism, resources, and construction.

The following criteria would be used to exclude regulation for initial review:

(a) Regulation that has either been recently enacted or is planned; and

(b) Regulation that has social or public good objectives and where it is difficult to establish the need for change.

As discussed further below, the Government and departments are identifying candidates for immediate review and action.

1.3 Whole of Government Regulatory Management System

The Treasurer and Minister for Trade, supported by an Assistant Minister, would implement a whole of government regulatory management system (see section 8).

In brief, a good regulatory management system requires a coordinated and comprehensive system comprising clear roles and accountability arrangements, appropriate organisational infrastructure and processes, and measurement and evaluation tools across the regulatory cycle. It includes proper incentives for decision-makers, strong capability for understanding problems and crafting solutions and adequate stakeholder consultation throughout the process of review and implementation.

Importantly, an ideal regulatory management system would not require major public stocktakes or reforms every 10 years. Ongoing and effective review of both existing and new regulation should ensure that the regulatory burden is minimised.

The key features of the proposed whole of government regulatory system are outlined below.

1.3.1 Coverage

Both state government and local government regulation would be subject to regulatory review and reform.

1.3.2 Ministerial Responsibility

Overall responsibility

The Treasurer and Minister for Trade, in association with an Assistant Minister would be responsible for regulatory reform. The role of the Treasurer and Minister for Trade would include: ensuring clarity of roles and tasks; ensuring capability to reduce and improve regulation; confirming priorities; overseeing regulatory activity; identifying scope for improvements; and promoting the importance of improving regulation.

3 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

Individual Ministers

Each Minister would be responsible for regulatory reform in their departmental portfolio, subject to the government’s agreed priorities and principles for regulatory review and reform.

1.3.3 Departmental Responsibility

Each department would be assigned a regulatory reduction target, based on the analysis referred to in section 1.1.

The target should be part of the departmental chief executive’s performance indicators.

Each department would work with the OBPR in establishing priorities for regulatory review and reform and implementation of those priorities.

1.3.4 Local Government Responsibility

In line with the increased responsibility being given to local government, local governments would be required to reduce the burdens of regulation (including codes and guidelines) for which they have responsibility.

Each local government would be required to review existing regulations with a view to a 20% reduction in the compliance cost of regulation.

Each local government would be required to provide a staged prioritised review program to the OBPR. The review program and review documentation would be made publicly available for comment. Regulatory reform priorities would be established using the prioritisation criteria set out in sections 1.2 and 7.2).

Each local government would be required to report annually to OBPR and in its annual budget on the progress of its program for reducing the burden of regulation. The OBPR reports would be submitted to Ministers and made publicly available.

1.3.5 Incentives for Reform

To maximise the scope for reducing regulation, the onus of proof in justifying the continuation of regulation would be on the entity proposing a new regulation or the retention of existing regulation. Regulation should expire unless the responsible party establishes a case for its continuation, rather than continue unless someone can establish a case for its termination. This shifting of the burden may by itself be sufficient to eliminate large parts of the regulatory stock.

In the absence of specific financial incentives, it is also important that departments agree to be held responsible for meeting specific, measurable targets for accomplishing regulatory reform goals as noted above.

There should be a strong commitment by government departments and Ministers to the principle of transparency in the assessment process. This requires that all submissions, supporting analyses and reports on priorities for regulatory reform be made publicly available at an appropriate time and for adequate time and opportunity to be provided for effective consultation.

A key issue for consideration is the independence of the review body. It is considered that major reviews of priorities or of the need for major regulatory reforms are more likely to be

4 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

effective in taking an economy wide or public interest perspective if they are undertaken by an independent, appropriately resourced entity.

1.3.6 Review process

New Regulations

All new regulations would be subject to an effective RIS process, including effective consultation and communication between departments, local government and the OBPR, unless exempted by the Minister responsible for regulatory reform.

The onus of proof should be on the proponent of the regulation to prove the regulation is in the public interest.

All RISs and the assessment advice of the OBPR should be made publicly available.

Exemptions should be granted only in exceptional cases and subject to the responsible Minister publishing reasons for doing so.

All regulations without a RIS should be reviewed after two years using the normal RIS review process.

Stock-flow linkages with new legislation are not considered to be useful given the possibility of potential perverse effects (see section 6.1) for new regulation and recognising that aggregate departmental targets and an effective RIS system are likely to be more effective in ensuring that a reduction in the burden of regulation has a net public benefit.

Existing Regulations

A schedule for review and reform of all regulation that creates a regulatory burden should be developed by responsible departments in consultation with the OBPR and linked to the process for setting priorities.

All major reviews should be conducted by an independent, appropriately resourced body. The OBPR could undertake the reviews or a separate task force could be established depending on priorities and capacity. However, the involvement of responsible departments is also important for both consultative and assessment purposes. In addition, industry specialists should be involved where appropriate.

A 10-year sunset provision should apply for all regulations to ensure that the necessary periodic reviews take place.

The onus of proof should be on the proponent of the regulation to prove that retention of the regulation is in the public interest.

1.3.7 OBPR Responsibility

The OBPR would have an overall advisory and monitoring role in relation to reducing the burden of the existing stock of regulation and new regulation. Specific OBPR functions would include the following:

(a) Advising on initial priorities for reforming the existing stock of regulation based on information obtained in this review and in consultation with government departments and Ministers;

(b) Assist in establishing medium term priorities for regulatory reform;

5 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

(c) Training public entities on how to evaluate regulation to reduce the regulatory burden and remove restrictions that impact adversely on economic activity;

(d) Monitoring compliance with regulatory burden reduction targets and initiatives;

(e) Annual reporting to government on whole of government progress in reducing the regulatory burden and future plans;

(f) Assessing the adequacy of RISs for new regulation and regulation with sunset and statutory review requirements; and

(g) Undertaking targeted reviews and advising on reforms as directed by Ministers.

OBPR will also explore opportunities to remove overlap and duplication in information and compliance obligations through the creation of customer-centred ‘one stop shops’ and the better use of technology to share information between government agencies (see section 8.8) as well as a permanent mechanism for firms and individuals to make a case for regulatory redesign and reduction (see section 8.9)

1.4 Review Priorities

1.4.1 Priorities for Fast Track Reform

The development of a framework for measuring and reducing the burden of regulation is one of a number of government initiatives to identify and address regulatory burdens. Ministers and Assistant Ministers have been tasked with specific red tape reduction objectives for their departments. Departments also have regulatory simplification plans that in some cases are well developed but in other cases need further development. All regulatory simplification plans need to be part of the whole of government regulatory management system.

The Queensland Government’s current Six Month Action Plan (2012b) also identifies a number of initiatives to reduce red tape and regulation. These include, but are not limited to:

(a) reviewing legislation and regulation for the small mining sector to reduce red tape;

(b) reviewing laws mandating rain water tanks and solar hot water systems on new buildings;

(c) commissioning a review of the Queensland Building Services Authority to remove red tape;

(d) reducing red tape for landholders by making it easier to renew fodder permits;

(e) simplifying planning by amending the Sustainable Planning Act 2009; and

(f) appointing a red-tape reduction expert panel to review liquor licensing, gaming, trading hours and noise restriction laws.

The Commission of Audit has also been tasked to review regulation that adversely impacts on economic growth. Regulation that restricts economic activity and hence economic growth is part of the burden of regulation. The OBPR will work with the Commission of Audit in investigating and reporting on regulation that restricts economic growth.

Information from the public consultation process for this review will also help to identify early priorities for review and reform of regulation.

6 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

The proposed framework for measuring and reducing the burden of regulation set out here will be used to identify and prioritise additional reform candidates and will enable a more structured and permanent approach to reducing the burden of regulation and improving regulatory outcomes in the future.

1.4.2 Medium Term Priorities for Reform

The second phase of the proposed framework is designed to determine review priorities that can be implemented subsequent to the initial round of fast track reforms. The proposed process is as follows.

First, the OBPR would undertake an initial broad screening of potential regulatory reforms using appropriate burden measurement tools and prioritisation criteria (see section 7).

Second, surviving proposals would be submitted to responsible policy departments or regulatory agencies for their views and suggestions for progressing the reforms.

Third, if there are suggestions or objections from policy departments or regulatory agencies, proposals would be re-considered and a final recommendation made to Government on the scope for reform, priority and sequencing, responsibilities and resource requirements. The onus of proof in justifying the continuation of regulation would be on the entity proposing its retention. Regulation should expire unless the responsible party establishes a case for its continuation.

The above approach is a major task for a single entity, although it is considered to be manageable if the first step in the review is undertaken with a relatively high level assessment of net benefits. This is reasonable given the role and functions specified in the second and third steps.

The responsible policy department would then develop a plan for review and reform of regulation and submit the plan to the OBPR for review and comment. The plan should recognize that OBPR or a similar independent, well resourced entity would play the lead role for major reviews and an oversight role for other reviews

Once the medium and longer term priorities and reform details are established, the Government would decide on the reform program.

Changes to regulation would be subject to the standard RIS process. The process described above would help ensure that this can be done in a timely manner, given the information collected and role of the OBPR.

1.5 Summary of Key Management Features and Timing

Box 1.1 summarises the proposals for the review process while Box 1.2 summarises the proposals for the management system. Box 1.3 indicates the timing of the activities.

7 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

Box 1.1: Review Process Proposals

Prioritising Regulation for Review

Fast track regulations based on current government directions and six month plan

Prioritise additional candidates for reform by identifying regulations that:

• Are clearly unnecessarily burdensome, complex, redundant or of questionable benefit

• Have significant ‘reach’

• Provide large net benefits from reform

• Have a well understood need for reform

Particular focus would be given initially to regulation that adversely impacts on economic growth, competition or productivity, especially in the areas of agriculture, tourism, resources, and construction.

Review Process

New regulations subject to transparent RIS process

Schedule review and reform of all regulation that creates a regulatory burden

10 year sunset provision

Place onus of proof in justifying the continuation of regulation on the entity proposing its retention.

8 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

Box 1.2: Regulatory Management System Proposals

Attributes of a Good Regulatory Management System

Clear roles and accountability

Appropriate organisational infrastructure and processes

Measurement and evaluation tools

Proper incentives for decision-makers

Trained staff

Adequate stakeholder consultation

Implementation of a Good Regulatory Management System

Minister responsible for overall regulatory reform

Individual Ministers responsible for Departmental reform

Performance indicators based on agreed priorities and assigned reduction targets

Similar requirements for local governments

Onus of proof on the entity proposing a new regulation or the retention of existing regulation

Transparency in the assessment process

Independence of the review body

Cover both state and local government regulation

OBPR Role

Advise on initial priorities

Training

Monitor compliance

Assessing adequacy of RISs

Undertake targeted reviews and advise on reforms

9 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

Box 1.3: Proposed Timing of Activities for Reducing the Regulatory Burden

2012 2013

Task III IV I II III IV Start-up

OBPR established

Issues paper consultation

Interim report for government

Final report for government

Receive directions from Government Fast Track Reforms Complete current Ministerial and Commission of Audit Reviews Identify additional targets from OBPR issues paper consultation

Agree reforms

Departments Implement Reforms Reviews

OBPR stocktake

Assign regulatory reduction targets

Departmental and Local Govt actions

OBPR RIS Reviews

Monitor compliance Management System

OBPR RIS training

Establish reform KPIs

Sunset reviews

OBPR undertakes reviews as directed First OBPR Annual Report

1.6 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to the proposed framework for reducing burden of regulation.

1.1 Is there support for measuring the regulatory burden in terms of a dollar value for the compliance cost as the primary measure? (See section 5)

10 Queensland Competition Authority Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Burden of Regulation

1.2 Recognising that page count is a very rough measure of the burden of regulation and that estimating a dollar value for compliance cost could be resource intensive, is it preferable, at least initially, to adopt a measure that counts the number of individual restrictions associated with each regulation? (See section 5.1)

1.3 Is there support for using the gross approach to setting a target in relation to the existing stock of regulation and using an improved RIS process to ensure the net stock of regulation is appropriate? (See section 5.3)

1.4 What are the main instances where duplication in terms of compliance occurs and how is this best addressed? (See section 8.8)

1.5 Is there support for specifying that the ‘onus of proof’ should be on those advocating or responsible for regulation to prove that there regulation leads to a net public benefit? (See section 6.5)

1.6 Is there support for the proposed prioritisation criteria set out in 1.2? (See section 7.2)

1.7 Is there support for the whole of government regulatory management system set out in 1.3? (See section 8)

1.8 Are there any aspects of the whole of government regulatory management system that need to be amended or that have not been addressed? (See section 8)

1.9 Is there agreement with the process set out in 1.4 for establishing review priorities? (See section 7)

1.10 Are there any other comments on the proposed approaches and recommendations in this Issues Paper?

11 Queensland Competition Authority Section 2: The Authority’s Approach to the Review

2. THE AUTHORITY’S APPROACH TO THE REVIEW

2.1 Scope of the Review

The Authority has been directed to investigate and report on a framework for measuring and reducing the burden of regulation. This includes: developing a methodology for measuring the burden of regulation; developing a process for reviewing the existing stock of Queensland legislation; and identifying priority areas for targeted regulatory review.

As specified in the terms of reference, the ‘regulatory burden of legislation’ refers to the total costs of regulatory intervention, including administrative and compliance costs, delay costs to business and other costs that affect the community as a whole.

The term ‘regulation’ in this issues paper refers to both legislation and regulation and the scope for government entities to set conditions or standards under legislative delegations. The scope of the review includes local government laws and regulation. This is consistent with the definition of 'Act' in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 and Statutory Instruments in the Statutory Instruments Act 1992.

The Authority interprets the ‘framework for reducing the burden of regulation’ to encompass: principles, governance arrangements, consultation and incentives for reform as well as technical methodologies.

The scope of the review is broad, reflecting the potential reach and impact of regulation.

2.2 Ministerial Reviews

Government Ministers and their departments are currently undertaking reviews of the regulatory burdens resulting from various Acts and regulations. Key initiatives are summarised in section 1.4. This review is independent of those efforts. However, government departments are encouraged to provide submissions identifying priorities and approaches for reducing regulatory burdens.

It is also important that these reviews be incorporated within a single coordinated approach to reducing the burden of regulation.

2.3 Consultation

The Authority is undertaking an open consultation process with interested parties and seeking submissions on issues of concern that are relevant to the terms of reference. The full terms of reference for the study are included in Appendix A of this document.

Interested parties are asked to respond to questions that are posed at the end of each section and collated for ease of reference in section 10. Other suggestions, comments and analysis are also encouraged.

The study has a tight time frame and this issues paper is an important part of the consultation process. As well as receiving and reviewing submissions, the Authority will be consulting with interested parties who register their interest in meeting with the Authority.

Contact details and the timetable for the review are included at the front of this document.

12 Queensland Competition Authority Section 2: The Authority’s Approach to the Review

2.4 Assessment of the Information

The Authority will be assessing approaches for measuring and reducing the burden of regulation used in other jurisdictions as well as drawing on information from submissions and interviews with stakeholders.

An Interim Report for Government is due by 1 November 2012. The Interim Report will cover all aspects of the terms of reference and take account of all submissions and other stakeholder inputs. A Final Report due by 31 January 2013 will respond to Government feedback on the Interim Report.

13 Queensland Competition Authority Section 3: Context and Rationale for Reviewing Regulation

3. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR REVIEWING REGULATION

Regulation has a wide-ranging and significant impact on individuals and business. Excessive or poorly designed regulation can reduce the ability of the private sector to perform optimally and adapt to change. Consequently, regulatory reform has the potential to pay large social and economic dividends. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006a, p. 1) describes the motivation for regulatory reform in the following terms:

Continual and far reaching social, economic and technological changes require governments to consider the cumulative and interrelated impacts of regulatory regimes, to ensure that their regulatory structures and processes are relevant and robust, transparent, accountable and forward looking. Regulatory reform is not a one-off effort but a dynamic, long term multidisciplinary process.

One of the reasons that regulatory reform is not a one-off exercise but a dynamic ongoing process is that there is a strong tendency for regulation to grow and extend across a myriad of business and personal activities. This in turn can be reflected in a culture in government and the community that relies on regulation and resists regulatory reform.

The Productivity Commission describes the growth of regulation and its causes in Australia as follows:

Regulation has grown at an unprecedented pace in Australia over recent decades. As in other advanced countries, this has been a response to the new needs and demands of an increasingly affluent and risk averse society and an increasingly complex (global) economy. This regulatory accretion has brought economic, social and environmental benefits. But it has also brought substantial costs. Some costs have been the unavoidable by-product of pursuing legitimate policy objectives. But a significant proportion has not. And in some cases the costs have exceeded the benefits. Moreover, regulations have not always been effective in addressing the objectives for which they were designed . . . . (2011, p. XI)

In other words, some regulatory schemes may not be properly designed to achieve regulatory objectives in the most efficient manner or may have been put into place even though the costs of a properly designed and implemented scheme exceed the benefits.

The Productivity Commission (2011, p. 9) goes on to note that:

Even regulation that is initially well made and cost-effective can require subsequent amendment as costs and benefits change over time due to changes in technology, demographics, preferences, relative prices and resource ownership — and the accumulation and interaction of regulations.

It is clear that, unless there is frequent review and effective analysis of the stock of regulation, regulation that would no longer be justified under a cost benefit analysis may persist.

Lack of harmonisation between regulation at different levels of government may also contribute to regulatory burdens. Duplicative or inconsistent regulation obviously needs to be addressed. There may also be lack of harmonisation among regulations administered by different departments within the State. For example, environmental regulation may require a regulated firm to take actions that are inconsistent with transport regulation. Subjecting businesses to the resulting risk and uncertainty comes with a cost.

Good regulatory design requires attention to the economic incentives created by the regulation. ‘Command and control’ regulation invariably leads to adaptive responses by individuals and businesses. For example, safety regulation may create a perception that individuals are protected by the regulatory requirements with a net result that more risks are

14 Queensland Competition Authority Section 3: Context and Rationale for Reviewing Regulation

taken and injuries do not fall, or even increase. Regulatory reviews should be alert to unintended consequences.

The growth of regulation and maintenance of regulatory schemes, even when circumstances may have changed, have led to concerns from businesses and consumers about the burden of regulation.

There is also a perception that businesses in Queensland are subject to more regulation and a higher rate of growth in regulation than other Australian jurisdictions. The Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland (CCIQ) reported survey results that indicate that a high proportion of Queensland businesses believed red tape had increased between 2002 and 2011 (CCIQ 2011, p. 3). The Property Council of Australia Development Assessment Report Card ranks Queensland’s planning and development assessment system seventh among Australian states and territories, which is a reduction from performance measured in 2010 (2012, p. 14).

Table 3.1 compares the number of pages of regulatory Acts and Statutory Rules in 2007, as compiled by the Productivity Commission.

Table 3.1: Number of regulatory pages across jurisdictions

NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas NT ACT

Acts 32,700 44,214 49,419 16,525 40,751 13,254 16,992 21,771

Statutory Rules 7,717 12,625 15,635 8,526 22,816 12,071 4,057 7,763

Total 40,417 56,839 65,054 25,051 63,567 25,325 21,049 29,534

Source: Productivity Commission (2008, p. 32)

Queensland led the states and territories in the number of pages of rules and regulations. As discussed in section 5.1 below, comparisons among jurisdictions based on aggregate measures of the degree of regulatory burden such as these are problematic. For example, following reforms in the early 1990s, Queensland adopted an approach that focuses on making legislation easier to understand, but this requires more pages.

By any measure, the dollar cost of regulation in Queensland is likely to be large. Savings to the government from removing unnecessary regulation can be used to reduce debt, lower taxes, or fund other more effective programs to benefit the community. Reducing regulatory burdens on business will likely lead to higher investment, with resulting employment and productivity benefits. Business savings may also be reflected in lower costs for consumers as the benefits of cost reductions are passed through in the form of lower prices.

As a consequence, reducing red tape and reforming regulation is a key item on the government policy agenda. Creation of the Office of Best Practice Regulation within the Authority is a key part of the government’s plan to achieve its target of a 20% reduction in red tape and regulation. This issues paper is designed to focus analysis and attention on ways to achieve this goal and to enlist the cooperation of businesses and consumers in identifying and measuring regulatory burdens and prioritising a reform agenda.

15 Queensland Competition Authority Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden

4. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE REGULATORY BURDEN

The Ministerial Direction sets out broad categories of costs potentially imposed by regulation as follows:

(a) administrative and compliance costs,

(b) delay costs to business, and

(c) other costs that affect the community as a whole.

As the discussion below demonstrates, the nature, extent and cause of regulatory burden have received an enormous amount of attention. The Commonwealth, the Productivity Commission, individual Australian states (including Queensland), international bodies (e.g., the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)), other national governments and academic economists have all devoted considerable effort to identifying, measuring, and devising ways to reduce, regulatory burdens.

Taking account of the existing body of work, the focus of this review will be on investigating alternative ways to measure regulatory burdens and identifying approaches to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens that are best suited to implementation in Queensland.

4.1 Administrative and Compliance Costs

Administrative and compliance costs are the so-called ‘red tape’ associated with regulation. The Productivity Commission (2011, p. 12) defines business administrative and compliance costs to include:

. . . the administrative costs of undertaking paperwork, compiling the information, and reporting to regulators. There can also be more substantive compliance costs, such as the investment in staff training and systems and other capital upgrades required to comply with regulation.

The Productivity Commission highlighted the need to consider the total cost of the regulator:

from a business perspective, the fees and charges paid to regulators impose a compliance cost, but from the community perspective it is the total cost of the regulator, rather than just the costs they pass onto business through cost recovery, that matter.

The Authority also notes that fees and charges that exceed the costs of administering the regulatory activity can cause market distortions.

The Commonwealth Regulation Task Force (2006, p. 9) identified the ‘paperwork burden and related compliance costs’ as:

• providing management and staff time to fill in forms and assist with audits and the like; • recruiting and training additional staff, where needed to meet compliance burdens; • purchasing and maintaining reporting and information technology systems; • obtaining advice from external sources (such as accountants and lawyers) to assist with compliance; and • obtaining licences and/or attending courses to meet regulatory requirements.

16 Queensland Competition Authority Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden

An objective of this inquiry is to identify ‘burdensome’ administrative and compliance costs. The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry (2011) defines burdensome costs to include:

• an unnecessarily high frequency of reporting or providing similar information to a number of government organisations or levels of government; • overlaps and inconsistencies between jurisdictions; • inconsistencies in definitions and criteria; and • regulation that is redundant or not justified by policy intent.

In the same vein, the Commonwealth Regulation Task Force (2006, p. iii) identifies the sources of unnecessary regulatory burdens ‘not justified by the intent of the regulation’ as:

• Excessive coverage, including ‘regulatory creep’ — regulations that appear to influence more activity than originally intended or warranted, or where the reach of regulation impacting on business, including smaller businesses, has become more extensive over time. • Regulation that is redundant — some regulations could have become ineffective or unnecessary as circumstances have changed over time. Other poorly designed regulations might give rise to unintended or perverse outcomes. • Excessive reporting or recording requirements — companies face excessive or unnecessary demands for information from different arms of government. These are rarely coordinated and often duplicative. • Variation in definitions and reporting requirements — this can generate confusion and extra work for businesses than would otherwise be the case. • Inconsistent and overlapping regulatory requirements — regulatory requirements that are inconsistently applied, or overlap with other requirements, either within governments, or across jurisdictions. These sources of burden particularly affect businesses that operate across jurisdictional boundaries.

The Business Council of Australia (2011) provides examples of how administrative and compliance costs are affected by regulators giving inconsistent advice and interpretation, establishing unnecessarily complex processes, and providing inadequate staff resources. These problems highlight the fact that not all administrative and compliance costs are due to over-regulation. Poor execution by government when enforcing socially beneficial regulations can also impose cost burdens on business.

Finally, another example of the administrative burden of regulation on business is the cost involved in preparation of paperwork in response to government tenders or quotes. This may involve cost associated with compliance with unnecessary mandatory requirements, government policies or standards. In some cases, this may reduce competition due to smaller numbers of companies prepared to complete complex requirements for low value products or services.

4.2 Delay Costs

The Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (2010a, p. 8) identifies two types of delay that may arise from regulation:

• An application delay refers to the time taken by a regulated entity to complete an administrative application requirement (such as an application for a licence, registration, certification, or permit) that prevents it from commencing its intended operations. • An approval delay refers to the average time taken by a regulator to communicate a final decision regarding the administrative application (such as notification, agreement or licence) that prevents the regulated entity from commencing its intended operations. This includes the time taken by the regulated entity for re-work of the application.

17 Queensland Competition Authority Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden

The Victorian Commission on Efficiency and Competition (VCEC) itemised costs related to these types of regulatory delay (in the context of environmental regulation) as follows (2009a, p. 68):

• The cost of keeping funds available for the investment resulting in other investment opportunities being foregone. • The cost of keeping immobile physical capital idle for a longer period than expected—this exacerbates the cost of time lags between acquiring capital and putting it to use. • Contractual losses resulting from an inability to deliver on contracts, and future contracting difficulties arising from being perceived to be an unreliable supplier. • Future competitive disadvantage resulting from delays being used by competitors in contractual negotiations, where the competitor alleges that the Australian producer will not be able to deliver on time. • A higher cost operation remaining in use for a longer period.

The VCEC also notes a Productivity Commission analysis that lists ‘increased project expenditures, reduced flexibility to respond to market conditions, inflated capital costs, increased difficulty of financing projects, and reduced present value from resource development’ as potential costs of approval delay due to regulation (Productivity Commission 2009, p. 197).

4.3 Other Regulatory Costs that Affect the Community as a Whole

Two types of regulatory costs that affect the community as a whole are considered:

(a) the costs of regulations that apply to individuals as opposed to business, and

(b) the costs of restricting the optimum operation of business.

4.3.1 Regulations that Apply to Individuals

Regulations impact on individuals in their capacity as consumers, employees and homeowners. Examples of regulations that affect homeowners are requirements for permits to make improvements. While regulations may have a valid social objective, it is important to ensure that administrative costs, compliance costs, and delays in receiving approvals or authorisations are not excessive.

When the regulatory requirements do not achieve their intended objectives or prevent efficient improvements altogether, all of the consumer (and government) compliance and administrative costs are excessive. Consumer welfare is reduced to the extent that changes or improvements that would increase the homeowner’s enjoyment of their property without harming any other community interests cannot be made.

4.3.2 Regulations that Restrict the Optimum Operation of Business

Restrictions on the optimum operation of business are an important category of regulatory burden that can affect both business and the community as a whole. Examples are regulations that prevent entry into a market, raise the cost of entry, delay entry, restrict trading hours or prevent or delay introduction of new technology.

The result of such regulation can be higher consumer prices from reduced competition, lost economies of scale and scope, less convenience for consumers and delayed introduction of new technology. In economic terms the result is a loss in consumer or producer welfare. In concrete terms, this means less income, reduced employment, less choice and a lower standard of living for the community as a whole.

18 Queensland Competition Authority Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden

4.4 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to defining and categorising regulatory burdens.

4.1 Does the discussion of regulatory burden in this section adequately describe the types of administrative and compliance cost burdens experienced by businesses and individuals in Queensland? Please provide specific examples of any additional types of costs that should be included.

4.2 Do the general categories of delay costs discussed in this section adequately describe regulatory delay costs experienced in Queensland? Please provide specific examples of delay costs not mentioned.

4.3 Are there additional categories of regulatory costs that affect the community as a whole?

4.4 Please describe how excess regulation or high administrative, compliance and delay costs affect your household, community or business.

19 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

5. APPROACHES TO IDENTIFYING AND MEASURING REGULATORY BURDENS

5.1 Framework for Measuring Administrative and Compliance Costs

As noted in Section 4, administrative and compliance burdens of regulation on business include the costs of paperwork needed for approvals and reporting along with related investments in training, systems and equipment needed to satisfy regulatory requirements. Some of these costs are necessary to enforce regulations. The review will focus on indentifying and measuring excessive costs caused by unnecessary, duplicative or otherwise unreasonable administrative and compliance requirements.

Reasonable administrative and compliance costs as well as reasonable processing time for decisions or approvals should be considered in the initial RISs (and subsequent reviews) to justify imposition (or continuation) of a regulation or regulatory scheme (along with government regulatory enforcement costs).

Identifying regulations that would fail under a proper RIS if conducted today is also a goal of the inquiry. If an in-place regulation would not survive RIS requirements, all of the costs that regulated firms incur to gather and provide information to the regulator through filling out forms or meeting other reporting or compliance requirements are excessive.

5.1.1 Aggregate Measures of Administrative and Compliance Burden

One rough way to gauge the extent of regulatory burdens that firms face, or to measure the relative increase in administrative burden faced by these firms over time, is to simply measure the amount of regulation that is taking place as indicated by some proxy such as the number of regulations or the number of pages of legislation (and associated regulations) that can generate administrative burdens.

For example, as discussed in section 3, in 2007 Queensland had more pages of laws and regulations in place than any other state or territory in Australia. CCIQ notes that, subsequent to this measurement, an additional 118 new Acts were passed resulting in its estimate of a new total of 92,172 pages of new and amended legislation (CCIQ 2011, p. 2, citing Productivity Commission (2008)).

Another possible measure of regulatory burden is the magnitude of government departmental budgets allocated to administering and enforcing regulations or the number of departmental employees dedicated to administering and reviewing paperwork. The Government’s cost of administering regulation is, of course, itself a burden of regulation that should be considered when new regulations are being considered or existing regulations are being reviewed.

High rates of growth in government expenditures on regulation or high expenditures relative to other jurisdictions are possible indicators that administrative burdens may be excessive or that the government is simply inefficient in its administration of the regulation.

These aggregate measures must be used with caution when making comparisons across jurisdictions. For example, the Productivity Commission (2007, p. 116) notes that:

Although the quantity of regulation applying to a business can be broadly indicative of the burden it bears, the actual burden will be more directly related to the specific requirements of each regulation. Some regulations might be lengthy in pages, for example, but if they contain few requirements the burden could be minor.

The Productivity Commission suggests that the actual regulatory requirements contained in legislation and regulations are a better indication of the potential burden.

20 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

In Canada, the government of British Columbia (2012, p. 5) required all ministries to compile an inventory of statutes, regulations, administrative policies and forms and to ‘ . . . manually count each provision that states a business, citizen or the government must or will take some action or provide some information’. A methodology was developed for identifying and counting relevant provisions.

The result of this exercise established baseline reduction targets and measured progress in reducing regulatory requirements. To ensure that gains were maintained, a regulatory cap was put into place so that there would be no net increase in the number of regulatory requirements over time (p. 6). Measures of the regulatory burden in terms of regulatory ‘requirements’ focus on the source of the burden and are easy to calculate compared with estimating compliance costs in dollar terms.

5.1.2 Cost Models for Measuring Administrative and Compliance Burden

Accounting tools can be used to estimate administrative and compliance burdens. As described by the Productivity Commission (2011, p.10), cost calculators can estimate administrative burdens by using ‘. . .evidence from case studies of businesses, surveys, and information on the average labour costs of particular types of employees, and assumptions about the regulatory burden of particular instruments.’

A compliance cost calculator approach that is widely used internationally is the ‘Standard Cost Model’ (SCM) first developed by the Netherlands Government to estimate the administrative burdens of regulatory requirements (SCM Network 2005). The SCM or variations on it is used in several countries, including Australia.

According to the OECD:

The SCM consists in breaking down legislation into information obligations to measure the burden a single obligation imposes on business. The strength of the model is not only its high level of detail in the measurement of administrative costs, but also the fact that the numbers obtained are consistent across policy areas. Moreover, the model allows governments to set numerical targets for burden reduction and to measure progress towards these targets over time. (2006b, p. 11)

The SCM network (2005, p. 5) asserts several advantages to using the SCM as an aid in the regulatory simplification process:

• By using the method it is possible to point out some specific parts of the legislation that are particularly burdensome for businesses to comply with; • A measurement reveals where. in business processes, administrative costs occur, and thus where simplification can be accomplished to greatest effect; • The collected data may be employed in analysing how amendments to an information obligation will affect the administrative costs; using a database it is possible to simulate changes in the regulation in order to examine the consequences for stakeholders; • The SCM assists in the identification of which department / ministry is responsible for burdensome regulation • Furthermore the qualitative results from the measurement are highly relevant. They can help identify which burdens provide the largest ‘irritation’ factor for businesses.

The basic SCM model works by identifying the activities associated with providing information and data required for regulatory compliance and assigning costs to performing those activities. Table 5.1 summarises how regulatory information requirements translate to activities that can be costed.

21 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

Table 5.1: Components of Regulatory Compliance

Components Description

Information Obligations Information obligations (IO) are the obligations arising from regulation to provide information and data to the public sector or third parties. An IO does not necessarily mean that information has to be transferred to the public authority or private persons, but may include a duty to have information available for inspection or supply on request. A regulation may contain many information obligations.

Data Requirements Each information obligation consists of one or more data requirements. A data requirement is each element of information that must be provided in complying with an IO.

Administrative Activities To provide the information for each data requirement a number of specific administrative activities must be undertaken (e.g. filling in information, sending information, archiving information, etc). Activities may be done internally or be outsourced (i.e. done externally).

Source: Standard Cost Model Network (2005 p. 6)

The time and cost data associated with the activities covered by the model may be acquired through:

(a) in-depth interviews with a sample of businesses affected by a particular regulation,

(b) expert estimates of the costs associated with certain activities, or

(c) results of prior studies of similar regulatory burdens in other industries or other countries.

The Office of Best Practice Regulation in the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Regulation has developed a ‘business cost calculator’ (BCC) based on SCM principles that is designed to estimate the business compliance cost of regulatory options (Australian Government Department of Finance and Regulation 2012)1. Use of the business cost calculator is recommended in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Best Practice Regulation Guide (2007, see appendix D).

The Commonwealth OBPR SCM collects cost data for nine compliance categories as shown in table 5.2.

1 The Commonwealth OBPR business cost calculator can be accessed at https://bcc.obpr.gov.au/.

22 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

Table 5.2: Compliance Task Categories in the Business cost Calculator

Compliance Tasks Examples

Notification – businesses incur costs when they are Businesses may be required to notify a public required to report certain events to a regulatory authority before they are permitted to sell food. authority, either before or after the event has taken place.

Education – costs are incurred by business in keeping Businesses may be required to obtain the details of abreast of regulatory requirements. new legislation and communicate the new requirements to staff.

Permission – costs are incurred in applying for and Businesses may be required to conduct a police check maintaining permission to conduct an activity. before legally being able to employ staff.

Purchase cost – in order to comply with regulation, Businesses may be required to have a fire businesses may have to purchase materials or extinguisher on-site. equipment.

Record keeping – businesses incur costs when Businesses may be required to keep records of required to keep statutory documents up to date. accidents that occur at the workplace.

Enforcement – businesses incur costs when Businesses may have to bear the costs of supervising cooperating with audits, inspections and regulatory government inspectors on-site during checks of enforcement activities. compliance with non-smoking laws.

Publication and documentation – costs are incurred Businesses may be required to display warning signs when producing documents required for third parties. around dangerous equipment, or to display a sign at the entrance to home-based business premises.

Procedural – some regulations impose non- Businesses may be required to conduct a fire safety administrative costs. drill several times a year. Other – when a compliance cost cannot be categorised into one of the above categories.

Source: Australian Government (2010, Appendix G).

The costs of carrying out each activity can be calculated once the activities necessary to meet each obligation are identified. For example, the cost of performing an activity will include employee time multiplied by an hourly wage rate (marked up to include overhead) plus any external costs incurred (e.g., contractor and material costs). The total burden of a regulatory requirement can be aggregated from individual firm level costs by multiplying the individual firm costs per activity times the total activities that would be performed by all the firms subject to the regulation.

The Queensland Treasury has developed a Compliance Cost Calculator based on the BCC2. The former Department of Environment and Resource Management developed a guide for estimating compliance costs which proposed use of the Queensland Treasury calculator or a simpler spreadsheet model that it has developed. (DERM 2011, p.2)

Treasury provides a useful set of principles that should be applied to a compliance costing methodology (see Box 5.1).

2 https://apps.treasury.qld.gov.au/compliancecostcalculator/.

23 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

Box 5.1: Principles for a Robust Compliance cost Methodology

1. The methodology should be commensurate with the significance of the regulatory change. At a minimum, this will require consideration of the number of stakeholders affected, financial and non-financial costs. 2. The methodology should be sufficiently robust to withstand public and Cabinet scrutiny. At a minimum, this will require that the methodology: • Ha[s] clearly defined and conservative assumptions • where possible, utilise independent data (i.e. Australian Bureau of Statistics) • be evidence based • is well documented. 3. The methodology should clearly identify all stakeholders (business, community and government) impacted or potentially impacted by the regulatory reform. 4. The methodology should clearly identify all relevant compliance cost categories (paperwork, non-paperwork and direct financial charges) for each group of stakeholders. 5. The methodology should quantify all relevant compliance cost categories (time, number of steps, number of regulatory requirements and/or financial/economic impact) for each group of stakeholders. 6. The methodology should ensure stakeholder consultation is undertaken. Stakeholder consultation is critical to ensure: • verification that all stakeholders and cost categories have been accurately identified • quantification of all regulatory costs in terms of time, number of steps, number of regulatory requirements and/or financial /economic impact. 7. The methodology should include only savings or costs directly attributable to the policy or regulatory reform being measured. 8. The methodology should ensure that any changes (that is, increases / savings) to the regulatory burden are not doubled counted.

Source: Queensland Treasury, p.97

The Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (2010a) has also developed a cost model that enhances and expands on the SCM. The Regulatory Change Measurement (RCM) manual (2010a) provides a comprehensive guide to assessing and calculating regulatory costs that discusses data sources and methodology for calculating compliance costs. RCM Toolkit 1 (2010b) provides principles and guidelines for identifying the relevant regulatory requirements and the type of regulatory cost imposed. RCM Toolkit 2 (2010c) provides suggestions for identifying data and performing calculations to estimate the relevant regulatory costs.

In conducting an assessment using cost model techniques, it is important to distinguish the specific costs businesses incur due to regulatory requirements from those it would incur without regulation. Normal businesses record keeping and internal reporting costs should not be included as regulatory costs.

An inefficient firm may incur costs higher than necessary to comply with a regulatory requirement. Therefore, it is also important to determine compliance costs for a ‘normally efficient firm’ so as not to include excess expenses incurred by firms that may not have adopted cost-effective regulatory administration and compliance systems and procedures.

24 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

The SCM approach, including the VCEC, Commonwealth OBPR and Queensland Treasury enhancements, can be used in a variety of ways to assess regulatory burdens:

The SCM approach allows for both a measurement concentrating on some specific fields of existing regulation (ex-post measurement) or as part of impact assessment procedures measuring the administrative consequences of new legislative proposals (ex-ante measurement). A full scale measurement of administrative burdens, (a measurement of all existing legislation), is also possible. (SCM Network 2005, p. 6)

Victoria requires application of the RCM approach in the following circumstances:

An RCM is required where there is prima facie evidence that the change in administrative burden on the business and not-for-profit sectors is likely to exceed a threshold of $250,000 per annum or, for the sum of all regulatory costs (including substantive compliance and delays), a combined threshold of $500,000 per annum. The Commission’s role, until 1 July 2011, was to verify that RCMs for changes in regulatory burden of greater than $10 million per annum complied with the methodology. (VCEC 2011a, p .43)

The SCM manual indicates that ‘the work of implementing a standard cost analysis is usually undertaken by a firm of consultants with experts in the field at its disposal’.

5.2 Delay Costs

The cost of delay can often be measured by reference to the ‘time value of money’. The Productivity Commission (2011, p. 14) notes that:

The method for calculating delay costs depends on the type of delay and how it imposes costs. For delays that lock up capital (such as planning approvals that impose delays on property developers), the delay cost is calculated using the cost of the capital and the interest rate (as a proxy for the opportunity cost of the delay). Where regulatory delays lead to labour being left idle, the delay costs include the costs of labour (wages and other on-costs).

The Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (2010a, Appendix A p. 22) notes that, when measuring delay costs:

it is necessary to isolate the impacts of the relevant delay on costs experienced by the regulated entity from other (overlapping) approval processes potentially imposed by multiple regulators. Delay costs also need to be carefully distinguished from [business as usual] delays – or the time taken by a regulated entity for its own processes.

In other words, for purposes of measuring delay from a particular state regulation, it is important not to include delays caused by other agencies (provided they are measured elsewhere) or legitimate regulator processing time.

Qualitative costs of delay, for example lost reputational effect when a business is unable to deliver service in a timely fashion due to licensing and approval delays, or inability to respond to market changes in a timely fashion, may also be important.

The Victorian RCM (2010a), the Commonwealth OBPR Business Cost Calculator have the capacity to measure delay costs. The Queensland Treasury Cost Calculator would have to be modified to do so.

Another approach to measuring burden (and tracking progress toward reducing them) used in British Columbia (2012) is to track and report the number of days it takes to process applications and grant approval. This has the advantage of being relatively easy to estimate and simple to understand.

25 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

5.3 Net versus Gross Burden Reduction

When measuring the overall reduction in regulatory burden, there can be a significant difference in measuring and setting net reduction or gross reduction targets. When setting reduction targets for regulation, most jurisdictions use a gross reduction measure.

The starting point for both measurements is the same: the existing regulatory burden. An example of the difference in outcomes is demonstrated in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3: Burden Reduction – Net and Gross Measures

Gross Net

Initial Burden $100 million $100 million

Reduction - $20 million - $20 million

Addition + $10 milliona + $10 million

Final measured burden $80 million $90 million

Measured Change - 20% - 10%

a Not taken into account with gross measure

In Table 5.3, the government starts with a regulatory burden of $100 million at a specified cut-off date. Over a certain period, this pre-existing burden is reduced by $20 million, or 20%. At the same time, the government introduces new measures with a total burden of $10 million.

Using the more common gross method of measurement, the government has reduced regulatory burden by 20%. However, using the net method, the government has reduced regulatory burden by only 10%. In this scenario, if the government wants to achieve a 20% net reduction, it will have to find $30 million in reductions, in order to offset the $10 million increase.

The net measure is a useful single number, which gives a clear indication of the actual cost burden of regulation on the economy, and how it has changed over the period. However, as part of the regulatory reform system, new regulation will be subject to a benefit-cost analysis, ideally ensuring that only regulation with positive net benefits is introduced. In the example in Table 5.3, the additional $10 million in regulatory burden could in fact have a benefit of $50 million, suggesting that it should be introduced. If it needs to be netted off against burden reductions, the government or the portfolio minister may have an incentive not to introduce it. The end result can be that a worthwhile regulatory reform is not introduced, and society as whole is worse off, because it does not obtain the benefits of the new measure.

For this reason, most jurisdictions use a gross measure of burden reduction.

5.4 Surveys

Surveys can be used to: identify administrative, compliance and delay burdens; gather information that can be used to measure the burdens, and to populate cost models with data on the time and cost of responding to regulatory paperwork and other regulatory requirements. Broad scale or targeted surveys may also be used to acquire qualitative information about the administrative burden imposed by regulation.

26 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

An Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry (2011) reports the results of a red tape survey undertaken by the New South Wales Business Chamber. The survey is designed to quantify the hidden costs of regulation and understand the regulatory burdens faced by businesses. Key findings of the survey include:

• In the last three years, over 70 per cent businesses surveyed have noticed an increase in the cost of compliance and the time it takes to comply with regulatory requirements; • More than two thirds of respondents believe that complying with government regulatory requirement has a moderate to major impact on their business, a significant increase on the 52 per cent who reported this concern in the 2009 survey; and • Key contributors to red tape are the complexity of regulations and the frequency o[f] reporting requirements. 27 per cent of business identified that better consultation when developing regulations and 21 per cent of business reported that reducing the frequency of reporting requirements to a minimum would have the greatest impact on reducing the cost of compliance. (ACCI 2011, pp.2- 3)

Surveys can also be directed at a targeted sector to gauge the compliance costs with a particular regulation or set of regulations. For example, VCEC undertook a survey to examine the potential costs and benefits to Victorian businesses of environmental regulations (VCEC 2009b).

Finally, surveys may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of regulatory reform initiatives. OECD (2012a, p. 12) describes the use of ‘perception surveys’:

• to evaluate the success of a regulatory reform programme from a user’s perspective; • as a diagnostic and communication tool to identify areas of concern to citizens and businesses, and thus inform future regulatory reforms; and • to obtain information on citizens’ and businesses’ level of awareness, confidence, interest, and recognition of regulatory obligations, regulatory reform programmes and regulatory bodies. In some countries, this information serves to evaluate and inform communication strategies.

There are a number of ways to approach surveys. Written questionnaires, telephone interviews or on-site visits can be used to target specific sectors or specific business types. Where businesses are effectively represented by peak bodies, the peak bodies may be used as the vehicle for administering or facilitating surveys.

In some cases, peak bodies may already be the source of useful information regarding the cost and effectiveness of the specific regulatory burdens their members face. Surveys may be most useful when directed to firms that are not represented by well-funded peak bodies

Care must be taken to minimise burdens on businesses associated with responding to surveys, so as not too add unduly to the burden of regulation.

5.5 Case Studies

Intensive case studies of particular industries or categories of regulation can be used to identify regulatory burdens. The results of a case study can be particularly useful when undertaken by an independent agency responsible for regulatory reform or assessment or by independent outside experts.

Examples of applications of the case study approach are:

(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers business licensing review for the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (2010)

27 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

(b) Productivity Commission benchmarking study of Australian occupational health and safety regulation (2010)

(c) Property Council of Australia, Development Assessment Report Card (2012)

(d) Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland, Blueprint for fighting Queensland’s Over-Regulation (2011) [covers Food Manufacturing, Textiles and Clothing Manufacturers, Tourism, Professional Services and manufacturing]

(e) VCEC, Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Environmental Regulation (2009a)

Most of these examples focus on Commonwealth regulation or regulation in other states. However, the results and methodologies may help identify areas for further study in Queensland or suggest useful approaches for developing additional Queensland-specific case studies.

Section 9.3 provides some illustrative case studies of the operation of regulatory schemes Queensland.

5.6 Invitation to participate in a field study of the overall burden of regulation

When government agencies analyse regulatory burden, they tend to do so from the point of view of their portfolio. A natural focus for reform is usually an Act and its subordinate legislation and the associated analysis naturally focuses on the impact of that individual piece of regulation on businesses (and individuals).

However, individual businesses (and individuals) are impacted by many pieces of regulation and a review of the burden of regulation needs to consider the total impact. Therefore, in addition to seeking submissions on the matters raised in the Issues Paper, the OBPR invites individual businesses (large and small) to provide a detailed snapshot of how they are affected by regulation. This could be in the form of a field study setting out how much time and expense is devoted to satisfying the various regulatory requirements that impact on them.

If an enterprise wishes to submit such a study, the OBPR is happy to give general guidance, with the aim of obtaining comparable analyses across businesses and sectors. The regulatory burden highlighted by such a study will not always be strictly within the scope of this inquiry as it is also likely to include Commonwealth regulation. Nevertheless, an individual study at this level would give an added perspective to the analysis of regulatory burden.

In particular, the OBPR is interested in learning more about the overall regulatory burden faced by enterprises (large and small) in the sectors identified as the four pillars of Queensland’s economy: agriculture, tourism, resources and construction.

If your business is interested in participating in a field study of the cost of meeting regulatory requirements, please register your interest using the contact details provided at the front of this report.

5.7 Other Costs that affect the Community as a Whole

Regulatory costs that affect the community as a whole are regulations that apply to individuals as opposed to business, and the costs of restricting the optimum operation of business.

Paperwork and delay costs to individuals are similar to those for business, although they may be more difficult to identify and measure. Organising individuals to effectively represent

28 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

their views on burdens to regulators is more difficult than organising businesses. The costs may be individually small, but large in the aggregate. Nevertheless, broad scale surveys may be used to identify and quantify regulatory burdens that individuals face. Peak consumer groups such as the Queensland Consumers Association and the Queensland Council of Social Service may be able to provide useful inputs.

Measuring the direct cost of restricting the optimum operation of business can be difficult because it requires a comparison of a market that currently exhibits regulatory restrictions to a hypothetical market with reduced regulatory impediments to efficient operation. Estimating hypothetical situations is always difficult. (However, restrictions on entry seldom have redeeming social value.) Nevertheless, market liberalisation has occurred in many markets in Australia and internationally and economists have attempted to measure the consequences. The main economic concept that is relevant is the loss of income for the economy or community as a whole that occurs as a result of the regulatory requirement.

The Productivity Commission (2005) undertook an evaluation of the impact of the National Competition (NCP) policy reforms, many of which were designed to allow business to function more efficiently through the elimination of government barriers to competition and other microeconomic reforms. The Productivity Commission noted that:

Quantitative modelling by the Commission for this inquiry indicates that recent productivity improvements and price changes in six key infrastructure sectors have generated a permanent increase of 2.5 per cent in Australia’s GDP (around $20 billion). NCP reforms have been an important contributor to these observed productivity improvements and price changes. (p. 35)

Winston (1998) summarises research attempting to measure benefits from regulatory reform in a number of U.S. markets and concludes that ‘accounting for changes in prices and service quality, a conservative estimate of the annual net benefits that consumers have received just from deregulation of intercity transportation – airlines, railroads, and motor carriers – amounts to roughly $50 billion in 1996 dollars’. The estimates reported by Winston are often based on econometric and economic modelling techniques as discussed by the Productivity Commission (2011, Appendix J).

5.8 Regulatory Burden Benchmarks

The Ministerial Direction requires development of a framework for establishing regulatory burden benchmarks against which Queensland Government departments may be assessed by the Authority on an annual basis. With respect to the overall level of regulation, the evidence suggests that, at least by some measures, Queensland has higher regulatory burdens than other states. This suggests that significant burden reductions are achievable.

Experience in other Australian jurisdictions and other countries also suggests that significant reductions are achievable. It must be noted that the gains that are achievable depend on where Queensland is now in terms of regulatory reforms undertaken relative to where other jurisdictions were when the benefits of the reforms were measured.

The qualifications to the use of benchmarking must be noted. Even jurisdictions that exhibit relatively low regulatory compliance burdens as measured by indicators such as pages of laws and regulations may be regulating too much. It is also possible that low compliance costs measured by such indicators reflect an undersupply of regulation with positive social value. Therefore, benchmarking based on aggregate indicators such as pages of legislation or the budgets and head count of government departments with regulatory responsibilities may best be used to target areas for investigation or further consideration.

Queensland’s target of a 20% reduction in regulatory burden is similar to recently established targets of 20% in New South Wales and 25% in Victoria. New South Wales has

29 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

estimated that the 20% target reduction amounts to $750 million. Victoria has estimated the 25% target reduction amounts to $715 million. These numbers can be used to calculate the total burden of regulation in these States. Expressing these burdens as a percentage of Gross State Product, averaging them and applying the average percentage to the estimate of Queensland’s Gross State Product can provide a rough estimate of the total burden in Queensland3. On this basis, the total burden of regulation in Queensland is estimated to be approximately 1% of Gross State Product or approximately $2.5 billion (see Table 5.4). These estimates require further investigation.

Table 5.4: Estimating the Burden of Regulation

NSW Victoria Queensland

1. Per cent reduction (%) 20a 25b 20c

2. Reduction in dollars ($ million) 750d 715d 500

3. Total burden ($ million) 3,750 2,860 2,511

4. Gross State Product ($ million) 410,774f 298,123f 251,144f

5. Burden as % of GSP 0.91 0.96 1.00

a NSW Government (2012a) b Victorian Government (2012) c Queensland Government (2012a) d NSW Government (2012a) e Victorian Government (2012) f Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), GSP for FY 2010

If the data were available, direct comparisons of regulatory costs across jurisdictions derived from standard cost models would be more suited to a benchmarking exercise. Using the same or broadly similar models in several jurisdictions would enable ‘apples with apples’ cost comparisons. Similarly, to the extent surveys or case studies have quantified actual regulatory burdens in other jurisdictions, the results could be used in setting benchmarks for Queensland.

Inputs from stakeholders identifying best practice regulations and regulatory administration from Australia, or even other countries, may be useful. For example, if safety regulations requiring businesses to submit paperwork to demonstrate compliance are more cost- effectively administered in one jurisdiction than in others, its approach to compliance can be established as a best practice benchmark.

Best practice benchmarks must be established with regard to the effectiveness of regulation in terms of economic or social objectives achieved. In the example above, a jurisdiction with low cost safety regulation compliance requirements but high accident rates relative to other jurisdictions is not necessarily a good benchmark for best practice. Ultimately cost benefit analysis would be used to assess trade-offs between different approaches to compliance. There is also a possibility that jurisdictions that do not regulate a certain activity may show good performance in terms of desired social or economic outcomes.

3 This estimates only the burden attributable to state and local government, excluding Commonwealth regulation.

30 Queensland Competition Authority Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burdens

5.9 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to measuring regulatory burdens.

5.1 Are page counts of laws and regulations useful for assessing regulatory burden?

5.2 Would it be useful to apply the British Columbia approach to measuring regulatory requirements (i.e. counting each provision that states a business, citizen or the government must or will take some action or provide some information)?

5.3 Are there other rough measures that could be used?

5.4 Is the compliance cost calculator approach useful for measuring regulatory burdens in Queensland?

5.5 What modifications to the existing cost models would be useful for measuring the cost of business regulation in Queensland?

5.6 Does the process of gathering the data to construct such models, or make them suitable for use in Queensland, impose undue costs on businesses?

5.7 Would it be preferable to have a simpler measure such as days required to comply with regulatory requirements?

5.8 What benchmarks are most likely to be useful to assess the extent and growth of regulation in Queensland?

5.9 Should a net or gross approach be used to assess burden reductions?

5.10 Regarding surveys:

(i) Would it be useful to survey businesses in Queensland regarding regulatory burden?

(ii) What business sectors should be surveyed?

(iii) If surveys are undertaken, how can they be structured to reduce burdens on potential respondents while maximising the relevance and quality of information obtained?

5.11 What business or regulatory categories are good candidates for an intensive case study of regulatory burdens?

5.12 How can benchmarks and best practice regulatory frameworks be identified?

5.13 What are examples of better practice regulations that could be implemented in Queensland in place of current regulations?

31 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

6. APPROACHES FOR CONDUCTING REVIEWS OF THE EXISTING STOCK OF LEGISLATION

The focus of this review is on the stock of existing legislation rather than the flow of new regulation. The stock of regulation is the outcome of the accumulated flows of new regulation less regulation that has been removed as part of a programmed process or specific action.

Management of the flow of new regulation is largely addressed through the requirements for RISs where the OBPR has a role in advising on and reviewing the Statements.

There are three broad approaches that governments have used to reform the stock of regulation (Productivity Commission 2011, p. 24):

(a) Management approaches that involve ongoing efforts to improve regulation, remove redundant regulation and take account of existing regulation in proposing new regulation.

(b) Programmed reviews for specific regulations at specified times, including the use of ‘sunset provisions’ under which regulations expire unless they are reauthorized after a top to bottom review of costs and benefits.

(c) Public stocktakes and principles-based reviews that look at a wide range of regulation or particular sectors in depth.

6.1 Management Approaches

Management approaches involve ongoing efforts to improve regulation and refer to activities of those responsible for the administration and oversight of regulation in relation to ensuring regulation is appropriate and effective.

This category includes: compliance with a code of good regulatory practice; review mechanisms to identify and remove redundant regulation; stock-flow linkage rules; and red tape reduction targets.

The development and adoption of leading practices can help ensure regulation is necessary, well designed and effective in terms of addressing specified policy objectives.

Stock flow linkage rules are rules that constrain the total amount of regulation by linking new regulation to the existing stock. They include ‘one-in one-out’ rules and ‘regulatory budgets’ that limit the stock of legislation. The Productivity Commission (2011, xv) notes that, to provide effective discipline, the rules need to be obligatory but could have perverse effects (as they are not linked to an appropriate measure of net benefit).

The Productivity Commission (2011, p. xviii) found that red tape targets can be a useful first step for jurisdictions that have not previously undertaken programs to reduce compliance costs and that they are usually based on ‘gross’ rather than ‘net’ reductions in red tape. The Commission found that red tape targets need to be adjusted to include administration costs and fees and charges; to take account of previous efforts to reduce compliance costs; and to set agency level targets that reflect the varying scope to reduce costs without affecting benefits.

The Commission recommended a consultative, transparent process and independent review.

32 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

An ideal regulatory management system would not require major public stocktakes or reforms every ten years as it would encompass ongoing review of both existing and new regulation.

6.2 Programmed Review Mechanisms

Programmed reviews are designed to review specific regulations at a specified time or for a specified situation. Programmed review mechanisms include reviews linked to sunsetting provisions and post implementation reviews. These mechanisms are considered to have good potential for reducing the regulatory burden.

‘Sunsetting’ requires a regulation to be re-made after a certain period (typically 5 to 10 years). The Productivity Commission (2011, p. xix) notes that ‘for sunsetting to be effective, exemptions and deferrals need to be contained and any regulations being re-made need to be appropriately assessed first’. Sunsetting provisions or other forms of programmed reviews also offer the opportunity to undertake broad ranging reviews for related legislation. Timetables for sunsetting also need to be developed to smooth out the number of instruments due to sunset over time.

In Queensland, legislative instruments expire at various times but there can often be a considerable number of instruments that expire in a relatively short time frame. Under the current governance arrangements, portfolio Ministers have the discretion to either let the regulation expire or request that it be re-made or request an exemption from expiry without a regulatory impact statement.

It is noted that a large number of regulatory instruments are due to expire in Queensland by 31 August 2012. Although it is not feasible to review legislation that is due to sunset by that date, sunsetting provisions should be changed to require preparation of a RIS to justify retention of legislative instruments that are due to expire in the future. The RIS requirements for expiring regulation should also be the same as for new regulation. A timetable for sunsetting of legislation should be developed as part of the State-wide regulatory stocktake discussed in this Issues Paper.

The existing RIS Guidelines require a ‘post implementation review’ within two years for any new regulation that is granted an exemption from the requirement for a RIS. It is important that post implementation reviews are completed to the same standard as other RISs. This needs to be made clear and formalized in the RIS guidelines. There may also be scope for embedding a requirement for a specific review for some regulation where there is uncertainty surrounding the impact of regulation.

6.3 Public Stocktakes and Principles-Based Reviews

Public stocktakes are broad ranging mechanisms that typically invite business and the community to identify problems and make suggestions about how to reform or remove regulation, including the setting of priorities.

The Productivity Commission (2011, p. xxvii) found that, to be effective, major public stocktakes need political support, independent, well resourced taskforces and effective consultation strategies.

‘Principles-based’ reviews use a focal principle for assessing regulation. The legislative review program under the National Competition Policy that was initiated in 1995 is the most prominent example in Australia of a principles-based review. It used the guiding principle that regulations restricting competition should be removed unless it could be demonstrated there was a net public benefit to the community. The current COAG ‘Seamless National

33 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

Economy’ reform stream is another example of a principles-based approach. The screening principle used in this case is whether harmonization of regulation across jurisdictions would be beneficial.

The Productivity Commission (2011, p. xxx) found that principles-based reviews were more resource-intensive than general stocktakes but that they can be highly effective. It also found that they highlighted the need to prioritise review and reform efforts and that benchmarking of regulatory performance and restrictions can provide a useful initial guide for focusing more detailed review efforts.

6.4 Cost Effectiveness of Approaches to Managing and Reviewing the Stock of Legislation

The various approaches to managing and reviewing the stock of legislation offer different mixes of effort and potential for benefits. The Productivity Commission (2011) considers that the approaches can be classified in a matrix form as shown in Table 6.1. The columns are the expected return to the reform effort while the rows are the cost of undertaking the approach.

Table 6.1: Approaches to managing and reviewing the stock of regulation

Potentially low return Potentially high return

 Broad red tape cost  In-depth reviews estimation  Embedded statutory reviews  Regulatory budgets  Benchmarking and one-in one-out a

High Effort  Packaged sunset reviews  Frequent stocktakes

 Sunsetting  Known high cost areas and known

solutions from past reviews  Regulator stock management  Regulator management strategies b where weak in the past  Red tape targets Low Effort  Periodic stocktakes  RIS stock-flow link

a High effort to do well and potential for perverse impacts. b Where the awareness of compliance burdens is still lacking can be high return. Source: Productivity Commission (2011, p. 90)

Effort includes the costs of government and other stakeholders who participate in terms of both time and financial cost and also political effort.

It is clear that the high effort, low return quadrant should be avoided. For the low effort, low return quadrant, the main issue is to ensure that effort is proportionate to return and undertaken as efficiently as possible. The low effort, high return quadrant offers the scope for quick gains. The high effort, high return quadrant is where prioritisation and robust analysis are particularly important.

6.5 Departmental Considerations

Regardless of which approach to managing and reviewing the stock of regulation is selected, it is essential that each department have the incentive and capacity to successfully identify

34 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

burdensome regulation that should be removed and develop less costly but effective compliance mechanisms where regulation is necessary.

To maximise the chance of reducing regulation, the onus of proof in justifying the continuation of regulation should be on entity responsible for the regulation. Regulation should expire unless the relevant entity establishes a case for its continuation, rather than continue unless someone can establish a case for its termination. This shifting of the burden may by itself be sufficient to eliminate large parts of the regulatory stock.

Specific regulatory reduction targets should also be designed to take account of differences in departmental scope to reduce the burden of regulation. Some departments may have ample opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens in the low effort – high return quadrant of Table 6.1. Other departments might be hard-pressed to meet strict regulatory budgets without removing or weakening cost-effective regulations. The classification and prioritisation criteria presented in section 7 can help in establishing appropriate targets for each department.

6.6 Governance Principles and Arrangements

The governance principles and arrangements for regulatory reviews refer to who conducts the review, consultation arrangements and the transparency of the process and the government response to the review findings.

6.6.1 Incentives

Reforming and reducing regulation is difficult because there are many public and private entities that are resistant to change. In some cases, for example with respect to red tape, there can be a strong united voice from business calling for change. However, there can be considerable inertia in the public sector to retain the existing arrangements and limited incentives to resist the growth of regulation.

An important issue is the extent to which governance arrangements and other mechanisms can be developed and applied to encourage appropriate incentives in government to reduce the burden of regulation, including an ongoing commitment to ensure the regulatory burden is minimised in relation to specified public policy objectives.

The National Competition Policy reforms were successful in part because states were given specific financial incentives to comply with the reform requirements and were subject to penalties if they did not comply (Productivity Commission 2005, pp. 29-34). It appears that, with the end of the incentives and penalties, enthusiasm for extending the reforms has waned to such an extent that commitments to review legislation that restricts competition have not been honoured. The National Competition Policy reforms also included an onus of proof requirement that legislation that restricts competition should be reformed unless it could be shown that there was a public benefit arising from the restriction. A similar onus of proof requirement is proposed as part of the framework for reducing the regulatory burden (see Section 6.5).

In the absence of specific financial incentives, it is important that departments agree to and be held responsible for meeting specific, measurable qualitative targets for accomplishing regulatory reform goals (such as the British Columbia regulatory ‘requirements’ count discussed in section 5). Meeting regulatory reform performance targets can be made part of the key performance indicators or management objectives by which mangers are evaluated. In this way, the culture can be changed to make reduction in regulatory burdens a desirable ongoing objective rather than another bureaucratic nuisance.

35 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

6.6.2 Independence and Resourcing

A key issue for consideration is the independence of the review body. It is considered that major reviews of priorities or of the need for major regulatory reforms are more likely to be effective in taking an economy wide or public interest perspective if they are undertaken by an independent, appropriately resourced entity.

However, the involvement of responsible departments is also important for both consultative and assessment purposes.

6.6.3 Consultation and Transparency

Effective consultation with business, government agencies and the community and public scrutiny of proposals are critical when undertaking wide ranging or in-depth reviews of regulation.

This requires that all submissions, supporting analyses and reports on priorities for regulatory reform be made publicly available at an appropriate time and for adequate time and opportunity to be provided for effective consultation.

6.6.4 Government response

An issue for consideration is the specification of a timeframe for a government response to reports on a regulatory stocktake or reform proposal. When established organizations are used for the stocktake, reporting requirements are often set out in their legislation.

6.7 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to processes for reviewing and changing regulation to reduce the regulatory burden and achieve better policy outcomes. The following questions are relevant.

6.1 To what extent are simple red tape reduction targets likely to be effective?

6.2 To what extent are stock-flow linkage rules and similar mechanisms useful for identifying priorities for regulatory review, for example, a commitment to remove a regulation if a new one is introduced, likely to be effective?

6.3 Should there be sunset provisions for regulation requiring a regulation to be reviewed and re-made after a certain period if it is not to lapse?

6.4 Should sunset reviews and post-implementation reviews of regulation be subject to the same RIS standards as new regulation?

6.5 What regulation should be subject to sunset provisions?

6.6 What other ex post review requirements should apply for new regulation?

6.7 Are there any comments about the cost effectiveness of approaches to managing and reviewing the stock of legislation set out in 6.4?

6.8 How should agency regulatory reduction targets be set to take account of differences in departmental scope to reduce the burden of regulation?

6.9 To what extent should review of regulation be undertaken by an independent entity to ensure an impartial and authoritative review, particularly for major reviews?

36 Queensland Competition Authority Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Stock of Legislation

6.10 Given the possible scale of the task of reviewing the total stock of regulation and the knowledge of those responsible for design and implementation of the regulation, how should they be involved?

6.11 To what extent should the Queensland Government commit to building capacity in portfolio departments for evaluating and reviewing regulation?

6.12 What arrangements should be made to ensure adequate consultation and ensure transparency of the process for reducing the burden of regulation?

6.13 What incentives or sanctions can be introduced to encourage action to reduce the burden of regulation?

6.14 Is it reasonable to place the onus of proof for the continuation of regulation on the entity responsible for it and to remove the regulation unless that entity can establish it is in the public interest to retain it?

6.15 What is the appropriate timeframe for a government decision following a regulatory review?

37 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

7. IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITISING AREAS FOR REGULATORY REVIEW

The terms of reference for this review require the development of a framework for a public stocktake of the existing stock of regulation. This section focuses on a framework for identifying and prioritising areas for regulatory review in a public stocktake approach.

7.1 Classification of Legislation and Regulations

It is helpful to first classify legislation according to broad categories related to broad purpose or function. This by itself can provide an initial guide to prioritisation. For example, if there is a priority to reduce the burden of regulation on business, some regulations will be more relevant than others.

A suggested classification is presented below.

(a) Economic regulation of infrastructure businesses or monopoly activity. This category is focused on ensuring businesses with market power operate efficiently and do not exploit users of their services.

(b) Professional and business licensing regulation. This category of regulation was part of the most comprehensive legislative review program (the National Competition Policy program) in Australia’s history over the period from 1995 to 2005 but little progress has been made since then in meeting the ongoing commitment to review legislation that restricts competition every 10 years (see section 7.3).

(c) Environmental, natural resource use and building regulation. Environmental regulation can be important in addressing harmful effects on the environment that are not taken into account in unregulated commercial and personal activity. But there is a need to ensure that environmental regulation meets environmental objectives and minimises the compliance burden for business, government and the community (‘green tape’).

(d) Workplace and labour regulation. This category includes regulation covering workforce training, workers compensation insurance, occupational health and safety and workforce conditions. State-based workplace and labour regulation can create significant compliance burden for business, government and the community, can overlap with national standards and can involve restrictions on competition (for example, for workers compensation insurance).

(e) Health, safety, transport and consumer standards regulation. Health, safety, transport and consumer standards regulation is extensive in the Queensland and Australian economies. Some health, safety and consumer standards regulation is clearly warranted given public objectives but some can be of questionable benefit and quite intrusive and restrictive in its form. It can also entail a substantial compliance burden for business, government and the community. Some transport regulation can also restrict entry and reduce competition.

(f) Regulation affecting the start up or efficient operation of a business or market. This category can be based on a wide array of objectives about the need to control business behaviour or market outcomes (some of which is covered by other categories) and can entail a substantial compliance burden for business (‘red tape’).

(g) Justice and policing regulation. This category is designed to address a public good type need. It is unlikely to be a priority in a legislative review program focused on reducing the regulatory burden for business.

38 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

(h) Social regulation. There are various social objectives and functions covered by regulation. This can include child care, aged care, education, not for profit activity, gambling, housing, and anti-discrimination. This category of regulation is unlikely to be a priority in a legislative review program focused on reducing the regulatory burden for business, although it may create a regulatory burden for the community. The exception, in relation to business, could be where the regulation entails an unjustified restriction on competition.

(i) Administration of government and parliament regulation and taxation regulation. This category covers a wide range of functions to do with the operation of government and the parliament. It is unlikely to be a priority in a legislative review program focused on the compliance burden for business. However, changes in this type of regulation may be necessary to implement a regulatory management system for reducing and improving regulation.

Appendix B classifies all existing Queensland state legislation according to the above categories and provides a total page count for legislation. The page count does not include codes and standards or local government regulations, codes and standards.

7.2 Criteria for Prioritisation of Regulatory Reviews

This review is focused on both state and local government regulation in Queensland. As explained in Section 2.1, the scope of the review covers the burden of legislation, regulation and standards, and guidelines set by government.

Regulations that are likely generating the largest net costs for the economy and people of Queensland as whole, and for which there is sufficient business and community support, will be the highest priority for reform. In particular, focus will be given to regulation that adversely impacts on economic growth, competition or productivity, especially in the areas of agriculture, tourism, resources, and construction. However, considerations in relation to practicability also affect prioritization and sequencing.

Useful criteria for filtering proposals for regulatory reform have been developed by the Regulation Task Force (2006) for the most recent economy-wide regulatory stocktake for the Commonwealth government, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (2006) in its study of regulatory burdens in New South Wales and the VCEC (2011b) in its recent inquiry into Victoria’s regulatory framework.

Based on these studies and other experiences, general criteria for prioritisation of the reform effort are as follows:

(a) Regulation that is clearly unnecessarily burdensome, complex, redundant or of questionable benefit. This would include regulation where the red tape burden is substantial and can be readily changed without compromising the accepted policy objectives or raising fundamental policy issues and regulation that is redundant or expected to be redundant soon;

(b) Regulation where there is significant ‘reach’ in terms of interaction between business and the community and government agencies. The concept of reach refers to the extent to which businesses and the community interact with the government in terms of regulatory requirements as opposed to the regulatory burden within government. This criterion is considered useful given the government’s policy focus. It has been used, with good effect, by the Better Regulation Office in New South Wales.

39 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

(c) Regulation where there are potentially large net benefits from reform including direct reductions in red tape but also wider benefits for business, government and the community. The scope to reduce red tape is important but in many cases there are wider benefits to be realized where regulation restricts the scope for efficient economic activity and innovation, adversely impacts on competition and/or productivity or is strongly intrusive with respect to individual behaviour. The scale and sustainability of the benefits from reducing regulation would be important aspects as well as the implementation and other costs of reform. The cost of reform includes the time and financial cost of investigating, designing and implementing the reform as well as costs to the community, for example increased risks that may arise as regulation is reduced or removed.

(d) Regulation where the need for reform is well understood and changes are likely to receive community acceptance if they are made aware of the net benefits from reform.

(e) Regulation that has been recently enacted or is yet to be effectively implemented or is planned should generally not be considered unless there is clear evidence of substantial burdens on business or the community.

(f) Regulation that has social or public good objectives where it is difficult to establish the need for change should generally not be considered unless there is clear evidence of substantial burdens on business or the community.

Information relevant to these general criteria can be obtained from previous reviews and studies of reforms, in-depth case studies of current circumstances, principles-based analysis, simple quantitative estimates, detailed specific reviews, and consultation processes and surveys. The consultation process for this report is an important means of identifying the priorities for reform in Queensland.

7.3 National Competition Policy

The most wide ranging legislative review effort made in Queensland and the rest of Australia related to the review of all legislation that restricts competition as part of the National Competition Policy.

A nation-wide agreement to review all legislation that restricts competition every 10 years was first signed in 1995 and the program of initial reviews was completed in 2005. The agreement was re-ratified by all Australian governments in 2007. However, although new legislation that restricts competition is reviewed as part of the Regulatory Impact System process, it is understood that there have been no major reviews of existing legislation that restricts competition in Queensland since 2005. It is understood that this is also typically the case in the rest of Australia.

The competition test that was used as a filter in the NCP process for reviewing legislation that restricts competition is considered to have been an effective filter (Productivity Commission 2011, p. x). It is suggested that the competition test be used as part of the prioritisation process and incorporated into considerations of the benefits of regulatory reform under criterion (c) in section 7.2 above.

7.4 Market Failure Test

From a public policy perspective, all legislation that is not focussed directly on distributional or equity objectives can be related to the need to address market failure. The economic definition of market failure is a market outcome that does not produce the maximum income available to the economy on a sustainable basis.

40 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

Regulation and other government interventions may be effective in addressing specific market failures, but the existence of a market failure does not automatically provide a rationale for government intervention. From a public policy perspective, the intervention needs to improve on the market outcome and this is not necessarily the case if the government costs of addressing the market failure exceed the benefits or if there is government failure in the design and implementation of an effective response.

The market failure test should be considered when determining if there is a net benefit from reforming specific regulations, similar to the competition test.

7.5 Linkages to Management Approaches and Programmed Reviews

Priorities for regulatory review and reform can also be established as part of an ongoing regulatory management system.

The process for preparing and reviewing regulatory impact statements for new legislation is being upgraded as one of the responsibilities of the OBPR. The objective is to ensure better focus on non-regulatory approaches and regulations that are better designed to help reduce the regulatory burden.

Other relevant management tasks are the design of stock-flow linkage rules and programmed review mechanisms. These mechanisms in effect establish priorities for maintaining current regulation and introducing new regulation as discussed in Section 6.

7.6 Progress in Reducing Regulatory Burdens in Other Jurisdictions

New South Wales and Victoria have been active in recent years in measuring and reducing the regulatory burden. Key features are summarised below.

7.6.1 New South Wales

The New South Wales Government’s current red tape reduction policy includes (New South Wales Government 2012a):

(a) A gross reduction in regulatory burden of 20%, or $750 million, by 2015.

(b) A ‘one on, two off’ policy. The number of legislative instruments repealed must be at least twice the number introduced. Repeals can be ‘banked’ for later use, and can be swapped between portfolios.

(c) The regulatory burden imposed by new legislative instruments within each portfolio must be less than the regulatory burden removed by the repeal of instruments. In other words, each portfolio must show no net increase in regulatory burden.

(d) Accountability at a senior level. Directors General are required to report in writing annually to the Better Regulation Office on compliance with the ‘one on, two off’ policy, and progress against the red tape reduction target. Claimed red tape reductions are subject to independent verification, and are published in the Better Regulation Office Annual Update.

The Better Regulation Office has reported against outcomes of previous regulatory reform policy. Major savings resulted from simpler planning processes for commercial, retail and industrial premises and from the introduction of Joint Regional Planning Panels.

41 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

The Better Regulation Office has also reported some outcomes for the period immediately prior to the introduction of the new regulatory reform policy. For the final quarter of 2011, the Better Regulation Office reported savings from (New South Wales 2012b):

(a) streamlined trade tests for trainee electricians;

(b) electronic submission of reports from authorised vehicle inspection stations;

(c) abolition of certificates to operate machines such as backhoes; and

(d) reforms in water management regulations affecting property owners undertaking building work, drilling certain types of bores and similar.

7.6.2 Victoria

Victoria’s red tape reduction policy is stated in the Victorian Government’s Budget Paper No. 2 (2012). Key points of this policy are:

(a) a reduction of 25%, or $715 million, in ‘the costs imposed by Victorian regulation on businesses, not-for-profit organisations, the economic activities of individuals and government services’;

(b) a particular concern with the impact of red tape on small business; and

(c) independent verification of red tape savings by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC).

Budget Paper No. 2 notes examples of initiatives, such as ‘simplified rules for new houses constructed on lots less than 300 square metres’, and states that ‘the Government is currently considering further opportunities to achieve its ambitious targets’.

Furthermore, a ‘regulator performance reporting framework will also be in place by the end of 2012’, which will ‘reduce unnecessary costs imposed on regulated sectors and make regulators more accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their actions.’

Victoria’s previous regulatory reform policy was similar to that of the previous New South Wales policy, aiming to reduce red tape by $500 million (increased from $256 million) by July 2012. In September 2010 the then Victorian Government (2010) reported that it had achieved savings from4:

(a) reforms to food regulation;

(b) a range of projects in the building and construction industry; and

(c) simplified procedures for legal practitioners.

In its draft report on priorities for regulatory reform (2011), the VCEC identified the highest priorities for regulatory reform as:

(a) environment protection and climate change;

4 The amount of savings to 2010 is mentioned in the archived media release from the then Victorian Treasurer, dated 30 September 2010, and available at http://archive.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/12081.html. The full report for that period, Reducing the Regulatory Burden Progress Report 2009-10, appears to be no longer available.

42 Queensland Competition Authority Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

(b) planning and land use regulation;

(c) vocational education and training regulation;

(d) taxi cab and hire car services regulation; and

(e) liquor licensing regulation.

7.7 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to priorities for reviewing and changing regulation to reduce the regulatory burden and achieve better policy outcomes. The following questions are relevant.

7.1 What criteria are relevant for establishing priorities for, and the sequencing of, regulatory reviews? Some proposed criteria are set out in section 7.2; in brief the criteria are:

• unnecessarily burdensome;

• ‘reach’ of the regulation to the business community and the public;

• substantial net benefit from reform, including wider benefits for business, government and the community (e.g., greater competition);

• community acceptance;

• regulation not changed recently or about to change; and

• regulation with social or public good objectives where it is not clear that there is a strong case for change should be excluded.

7.2. The Authority is interested in priorities in relation to regulation that affects both the business sector and the general community. In suggesting these, please attempt to provide reasons linked to the prioritisation criteria set out above.

• What are the priority areas for regulatory reviews and reducing the burden of regulation?

− What are underlying objectives of the regulation?

− Is the regulation effective in achieving the objectives of the regulation?

− Are there policy alternatives that are less costly while still achieving relevant policy objectives?

• What areas should be exempt from regulatory review or at least assigned low priority?

43 Queensland Competition Authority Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

8. A REGULATORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR REDUCING AND IMPROVING REGULATION

8.1 A Coordinated and Comprehensive Regulatory Management System

A regulatory management system comprises the institutional arrangements and processes that determine how and when regulations are made, administered and reviewed.

There are various activities under way that will reduce and improve regulation in Queensland. However, given the scale of the issue and the limited resources available for such activities, there is a need to develop and implement a system that will ensure the best outcomes from the reform effort.

The OECD (2010, 2012b) has emphasised the importance of regulatory governance to regulatory performance. This requires a coordinated and comprehensive system comprising clear roles and accountability arrangements, appropriate organisations and processes, and measurement and evaluation tools across the regulatory cycle. The regulatory cycle refers to the stages of initial decision making, implementation, administration and review with feed back to decision making and the subsequent phases.

The Productivity Commission (2011), Regulation Taskforce (2006) and Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC 2011a) have made a number of recommendations in relation to regulatory management systems. Many of the recommendations are similar and based on various OECD studies (e.g. OECD 2010).

The following suggestions relate to key findings of these reviews, particularly that of the VCEC. Some of these suggestions are being implemented in various forms by the Queensland Government but this review provides an opportunity to address any gaps and ensure that the management of regulatory reform is effective.

8.2 Clarity of Objectives

Clarity of objectives is a critical starting point. Determination of the overall regulatory policy objective is a matter for Government. However, based on OECD recommendations, ideally the government needs to set a clear overall regulatory policy objective and a clear purpose for an appropriate, supporting regulatory management system. This is important for motivating support, guiding priorities and effort, and providing a unifying framework for regulatory reform. It is also important to distinguish between means and objectives in defining regulatory policy.

The VCEC (2011b, p. 192) recommended that the Government should publish a Regulatory Policy Statement to clarify the objectives it wishes to pursue and the principles that should guide actions to achieve those objectives. The VCEC suggested that the concept of ‘net community benefit’ was a good starting point for specifying an overall objective.

The VCEC also highlighted that it was important to have clear objectives at the level of individual regulations and for those responsible for administration and implementation of regulation. It suggested that it would be useful to have a Statement of Expectations for each regulatory agency from the responsible Minister. This is being implemented by the Victorian Government.

44 Queensland Competition Authority Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

8.3 Clarity of Roles

In order to remove confusion and duplication and help ensure accountability, there is a need for clear specification of the roles and responsibilities of all those who are involved in the regulatory management system.

The VCEC recommended there be a Minister for Regulatory Reform with responsibility for the regulatory management system on behalf of the Cabinet. The role of the Minister for Regulatory Reform could encompass: ensuring role and task clarity; ensuring capability to reduce and improve regulation; identifying priorities; overseeing regulatory activity; identifying scope for improvements; and promoting the importance of improving regulation and better policies to achieve it.

OECD (2012b, p. 7) has made a similar recommendation:

The regulatory policy should clearly identify the responsibilities of ministers for putting regulatory policy into effect within their respective portfolios. In addition, governments should consider assigning a specific Minister with political responsibility for maintaining and improving the operation of the whole‑of‑government policy on regulatory quality and to provide leadership and oversight of the regulatory governance process. The role of such Minister could include:

• Monitoring and reporting on the co-ordination of regulatory reform activities across portfolios;

• Reporting on the performance of the regulatory management system against the intended outcomes;

• Identifying opportunities for system-wide improvements to regulatory policy settings and regulatory management practices.

Given his direct responsibility for the Office of Best Practice Regulation the Treasurer and Minister for Trade (in association with the Assistant Minister for Finance, Administration and Regulatory Reform) is the Minister responsible for regulatory reform in Queensland.

8.4 Incentives

Progress in reducing the regulatory burden requires incentives designed to discourage unjustified growth of regulation and to reform existing regulation where appropriate. As suggested in section 6, transparency is an important principle that can help to ensure that regulation is more effective.

As discussed in section 6.5, another important principle is that the onus of proof in justifying regulation should be on the entity proposing a new regulation or the retention of existing regulation. Allowing regulation to expire unless the responsible party establishes a case for its continuation provides an incentive for closer scrutiny of burdens.

Other examples of encouraging better incentives for reform include: an overarching Regulatory Policy Statement; a Statement of Expectations for each entity responsible for regulation from the responsible Minister made publicly available; performance contracts with regulatory targets for chief executives of government departments; and public availability of all RISs and assessments of RISs.

Experience has shown that it is important to set some overall binding quantitative targets for individual agencies in order to ensure agencies have incentives to undertake meaningful reform efforts. This is particularly important where efforts to reduce the regulatory burden have been neglected or achieved limited success and even if the targets are very approximate as an indicator of the regulatory burden.

45 Queensland Competition Authority Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

Financial rewards and penalties can also motivate incentives for reform as demonstrated in the case of National Competition Policy legislative reviews from 1995 to 2005.

The Queensland Government has committed to substantial regulatory reform and is putting into place mechanisms to achieve its goals, including establishing the OBPR, improving the RIS process and tasking Departments with conducting regulatory reviews. This review will also lead to the setting of some binding targets for reducing the regulatory burden.

8.5 Capability

An effective regulatory management system requires adequate staff resources with appropriate policy analysis skills. There is clearly a need for those who are involved in advising on regulatory options to have a good understanding of non-regulatory approaches for achieving policy objectives and the ability to undertake suitable cost benefit analysis.

Training and guidance material are important for building capacity. The capacity to undertake effective evaluation of the stock of existing regulation as well as new regulation varies considerably across government.

The OBPR will be developing training and guidance material as part of the regulatory management system. However, for training to be most effective, those receiving it need to have appropriate incentives to use the material that is provided. This observation reinforces the need to ensure other aspects of the regulatory system are working well.

8.6 Consultation

Consultation with those affected by regulations as well as effective communication within government is important for identifying and explaining the need for reforms. Effective consultation processes need to be developed both for assessing the existing stock of regulation on an ongoing basis as well as for new regulation.

8.7 Organisational Issues

Most government agencies have a role to play in reducing the burden of regulation and ensuring that regulation is the best option and well designed to meet policy objectives. As the OECD notes, ‘ensuring the quality of the regulatory structure is a dynamic and permanent role of governments and Parliaments’ (OECD 2012b, p. 22).

Given the scale of the issue, there needs to be a whole-of-government focus on improving regulatory and policy outcomes. This means that a regulatory management system needs to be developed and implemented from a whole-of-government perspective.

The VCEC and other institutions with experience in regulatory management systems recommend formalising the accountability of a regulatory management system and defining a specific role. This approach assumes an entity with an oversight and coordinating function.

Given his role as the Minister responsible for regulatory reform, the Treasurer and Minister for Trade, supported by an Assistant Minister, should help ensure a whole-of-government perspective including ensuring good regulatory principles and practices. This should include overall responsibility for the regulatory management system. At the same time, responsibility for policy development and regulation at the portfolio level should (and it is understood will) remain with portfolio Ministers

This approach goes well beyond the ‘gate-keeping’ type approaches that have been used to date and found to be unsuccessful in reducing the burden of regulation. Experience has

46 Queensland Competition Authority Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

shown that there needs to be a commitment and capability with respect to reducing the burden of regulation at the policy development level and this requires a concerted, whole-of- government effort supported by an appropriate whole-of-government regulatory management system. Training by itself is also not likely to be sufficient without appropriate incentives that should derive from a well designed whole-of-government regulatory management system.

In establishing the OBPR under the direction of the Treasurer and Minister for Trade, Queensland has adopted significant elements of this approach. Appropriate capability would also need to be developed for portfolio departments where there is significant scope for reducing the burden of regulation. OBPR anticipates having a training function to help make this happen.

8.8 Reducing duplication

Stakeholders in many jurisdictions have commented on overlapping (and sometimes contradictory) regulatory requirements imposed by different agencies of the same government. Examples can include:

(a) A requirement to provide name, address, business registration and similar details to a number of agencies for day to day dealings and business permits.

(b) Different deadlines to lodge project details with different agencies. In some cases, the deadline for one agency can expire before the expiry of a mandatory period for stakeholder comment imposed by another agency.

(c) Lack of clarity on the order in which different permits need to be obtained before lodgement of the next step in an application process.

A common response to problems of overlap and duplication is to consider creation of a ‘one stop shop’5. The idea behind this is to consider regulation from the point of view of the customer, and to simplify the customer-centred process accordingly. A key benefit of eliminating duplication is that it eliminates burden without eliminating regulatory effect.

The idea of a one stop shop has some merit, and is interested in learning more about areas where this might be applied. When evaluating such areas, OBPR would also like to learn more about the costs and risks of implementing a one stop shop solution.

An issue to also be considered is whether there can be better use of technology to share information between government agencies (an electronic one-stop shop).

8.9 A permanent formal mechanism for firms and individuals to seek a reduction in specific regulatory burdens

Another approach that needs to be considered is the scope to establish a permanent mechanism for firms, individuals, industry or consumer representatives to have access to a means of making a submission about reducing specific regulatory burdens. An entity, such as a particular organisation, company, industry group, or community organisation might for instance (at its expense) make a submission to the OBPR seeking regulatory redesign and reduction for the particular entity. The submission might provide:

(a) an audit of the range of State regulations that apply to the entity;

5 For example, the Productivity Commission recommended creation of a one stop shop in its 2010 report entitled Report on the Contribution of the Not for profit Sector.

47 Queensland Competition Authority Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

(b) a list of the legislative and regulatory objectives that these regulations appear to be seeking to attain; and

(c) a submission on how the entity believes those regulatory objectives can be attained in a more effective and efficient way as they pertain to that particular entity (and by implication other similar entities).

The OBPR would then consult with the regulatory agencies referred to in the submission (along with any other relevant agencies) to find out whether there is indeed regulatory overlap and regulatory inefficiencies relating to that entity, and whether there are better ways to attain the desired legislative and regulatory objectives as they apply to that entity.

OBPR would then report to the Government on recommendations for any regulatory redesign and relief it believes appropriate, which may lead to amendments of regulation as it pertains to that entity and other similar entities. .

Even if any resulting tailor-made regulatory changes resulting from this process are not substantial, the process may lead to significant changes in the ways in which future laws and regulations are devised. Policy-makers would no doubt be educated to take a more recipient based perspective as a result of the consultation process arising from an entity’s regulatory relief submission.

8.10 Consultation Issues

8.1 Are there important characteristics of an effective regulatory management system not discussed here?

8.2 How can regulatory objectives and roles be more clearly defined in Queensland?

8.3 What changes should be made to parliament and government responsibilities and accountability for regulatory review to facilitate reduction in the burden of regulation?

8.4 What incentive and penalty mechanisms can be put in place to ensure ongoing commitment to reducing and improving regulation?

8.5 How can the current capability of the government to undertake regulatory reform be developed?

8.6 How can consultation and transparency in relation to regulatory reform be improved?

8.7 Do you support the concept of a whole-of-government regulatory management system?

8.8 Are there alternatives for ensuring a whole of government approach to regulatory reform?

8.9 Is there a need for an overall training function to help portfolio departments improve their regulatory reform capability?

8.10 Is there merit in establishing a one-stop shop or similar mechanism to reduce the duplication of regulation without reducing the effect of regulation?

8.11 Is there merit in establishing a formal permanent mechanism for those affected by regulation to make a case for the redesign of that regulation?

48 Queensland Competition Authority Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland

9. SOME EXAMPLES OF THE BURDEN OF REGULATION IN QUEENSLAND

9.1 Introduction

This section provides some examples of the burden of regulation in Queensland. The examples do not necessarily indicate high priorities for reform but have been selected for discussion purposes to provide input into the development of a framework for reducing the regulatory burden and setting priorities.

9.2 Regulation by Local Government in Queensland

Local government has an important role in designing and implementing regulation in Queensland and local government regulation is a frequent source of complaint.

The Productivity Commission (2012, p. 2) notes that ‘unnecessary business burdens will be lower when local governments regulate well’. The following gaps in state support for local government were identified:

• insufficient consideration of local governments’ capacity to administer and enforce regulation before a new regulatory role is delegated to them • limited guidance and training on how to administer and enforce regulations • no clear indication and ranking of state regulatory priorities.

A Productivity Commission survey of local governments reports that the median expenditure on regulatory activities of Queensland local governments was 10 per cent of total council spending (2012, p. 142). This was the highest of any state.

The high expenditures did not necessarily improve performance. Small and medium businesses were surveyed by the Productivity Commission about their most recent regulatory dealing with local government. The Productivity Commission found that Queensland businesses had greater concerns than businesses in any other state, with local governments providing unclear information, charging unreasonable fees, providing unreliable and inconsistent advice, exhibiting lack of transparency for approval processes, and requiring excessive time and effort to comply with regulations.

Queensland local governments were among the poorest performers with regard to duplication with state government regulations, complex rules and guidance, and uncertain approval times (see Productivity Commission 2012, p. 240).

Finally, the Productivity Commission (2012, p. 2) also identified a number of leading practices adopted in the states and the Northern Territory:

• guidance to local government in writing regulation, such as Victoria’s Guidelines for Local Laws • incentives for local governments to achieve scale and scope economies in regulatory functions • periodic assessment of the stock of local regulation and state regulation requiring a local government role • efficient cost recovery for local government regulatory functions • guidance to local government in the scrutiny of the impact of laws • graduated review and appeal systems for both local government decisions and processes • having regulatory decisions made by bodies which take account of all impacts

49 Queensland Competition Authority Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland

• removing or managing the conflicting objectives between local governments’ regulatory and other functions • a comprehensive central register of the state laws for which local government has a role in administration, enforcement and/or referral.

9.3 Examples of Specific Regulatory Schemes

Two regulatory schemes are described below. The Authority is not undertaking detailed reviews of these schemes as part of the framework development task. Instead, the Authority is interested in views on how the suggested approaches to identifying and measuring regulatory burdens and for implementing reforms could be applied to these concrete examples. One example has its main impact in rural areas and the other has its main impact in urban areas.

9.3.1 Native Vegetation Regulation

Native vegetation in Queensland is generally protected under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (the VMA) and associated instruments.

The body of State instruments applicable to native vegetation includes:

(a) the VMA;

(b) the Vegetation Management Regulation 2000;

(c) the Sustainable Planning Act 2009;

(d) the Water Act 2000 (for clearing vegetation near a watercourse, lake or spring);

(e) the State Policy for Vegetation Management;

(f) four Regional Vegetation Management Codes;

(g) the offset policy relevant to each Vegetation Management Code;

(h) the Regrowth Management Code; and

(i) the Native Forest Practice Code.

The aim of native vegetation restrictions is to:

(a) conserve remnant vegetation;

(b) ensure that clearing does not cause land degradation;

(c) prevent the loss of biodiversity;

(d) maintain ecological processes; and

(e) reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Restrictions on clearing native vegetation apply to both freehold and leasehold land. The VMA specifies that local governments are able to impose further restrictions on vegetation clearance, through local laws and planning instruments. Generally speaking, clearance of specified types of native vegetation is allowed only after approval of an application to do so. The VMA specifies conditions where some types of applications, such as those related to

50 Queensland Competition Authority Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland

mining, infrastructure and significant projects may be considered. Other types of applications are not allowed to be considered.

Native vegetation restrictions have significant ‘reach’ in their impact on business and the community, in both rural and urban areas. The restrictions affect agriculture and housing construction, which are two of the Government’s four economic pillars.

One indicator of the impact of native vegetation restrictions on housing construction is the creation of a separate vegetation by-law for the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA), exempting the ULDA from normally applicable vegetation restrictions. The ULDA’s website states that this will “bring land to market quicker than could occur under existing processes”. This may suggest that the normal process is excessively burdensome for developers. Indeed, if the normal process can be streamlined for the ULDA, why should it not be streamlined for all affected parties?

9.3.2 Water Sensitive Urban Design Regulation

Housing and construction activity in South East Queensland is subject to the requirements of water sensitive urban design (WSUD). This is applied through a combination of State and local policies and guidelines. Relevant instruments include:

(a) the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and its subordinate State Planning Policy 4/10 for Healthy Waters;

(b) the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, which is subordinate legislation under the Environmental Protection Act 1994;

(c) the Water Sensitive Urban Design Action Plan, which is part of the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Strategy 2007-2012;

(d) the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031;

(e) Implementation Guideline No. 7 Water sensitive urban design: Design objectives for urban stormwater management, which is part of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031;

(f) the Water Act 2000, and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008; and

(g) the Queensland Development Code, Mandatory Parts 4.2 and 4.3

The aims of WSUD include:

(a) protecting and enhancing the intrinsic values of the natural water cycle;

(b) protecting the quality of surface and groundwater;

(c) reducing downstream flooding;

(d) reducing demand for potable water;

(e) minimising the generation of wastewater and ensuring its treatment to a sufficient standard for reuse/release;

(f) controlling soil erosion; and

(g) using stormwater to maximise the visual and recreational amenity of developments.

51 Queensland Competition Authority Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland

Urban design experts have previously pointed to apparent anomalies and disproportionate burdens in the regulatory requirements of WSUD (Heath Waterways Ltd 2011):

There is a disparity between the inundation standards applied to engineered roads and the standards applied to public open space. Typical Council design standards are for access streets to be at least flood-free in a two year annual recurring interval (ARI) storm event, but many Councils require public parkland to remain flood-free in the 100 year ARI storm event. Many consider this requirement to be illogical, since in a 10 year ARI storm event, whilst the park wouldn’t be inundated, it would typically be too wet to utilise and the roads to the parkland would be impassable.

There is also significant variation in the appropriateness of different approaches to WSUD depending on the specific circumstances of the development site (location, rainfall, linkages to sensitive receiving waterway environments, etc.) and the broader region. However, the final WSUD solution proposed is often conventional but expensive (e.g. bio-retention basins) because an applicant knows that more common approaches will have a higher probability of quick approval than many more innovative (and possibly better) solutions.

9.4 Consultation Issues

The Authority seeks comments and suggestions in relation to examples of the burden of regulation in Queensland.

9.1 What are the key problems that local governments face in relation to their role in developing and administering local laws, regulations, codes and guidelines?

9.2 What specific reform options are recommended for local government regulation in general and why?

9.3 How does Queensland compare with other states in adopting leading practices for local government regulation?

9.4 Please comment on issues with respect to identifying regulatory burdens and approaches for reform for:

• native vegetation regulation; and

• water sensitive urban design (WSUD) regulation.

52 Queensland Competition Authority Section 10: Consultation Issues

10. CONSULTATION ISSUES

10.1 Section 1: Proposed Framework for Reducing the Regulatory Burden

1.1 Is there support for measuring the regulatory burden in terms of a dollar value for the compliance cost as the primary measure? (See section 5)

1.2 Recognising that page count is a very rough measure of the burden of regulation and that estimating a dollar value for compliance cost could be resource intensive, is it preferable, at least initially, to adopt a measure that counts the number of individual restrictions associated with each regulation? (See section 5.1.1)

1.3 Is there support for using the gross approach to setting a target in relation to the existing stock of regulation and using an improved RIS process to ensure the net stock of regulation is appropriate? (See section 5.3)

1.4 What are the main instances where duplication in terms of compliance occurs and how is this best addressed? (See section 4.1)

1.5 Is there support for specifying that the ‘onus of proof’ should be on those advocating or responsible for regulation to prove that there regulation leads to a net public benefit? (See section 6.5)

1.6 Is there support for the proposed prioritisation criteria set out in 1.2? (See section 7.2)

1.7 Is there support for the whole of government regulatory management system set out in 1.3? (See section 8)

1.8 Are there any aspects of the whole of government regulatory management system that need to be amended or that have not been addressed? (See section 8)

1.9 Is there agreement with the process set out in 1.4 for establishing review priorities? (See section 7)

1.10 Are there any other comments on the proposed approaches and recommendations in this Issues Paper?

10.2 Section 4: Nature and Extent of the Regulatory Burden

4.1 Does the discussion of regulatory burden in this section adequately describe the types of administrative and compliance cost burdens experienced by businesses and individuals in Queensland? Please provide specific examples of any additional types of costs that should be included.

4.2 Do the general categories of delay costs discussed in this section adequately describe regulatory delay costs experienced in Queensland? Please provide specific examples of delay costs not mentioned.

4.3 Are there additional categories of regulatory costs that affect the community as a whole?

4.4 Please describe how excess regulation or high administrative, compliance and delay costs affect your household, community or business.

53 Queensland Competition Authority Section 10: Consultation Issues

10.3 Section 5: Approaches to Identifying and Measuring Regulatory Burden

5.1 Are page counts of laws and regulations in place useful for assessing regulatory burden?

5.2 Would it be useful to apply the British Columbia approach to measuring regulatory requirements (i.e. counting each provision that states a business, citizen or the government must or will take some action or provide some information)?

5.3 Are there other rough measures that could be used?

5.4 Is the compliance cost calculator approach useful for measuring regulatory burdens in Queensland?

5.5 What modifications to the existing cost models would be useful for measuring the cost of business regulation in Queensland?

5.6 Does the process of gathering the data to construct such models, or make them suitable for use in Queensland, impose undue costs on businesses?

5.7 Would it be preferable to have a simpler measure such as days required to comply with regulatory requirements?

5.8 What benchmarks are most likely to be useful to assess the extent and growth of regulation in Queensland?

5.9 Should a net or gross approach be used to assess burden reductions?

5.10 Regarding surveys:

• Would it be useful to survey businesses in Queensland regarding regulatory burden?

• What business sectors should be surveyed?

• If surveys are undertaken, how can they be structured to reduce burdens on potential respondents while maximising the relevance and quality of information obtained?

5.11 What business or regulatory categories are good candidates for an intensive case study of regulatory burdens?

5.12 How can benchmarks and best practice regulatory frameworks be identified?

5.13 What are examples of better practice regulations that could be implemented in Queensland in place of current methodologies?

10.4 Section 6: Approaches for Conducting Reviews of the Existing Legislation

6.1 To what extent are simple red tape reduction targets likely to be effective?

6.2 To what extent are stock-flow linkage rules and similar mechanisms useful for identifying priorities for regulatory review, for example, a commitment to remove a regulation if a new one is introduced, likely to be effective?

54 Queensland Competition Authority Section 10: Consultation Issues

6.3 Should there be sunset provisions for regulation requiring a regulation to be reviewed and re-made after a certain period if it is not to lapse?

6.4 Should sunset reviews and post-implementation reviews of regulation be subject to the same RIS standards as new regulation?

6.5 What regulation should be subject to sunset provisions?

6.6 What other ex post review requirements should apply for new regulation?

6.7 Are there any comments about the cost effectiveness of approaches to managing and reviewing the stock of legislation set out in section 5.4?

6.8 To what extent should review of regulation be undertaken by an independent entity to ensure an impartial and authoritative review, particularly for major reviews?

6.9 Given the possible scale of the task of reviewing the total stock of regulation and the knowledge of those responsible for design and implementation of the regulation how should they be involved?

6.10 To what extent should the Queensland Government commit to building capacity in portfolio departments for evaluating and reviewing regulation?

6.11 What arrangements should be made to ensure adequate consultation and ensure transparency of the process?

6.12 How should agency regulatory reduction targets be set to take account of differences in departmental scope to reduce the burden of regulation?

6.13 What incentives or sanctions can be introduced to encourage action to reduce the burden of regulation?

6.14 Is it reasonable to place the onus of proof for the continuation of regulation on the entity responsible for it and to remove the regulation unless that entity can establish it is in the public interest to retain it?

6.15 What is the appropriate timeframe for a government decision following a regulatory review?

10.5 Section 7: Identifying and Prioritising Areas for Regulatory Review

7.1 Which criteria are relevant for establishing priorities for, and the sequencing of, regulatory reviews? Some proposed criteria are set out in section 7.2; in brief the criteria are:

• unnecessarily burdensome regulation;

• ‘reach’ of the regulation to the business community and the public;

• substantial net benefit from reform, including wider benefits for business, government and the community (e.g., greater competition);

• community acceptance;

• regulation not changed recently or about to change; and

55 Queensland Competition Authority Section 10: Consultation Issues

• regulation with social or public good objectives where it is not clear that there is a strong case for change should be excluded.

7.2 The Authority is interested in priorities in relation to regulation that affects both the business sector and the general community. In suggesting these, please attempt to provide reasons linked to the prioritisation criteria set out above.

• What are the priority areas for regulatory reviews and reducing the burden of regulation?

− What are underlying objectives of the regulation?

− Is the regulation effective in achieving the objectives of the regulation?

− Are there policy alternatives that are less costly while still achieving relevant policy objectives?

• Which areas should be exempt from regulatory review or at least assigned low priority?

10.6 Section 8: A Regulatory Management System for Reducing and Improving Regulation

8.1 Are there important characteristics of an effective regulatory management system not discussed here?

8.2 How can regulatory objectives and roles be more clearly defined in Queensland?

8.3 What changes should be made to parliament and government responsibilities and accountability for regulatory review to facilitate reduction in the burden of regulation?

8.4 What incentive and penalty mechanisms can be put in place to ensure ongoing commitment to reducing and improving regulation?

8.5 How can the current capability of the government to undertake regulatory reform be developed?

8.6 How can consultation and transparency in relation to regulatory reform be improved.

8.7 Do you support the concept of a whole-of-government regulatory management system?

8.8. Are there alternatives for ensuring a whole of government approach to regulatory reform?

8.9 Is there a need for an overall training function to help portfolio departments improve their regulatory reform capability?

8.10 Is there merit in establishing a one-stop shop or similar mechanism to reduce the duplication of regulation without reducing the effect of regulation?

8.11 Is there merit in establishing a formal permanent mechanism for individuals and firms affected by regulation to make a case for the redesign of regulation?

56 Queensland Competition Authority Section 10: Consultation Issues

10.7 Section 9: Some Examples of the Burden of Regulation in Queensland

9.1 What are the key problems that local governments face in relation to their role in developing and administering local laws, regulations, codes and guidelines?

9.2 What specific reform options are recommended for local government regulation in general and why?

9.3 How does Queensland compare with other states in adopting leading practices for local government regulation?

9.4 Please comment on issues with respect to identifying regulatory burdens and approaches for reform for:

a) native vegetation regulation; and

b) water sensitive urban design (WSUD) regulation.

10.8 Field Studies

In addition to seeking submissions on the matters raised in the Issues Paper, the OBPR invites individual businesses (large and small) to provide a detailed snapshot of how they are affected by regulation (see section 5.6). This could be in the form of a field study setting out how much time and expense is devoted to satisfying the various regulatory requirements that impact on them. If your business is interested in participating in a field study of the cost of meeting regulatory requirements, please register your interest using the contact details provided at the front of this report.

57 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix A: Ministerial Direction Notice

APPENDIX A: MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NOTICE

58 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix A: Ministerial Direction Notice

.

59 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

APPENDIX B: CLASSIFICATION OF QUEENSLAND LEGISLATION BY BROAD FUNCTION

Table B.1 lists the number of pages of Queensland State Government legislation (Acts and subordinate legislation) in force as of 20 July 2012 and classifies the legislation according to the regulation categories listed in Chapter 7, section 7.1 (a) – (i). The legislation is also listed according to the primary responsible State Government minister as per the Administrative Arrangements Order (No.4) 2012 which sets out the responsibilities of ministers and their portfolios.

The page count does not include the end notes for each Act and subordinate legislation. The end notes were excluded from the page count on the basis that they simply provide a ‘history’ of the legislation and do not impose any legislative requirements.

The table does not include local laws made by local governments, nor other statutory instruments that are not subordinate legislation. The table also does not include exempt subordinate legislation, which is subordinate legislation that is exempt from being drafted by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. University statutes are examples of exempt subordinate legislation.

For the Interim Report, the table will be revised to include only the legislation that was in force when the current State Government was elected on 24 March 2012.

Table B.1: Queensland State Government Legislation in Force as of 20 July 2012

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Premier Assisted Students (Enforcement of Obligations) Act 1951 h 11 Auditor-General Act 2009 i 58 Auditor-General Regulation 2009 i 4 Australian Constitutions Act 1842 (Imperial) i 6 Australian Constitutions Act 1844 (Imperial) i 3 Australian Waste Lands Act 1855 (Imperial) c 4 Commonwealth Powers (Air Transport) Act 1950 g 4 Constitution Act 1867 i 6 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 i 3 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 i 6 Constitution of Queensland 2001 i 55 Constitutional Powers (Coastal Waters) Act 1980 g 6 Emblems of Queensland Act 2005 i 15 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Act 2003 i 24 Governors (S alary and Pensions) Regulation 2003 i 3 Integrity Act 2009 i 69 Integrity Regulation 2011 i 3 Legislative Standards Act 1992 i 19

60 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Ministerial and Other Office Holder Staff Act 2010 i 22 Off-shore Facilities Act 1986 c 7 Parliamentary Service Act 1988 i 36 Parliamentary Service By-Law 2002 i 8 Parliamentary Service Rule 2010 i 12 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 i 111 Parliament of Queensland Regulation 2002 i 4 Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 i 60 Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 i 27 Public Sector Ethics Regulation 2010 i 5 Public Service Act 2008 i 191 Public Service Regulation 2008 i 25 Queensland Boundaries Declaratory Act 1982 i 5 Queensland Coast Islands Act 1879 i 5 Queensland Coast Islands and Waters -Proclamation dated i 5 18 July 1879 Queensland International Tourist Centre Agreement Act Repeal c 18 Act 1989 Reprints Act 1992 i 37 Senate Elections Act 1960 i 4 Statute of Westminster 1931 (Imperial) i 5 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cwlth) i 7 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 i 47 Statutory Instruments Regulation 2002 i 16 Total (Premier) 871 85 Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Alcan Queensland Pty. Limited Agreement Act 1965 c, f 74 Amoco Australia Pty. Limited Agreement Act 1961 f, c 25 Ampol Refineries Limited Agreement Act 1964 f, c 18 Austral-Pacific Fertilizers Limited Agreement Act 1967 f 28 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Act 1968 f, c 134 Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement and Queensland f, c 44 Coal Trust Act 1984 Century Zinc Project Act 1997 f 22 Industrial Development Act 1963 f 14 Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 f 227

61 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act c 327 1992 Mixed Use Development Act 1993 c 241 Queensland Industry Participation Policy Act 2011 i 9 Queensland Nickel Agreement Act 1970 f 68 Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act 2011 i 81 Queensland Reconstruction Authority Regulation 2007 i 6 Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of i 18 Queensland Act 1971 Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of i 3 Queensland Regulation 2010 Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985 f 229 Sanctuary Cove Resort Regulation 2009 f 9 South Bank Corporation Act 1989 f 322 South Bank Corporation By-law 2004 f 13 South Bank Corporation (Modified Building Units and f 32 Group Titles) Regulation 2003 South Bank Corporation Regulation 2003 f 15 Southern Moreton Bay Islands Development Entitlements c 8 Protection Act 2004 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 i 192 State Development and Public Works Organisation (State i 45 Development Areas) Regulation 2009 State Development and Public Works Organisation i 7 Regulation 2010 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 c 708 Planning and Environment Court Rules 2010 c 33 Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 c 203 Townsville Breakwater Entertainment Centre Act 1991 f 170 Townsville City Council (Douglas Land Development) Act 1993 c 24 Townsville Zinc Refinery Act 1996 f 11 Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 c 98 Urban Land Development Authority Regulation 2008 c 10 Urban Land Development Authority (Vegetation c 29 Management) By-law 2009 Total (Deputy Premier and Minister for State 3092 405 Development, Infrastructure and Planning) Treasurer and Minister for Trade Agent-General for Queensland Act 1975 i 5 Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2008 c 85

62 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Regulation c 5 2008 Anzac Square Development Project Act 1982 c 106 Brisbane Markets Act 2002 c 6 Brisbane Trades Hall Management Act 1984 c 15 Building Boost Grant Act 2011 h 88 Commonwealth and State Statistical Agreement Act 1958 i 15 Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes Administration) Act 1999 i 11 Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia Agreement Act 1966 f 9 Community Ambulance Cover Levy Repeal Act 2011 h 16 Competition Policy Reform (Queensland) Act 1996 a 56 Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (Long-term Lease) Act 2001 f 4 Duties Act 2001 i 443 Duties Regulation 2002 i 20 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2006 f 49 Family Security Friendly Society (Distribution of Moneys) Act h 19 1991 Financial Accountability Act 2009 i 70 Financial Accountability Regulation 2009 i 7 Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009 i 55 Financial Agreement Act 1994 i 21 Financial Intermediaries Act 1996 f 179 Financial Intermediaries Regulation 2007 f 7 Financial Sector Reform (Queensland) Act 1999 f 57 First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 h 66 First Home Owner Grant Regulation 2010 h 6 Fuel Subsidy Repeal Act 2009 f 7 Future Growth Fund Act 2006 i 9 Government Inscribed Stock Act 1920 i 6 Government Loan Act 1986 i 6 Government Loans Redemption and Conversion Act 1923 i 6 Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 i 130 Government Owned Corporations Regulation 2004 i 11 Government Owned Corporations (BACH Shares Transfer) i 4 Regulation 2007 Government Owned Corporations (Bundaberg Port i 10 Authority Wind-up) Regulation 2007 Government Owned Corporations (Bundaberg Port) i 9 Regulation 2009 Government Owned Corporations (Central Queensland i 10

63 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Ports Authority) Regulation 2004 Government Owned Corporations (Generator Restructure) i 17 Regulation 2011 Government Owned Corporations (NQPB Amalgamation) i 8 Regulation 2012 Government Owned Corporations (QPTC Restructure – i 11 Stage 1) Regulation 2007 Government Owned Corporations (QPTC Restructure – i 15 Stage 2) Regulation 2007 Government Owned Corporations (QPTC Wind-up) i 3 Regulation 2008 Government Owned Corporations (QR Limited Restructure) i 14 Regulation 2008 Government Owned Corporations (Queensland Ports i 10 Restructure) Regulation 2009 Government Stock Act 1912 i 4 GST and Related Matters Act 2000 i 5 Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act i 27 2009 Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and i 3 Disposal) Notice 2010 Land Tax Act 2010 c, i 71 Land Tax Regulation 2010 c, i 4 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 h 137 Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2004 h 55 Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992 i 34 Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Regulation 2009 i 5 Occupational Licensing National Law (Queensland) Act 2010 b 8 Payroll Tax Act 1971 i 178 Payroll Tax Regulation 2009 d 17 Public Officers Superannuation Benefits Recovery Act 1988 d 35 Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 a 233 Queensland Competition Authority Regulation 2007 a 9 Queensland Investment Corporation Act 1991 i 22 Queensland Treasury Corporation Act 1988 i 40 Queensland Treasury Corporation Regulation 2010 i 28 South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007 i 81 South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Regulation i 27 2011 South East Queensland Water Restructuring (Staff Support i 3 Framework) Notice 2008 State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act i 50 1996

64 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 g 162 State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2000 g 275 Statistical Returns Act 1896 i 8 Statistical Returns Regulation 2001 i 3 Statutory Authorities (Superannuation Arrangements) Act 1994 i 4 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 i 59 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Regulation 2007 i 24 Superannuation (Public Employees Portability) Act 1985 d 12 Superannuation (Public Employees Portability) Notice d 4 2008 Superannuation (Public Employees Portability) Regulation d 5 2008 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 d 63 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Deed 1990 d 632 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Notice 2010 d 66 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Regulation 2006 d 7 Taxation Administration Act 2001 i 113 Taxation Administration Regulation 2002 i 13 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003 i 64 Total (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) 2894 1402 Minister for Health Dental Technicians Registration Act 2001 b 143 Dental Technicians Registration Regulation 2002 b 8 Food Act 2006 e 198 Food Regulation 2006 e 9 Health Act 1937 e 66 Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996 e 306 Health Regulation 1996 e 59 Health Practitioner Registration Boards (Administration) Act b 21 1999 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 b 307 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation b 19 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Amendment b 2 (Midwife Insurance Exemption) Regulation 2011 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Transitional) b 11 Regulation 2010 Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 b 304 Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Regulation b 3 2010 Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act 1998 b 13

65 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) b 3 Regulation 2009 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 e 134 Hospitals and Health Boards Act 2011 e 212 Health and Hospitals Network Regulation 2012 e 54 Hospitals Foundations Act 1982 e 46 Hospitals Foundations Regulation 2005 e 6 Mater Public Health Services Act 2008 e, i 9 Mental Health Act 2000 h, e 432 Mental Health Regulation 2002 h, e 8 Mental Health Review Tribunal Rule 2009 h, e 4 Pest Management Act 2001 b 92 Pest Management Regulation 2003 b 31 Pharmacy Business Ownership Act 2001 b 42 Private Health Facilities Act 1999 b 108 Private Health Facilities Regulation 2000 b 14 Private Health Facilities (Standards) Notice 2000 b 4 Public Health Act 2005 e 325 Public Health Regulation 2005 e 70 Public Health (Infection Control for Personal Appearance e, d 90 Services) Act 2003 Public Health (Infection Control for Personal Appearance e, d 3 Services) (Infection Control Guideline) Notice 2004 Public Health (Infection Control for Personal Appearance e, d 4 Services) Regulation 2003 Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act 1945 h 21 Radiation Safety Act 1999 e 188 Radiation Safety (Radiation Safety Standards) Notice 2010 e 5 Radiation Safety Regulation 2010 e 121 Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human h 43 Cloning for Reproduction Act 2003 Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of h 3 Human Cloning for Reproduction Regulation 2003 Speech Pathologists Registration Act 2001 b 142 Speech Pathologists Registration Regulation 2001 b 7 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 e 90 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Regulation 2010 e 14 Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 h 48 Transplantation and Anatomy Regulation 2004 h 14 Water Fluoridation Act 2008 h, e 54

66 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008 h, e 26 Total (Minister for Health) 3128 808 Minister for Education, Training and Employment Australian Catholic University (Queensland) Act 2007 h 7 Bond University Act 1987 h 10 Central Queensland University Act 1998 h 58 Child Care Act 2002 h 157 Child Care Regulation 2003 h 80 Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001 h 155 Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Regulation h 11 2001 Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) Act h 34 2011 Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) h 3 Regulation 2011 Education (Capital Assistance) Act 1993 h 27 Education (Capital Assistance) Regulation 2005 h 11 Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 h 316 Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006 h 57 Education (Overseas Students) Act 1996 h, b 27 Education (Overseas Students) Regulation 1998 h, b 15 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 b 231 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation b 24 2005 Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002 b 87 Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Regulation 2002 h 140 Education (Work Experience) Act 1996 h 10 Grammar Schools Act 1975 h 42 Grammar Schools Regulation 2004 h 15 Griffith University Act 1998 h 56 Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2008 h 88 Higher Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2008 h 17 James Cook University Act 1997 h 53 Queensland University of Technology Act 1998 h 50 University of Queensland Act 1998 h 51 University of Southern Queensland Act 1998 h 58 University of the Sunshine Coast Act 1998 h 59 Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000 h 251 Vocational Education, Training and Employment h 60 Regulation 2000

67 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Total (Minister for Education, Training and Employment) 1827 433 Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Acts Interpretation Act 1954 i 87 All Saints Church Lands Act 1924 c 6 All Saints Church Lands Act 1960 c 8 Anglican Church of Australia Act 1895 h 10 Anglican Church of Australia Act 1895 Amendment Act 1901 h 6 Anglican Church of Australia Act 1977 h 5 Anglican Church of Australia Constitution Act 1961 h 7 Anglican Church of Australia (Diocese of Brisbane) Property Act h, c 7 1889 Ann Street Presbyterian Church Act 1889 c, h 11 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 h 133 Anzac Day Act 1995 h 13 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 i 25 Appeals Cost Fund Regulation 2010 i 13 Associations Incorporation Act 1981 f 109 Associations Incorporation Regulation 1999 f 69 Attorney-General Act 1999 i 9 Attorney-General Regulation 2010 i 4 Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (NMRB) Act f 29 1991 Australian Consular Officers’ Notarial Powers and Evidence Act i 6 1946 Bail Act 1980 g 77 Bail (Prescribed Programs) Regulation 2006 g 3 Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 h 70 Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 h 39 Bishopsbourne Estate and See Endowment Trusts Act 1898 f 9 Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 h 374 Body Corporate and Community Management h 203 (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008 Body Corporate and Community Management (Commercial h 159 Module) Regulation 2008 Body Corporate and Community Management Regulation h 5 2008 Body Corporate and Community Management (Small h 130 Schemes Modules) Regulation 2008 Body Corporate and Community Management (Specified h 70 Two-lot Schemes Module) Regulation 2011 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard h 206 Module) Regulation 2008

68 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Boonah Show Ground Act 1914 h, c 4 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984 f 223 Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992 f 124 British Probates Act 1898 i 5 British Probates Regulation 2008 i 4 Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service d 71 Leave) Act 2005 Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service d 12 Leave) Regulation 2002 Burials Assistance Act 1965 h 6 Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2011 i 20 Cairns Casino Agreement Act 1993 f 10 Carruthers Inquiry Enabling Act 1996 g 4 Casino Control Act 1982 b 152 Casino Control Regulation 1999 b 41 Cattle Stealing Prevention Act 1853 h 7 Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999 h 124 Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Regulation 1999 h 17 Charitable Funds Act 1958 h 32 Child Employment Act 2006 h, d 40 Child Employment Regulation 2006 d, h 26 Childrens Court Act 1992 g 18 Childrens Court Rules 1997 g 16 Chinese Temple Society Act 1964 h 5 Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Act 1996 g 4 Churches of Christ, Scientist, Incorporation Act 1964 h 13 Civil Liability Act 2003 g 67 Civil Liability Regulation 2003 g 189 Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 e 52 Classification of Films Act 1991 e 50 Classification of Publications Act 1991 e 40 Classification of Publications (Approval of Codes of 11 Conduct) Order 1992 Collections Act 1966 h 64 Collections Regulation 2008 33 Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 g 41 Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 g 32 Commissions of Inquiry (Bundaberg Hospital Inquiry – g 4 Evidence) Regulation 2005 Commissions of Inquiry (Fuel Subsidy Inquiry – Evidence) g 3

69 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Regulation 2007 Commissions of Inquiry (Queensland Floods Inquiry – g 3 Evidence) Regulation 2011 Commissions of Inquiry (Queensland Public Hospitals g 4 Inquiry – Evidence) Regulation 2005 Commonwealth Places (Administration of Laws) Act 1970 g 9 Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2003 h, g 5 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 1990 g 10 Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Application of Laws) Act f 25 1981 Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous f 24 Provisions) (Application of Laws) Act 1981 Companies (Application of Laws) Act 1981 f 51 Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act d 97 2005 Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) d 4 Regulation 2005 Cooperatives Act 1997 i 353 Cooperatives Regulation 1997 i 227 Co-operative Schemes (Administrative Actions) Act 2001 i 11 Coroners Act 2003 h 103 Coroners Regulation 2003 h 7 Corporations (Administrative Actions) 2001 f, i 8 Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2001 f 31 Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2001 f 9 Corporations (Queensland) Act 1990 f 79 Court Funds Act 1973 i 9 Court Funds Regulation 2009 i 25 Credit (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2010 i 25 Credit (Rural Finance) Act 1996 h 22 Cremations Act 2003 h 15 Cremations Regulation 2003 h 4 Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 i, g 331 Crime and Misconduct Regulation 2005 g, i 18 Crimes at Sea Act 2001 g 19 Criminal Code Act 1899 (incorporating Criminal Code) g 543 Criminal Code (Animal Valuers) Regulation 1999 g 15 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1892 g 5 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 g 3 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 g 15 Criminal Law Regulation 2004 g 3

70 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 g 17 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 g 14 Criminal Organisation Act 2009 g 110 Criminal Organisation Regulation 2011 g 4 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 g 228 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Regulation 2002 g 10 Crown Proceedings Act 1980 g 8 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 g 51 Defamation Act 2005 g 42 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 g, i 23 Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act 1967 h 25 Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Act 1985 g 7 Disposal of Unexecuted Warrants Regulation 2008 g 4 Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 g 25 Dispute Resolution Centres Regulation 2009 g 4 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 g 75 District Court Regulation 2005 g 5 Domicile Act 1981 h 7 Drug Court Act 2000 g 48 Drug Court Regulation 2006 g 16 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 g 121 Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 g 64 Electoral Act 1992 i 299 Electoral Regulation 2002 i 31 Electrical Safety Act 2002 e 176 Electrical Safety (Codes of Practice) Notice 2002 e 7 Electrical Safety Regulation 2002 e 250 Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 f 20 Evidence Act 1977 g 169 Evidence Regulation 2007 g 9 Evidence and Discovery Act 1867 g 8 Evidence (Attestation of Documents) Act 1937 g 5 Evidence on Commission Act 1988 g 9 Factors Act 1892 g 8 Fair Trading Act 1989 b, d 97 Fair Trading (Code of Practice – Fitness Industry) b 23 Regulation 2003 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Act d 28 2009

71 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 i 11 Financial Transaction Reports Act 1992 g 9 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 b 65 Funeral Benefit Business Regulation 2010 b 27 Futures Industry (Applications of Laws) Act 1986 i 29 Gaming Machine Act 1991 h 485 Gaming Machine Regulation 2002 h 69 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 h 227 Guardianship and Administration Regulation 2000 h 6 Guides Queensland Act 1970 h 16 Holidays Act 1983 h 9 Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 i 10 Industrial Relations Act 1999 d 631 Industrial Relations (Mandatory Code of Practice for d 3 Outworkers) Notice 2010 Industrial Relations Regulation 2011 d 155 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 d 118 Information Privacy Act 2009 i 169 Information Privacy Regulation 2009 i 9 Interactive Gambling (Player Protection) Act 1998 h 184 Interactive Gambling (Player Protection – Disqualified h 16 Persons) Regulation 1999 Interactive Gambling (Player Protection) Regulation 1998 h 21 Introduction Agents Act 2001 b 70 Introduction Agents Regulation 2002 f, b 7 Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 h 15 Judges (Pensions and Long Leave) Act 1957 d 49 Judicial Remuneration Act 2007 d 26 Judicial Review Act 1991 g 49 Jupiters Casino Agreement Act 1983 f 142 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 i 21 Jury Act 1995 g 49 Jury Regulation 2007 g 12 Justice and Other Information Disclosure Act 2008 g 21 Justices Act 1886 i 176 Justices Regulation 2004 i 46 Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act i 34 1991 Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations i 9 Regulation 2007

72 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Keno Act 1996 b 161 Keno Regulation 2007 b 23 Land Court Act 2000 i 57 Land Court Regulation 2010 i 5 Land Court Rules 2000 i 26 Land Sales Act 1984 c 44 Land Sales Regulation 2000 c 10 Law Reform Act 1995 i 15 Law Reform Commission Act 1968 i 11 Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 h 53 Legal Profession Act 2007 b 565 Legal Profession (Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules) b 3 Notice 2012 Legal Profession (Barristers Rules) Notice 2011 b 3 Legal Profession Regulation 2007 b 78 Legal Profession (Society Rules) Notice 2007 b 5 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 g 37 Liquor Act 1992 h, b 342 Liquor (Approval of Adult Entertainment Code) Regulation h. b 6 2002 Liquor Regulation 2002 h, b 101 Lotteries Act 1997 b 181 Lotteries Regulation 2007 h, b 36 Magistrates Act 1991 i 57 Magistrates Regulation 2003 i 4 Magistrates Court Act 1921 i 38 Magistrates Courts Regulation 2007 i 3 Maintenance Act 1965 h 127 Maintenance Regulations 1967 h 100 Mercantile Act 1867 h 6 Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 h 65 Oaths Act 1867 i, g 23 Ombudsman Act 2001 i 63 Partnership Act 1891 f 92 Partnership Regulation 2004 f 4 Pastoral Workers’ Accommodation Act 1980 h 16 Pastoral Workers’ Accommodation Regulation 2003 h 14 Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 g 8 Peace and Good Behaviour Regulation 2010 g 7

73 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 g 15 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 g 211 Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005 g 8 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 g 89 Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2002 g 18 Personal Property Securities (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2010 i 28 Personal Property Securities (Ancillary Provisions) i 5 Regulation 2011 Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 i 12 Powers of Attorney Act 1998 h 94 Presbyterian Church of Australia Act 1900 h 13 Presbyterian Church of Australia Act 1971 h 20 Printing and Newspapers Act 1981 h, f 10 Prisoners International Transfer (Queensland) Act 1997 g 53 Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 g 32 Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Regulation 1993 g 4 Private Employment Agents Act 2005 d 30 Private Employment Agents (Code of Conduct) Regulation d 16 2005 Professional Standards Act 2004 b 49 Professional Standards (Australian Computer Society b 3 Professional Standards Scheme) Notice 2009 Professional Standards (Australian Property Institute b 3 Valuers Limited Scheme) Notice 2010 Professional Standards (CPA Australia Ltd (Queensland) b 3 Scheme) Notice 2008 Professional Standards (Institute of Chartered Accountants b 3 in Australia (Qld) Scheme) Notice 2008 Professional Standards (Institute of Engineers Australian b 3 (Queensland) Scheme) Notice 2008 Professional Standards (Law Society of South Australia b 3 Professional Standards Scheme) Notice 2011 Professional Standards (New South Wales Bar Association b 3 Scheme) Notice 2010 Professional Standards (Professional Surveyors’ b 3 Occupational Association Scheme) Notice 2010 Professional Standards (Queensland Law Society Scheme) b 3 Notice 2010 Professional Standards Regulation 2007 b 6 Professional Standards (South Australian Bar Association b 3 Inc Scheme) Notice 2011 Professional Standards (Victorian Bar Professional b 3 Standards Scheme) Notice 2010

74 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 b 496 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Auctioneering b 24 Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Commercial Agency b 23 Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Motor Dealing b 17 Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Property Developer b 13 Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Real Estate Agency b 23 Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Restricted Letting b 22 Agency Practice Code of Conduct) Regulation 2001 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Regulation 2001 b 72 Property Law Act 1974 h 269 Property Law Regulation 2003 h 5 Public Trustee Act 1978 i 139 Public Trustee Regulation 2001 i 12 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 i 212 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation i, g 24 2009 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 i, g 81 Queensland Congregational Union Act 1967 h 7 Queensland Temperance League Lands Act 1985 i 7 Recording of Evidence Act 1962 i, g 13 Recording of Evidence Regulation 2008 i, g 9 Referendums Act 1997 i 76 Regulatory Offences Act 1985 i 5 Relationships Act 2007 h 20 Relationships Regulation 2012 h 5 Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 f 84 Retail Shop Leases Regulation 2006 f 26 Returned & Services League of Australia of Australia i, h 13 (Queensland Branch) Act 1956 Returned Servicemen’s Badges Act 1956 i, h 6 Right to Information Act 2009 i 176 Right to Information Regulation 2009 i 11 Roman Catholic Church (Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of h 15 the Diocese of Cairns) Lands Vesting Act 1945 Roman Catholic Church (Incorporation of Church Entities) Act h 25 1994 Roman Catholic Church Lands Act 1985 h, c 19

75 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Roman Catholic Church (Northern Lands) Vesting Act 1941 h 26 Roman Catholic Relief Act 1830 h 3 Safety in Recreational Water Activities Act 2011 h 43 Safety in Recreational Water Activities (Codes of Practice) h 7 Notice 2011 Safety in Recreational Water Activities Regulation 2011 h 18 Sale of Goods Act 1896 e 32 Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention) Act 1986 e 40 Salvation Army (Queensland) Property Trust Act 1930 h 19 Scout Association of Australia Queensland Branch Act 1975 i 6 Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1996 i 10 Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003 b 72 Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Regulation 2004 b 9 Securities Industry (Application of Laws) Act 1981 f 51 Security Providers Act 1993 b 69 Security Providers (Crowd Controller Code of Practice) b 8 Regulation 2008 Security Providers Regulation 2008 b 39 Security Providers (Security Firm Code of Practice) b 6 Regulation 2008 Security Providers (Security Officer – Licensed Premises – b 7 Code of Practice) Regulation 2008 Solicitor-General Act 1985 i 12 Standard Time Act 1894 h 4 Status of Children Act 1978 h 31 Status of Children Regulation 2002 g 12 Storage Liens Act 1973 f 12 Storage Liens Regulation 2008 f 5 Succession Act 1981 h 89 Supreme Court Act 1995 g, i 159 Supreme Court Regulation 2008 g 6 Supreme Court Library Act 1968 i 13 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 i, g 87 Criminal Practice (Fees) Regulation 2010 g 4 Criminal Practice Rules 1999 g 207 General (Appeals Against Decisions of the Mental Health g 9 Tribunal) Rules 1986 Supreme Court (Administration) Rules 2004 g 91 Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2009 g 33 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 g 656

76 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Surrogacy Act 2010 h 46 TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Act 1999 f 19 Telecommunications Interception Act 2009 g 25 Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2002 i 28 Tourism Services Act 2003 b 75 Tourism Services (Code of Conduct for Inbound Tour b 11 Operators) Regulation 2003 Tourism Services Regulation 2003 b 5 Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 b 44 Trading (Allowable Hours) Regulation 2004 d 4 Travel Agents Act 1988 b 48 Travel Agents Regulation 1998 b 17 Trust Accounts Act 1973 f 49 Trust Accounts Regulation 1999 f 30 Trustee Companies Act 1968 f 47 Trusts Act 1973 f 104 United Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of i 14 Queensland Trustees Act 1942 Uniting Church in Australia Act 1977 h 34 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 g 14 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 h 180 Wagering Act 1998 b 209 Wagering Regulation 1999 b 35 Wesleyan Methodist Trust Property Act 1853 c 3 Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and Baptists Churches Act h 5 1838 Wine Industry Act 1994 f 47 Wine Industry Regulation 2009 f 16 Witness Protection Act 2000 g 47 Witness Protection Regulation 2011 g 5 Workers’ Accommodation Act 1952 d 25 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 d 471 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation d 331 2003 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 d 345 Worker Health and Safety (Codes of Practice) Notice 2011 d 12 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 d 709 Young Offenders (Interstate Transfer) Act 1987 g 15 Youth Justice Act 1992 g 249 Youth Justice Regulation 2003 g 36

77 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Total (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) 15248 5705 Minister for Transport and Main Roads Adult Proof of Age Card Act 2008 h 34 Adult Proof of Age Card Regulation 2010 h 6 Air Navigation Act 1937 h 12 Australian Shipping Commission Authorization Act 1977 i 6 Brisbane River Tidal Lands Improvement Act 1927 c 6 Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1964 b 8 Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 e 14 Maritime Queensland Safety Regulation 2002 e 3 State Transport Act 1938 e 4 State Transport (People Movers) Act 1989 e 25 Tow Truck Act 1973 f 53 Tow Truck Regulation 2009 f 48 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 e 647 Transport Infrastructure (Busway) Regulation 2002 e 11 Transport Infrastructure (Dangerous Goods by Rail) e 124 Regulation 2008 Transport Infrastructure (Gold Coast Waterways) c 22 Management Plan 2000 Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 2005 a, e 26 Transport Infrastructure (Public Marine Facilities) c 89 Regulation 2011 Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Regulation 2006 a, e 23 Transport Infrastructure (State-controlled Roads) e 12 Regulation 2006 Transport Infrastructure (Sunshine Coast Waterways) c 22 Management Plan 2000 Transport Infrastructure (Yeppoon Waterways) c 5 Management Plan 2000 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 c 135 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Regulation 2008 c 143 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 e 187 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Accreditation as b 12 Ship Designer, Ship Builder or Marine Surveyor) Standard 2006 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Bareboat Ships) e 17 Standard 2007 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Commercial Ships e 7 and Fishing Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Standard 2006

78 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Designing and b 23 Building Commercial Ships and Fishing Ships) Standard 2006 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Examining and b 8 Training Program Approvals (Commercial Ships and Fishing Ships)) Standard 2007 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Examining and b 10 Training Program Approvals (Recreational Ships and Personal Watercraft)) Standard 2005 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Hire and Drive b 19 Ships) Standard 2007 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Parasailing) e 19 Standard 2007 Transport Operations (Marine Safety – Recreational Ships e 13 Miscellaneous Equipment) Standard 2006 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 e 306 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 e 305 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation e, b 179 2005 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard e, b 64 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 e 550 Traffic Regulation 1962 e 101 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – b, e 127 Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – e 160 Dangerous Goods) Regulation 2008 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver b, e 208 Licensing) Regulation 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Fatigue e 234 Management) Regulation 2008 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Mass, e 112 Dimensions and Loading) Regulation 2005 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road e 382 Rules) Regulation 2009 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle e 174 Registration) Regulation 2010 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle e 149 Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010 Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008 e, i 34 Translink Operations (Translink Transit Authority) e, i 13 Regulation 2008 Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 e 44 Transport Planning and Coordination Regulation 2005 e 15 Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 e 254

79 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Transport (Rail Safety) Regulation 2010 e 88 Transport (South Bank Corporation Area Land) Act 1999 e 13 Transport Security (Counter-Terrorism) Act 2008 e 43 Total (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) 2374 2974 Minister for Housing and Public Works Architects Act 2002 b 91 Architects Regulation 2003 b 11 Building Act 1975 c 376 Building Fire Safety Regulation 2008 e, c 73 Building Regulation 2006 c 81 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 c 71 Building and Construction Industry Payments Regulation c 6 2004 Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 c 79 Domestic Building Contracts Regulation 2010 c 5 Housing Act 2003 h, c 85 Housing Regulation 2003 h, c 52 Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957 c 32 Housing (Freeholding of Land) Regulation 2006 c 4 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Act 2006 h, c 28 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 h 115 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Regulation 2003 h, c 3 Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 b 142 Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003 b 17 Standard Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003 b 70 Professional Engineers Act 2002 b 111 Professional Engineers Regulation 2003 b 12 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 c 244 Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003 c 227 Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002 b 127 Residential Services (Accreditation) Regulation 2002 b 14 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 b 356 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation b 135 Regulation 2009 Retirement Villages Act 1999 h 140 Retirement Villages Regulation 2010 h, b 6 State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983 i 27

80 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

State Buildings Protective Security Regulation 2008 i 9 Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 f 28 Total Housing and Public Works 2052 680 Minister for Police and Community Safety Ambulance Service Act 1991 h 106 Ambulance Service Regulation 2003 h 8 Australian Crime Commission (Queensland) Act 2003 g 55 Australian Crime Commission (Queensland) Regulation g 5 2004 Child Protection (Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2008 g 53 Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 g 77 Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Regulation 2004 g 11 Corrective Services Act 2006 h 377 Corrective Services Regulation 2006 h 36 Disaster Management Act 2003 h 112 Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 h 179 Building Fire Safety Regulation 20086 Fire and Rescue Service Regulation 2011 h 34 Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1984 g 9 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 g 732 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 g, i 76 Police Service Administration Act 1990 g 139 Police Service Administration Regulation 1990 g, i 33 Police Service Administration (Review of Decisions) g, i 9 Regulation 1990 Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 g, i 8 Police Service (Ranks) Regulation 1991 g, i 5 Prostitution Act 1999 f, h 138 Prostitution Regulation 2000 f, h 20 Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 e, h 58 Queensland Police Welfare Club Act 1970 h 6 Summary Offences Act 2005 g 44 Summary Offences Regulation 2006 g 13 Weapons Act 1990 g 188 Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 g 10 Weapons Regulation 1996 g 111

6 See under Building Act 1975 for page count.

81 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Total (Minister for Police and Community Safety) 2273 452 Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Queensland) Act 1994 e 23 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 e 41 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Regulation e 26 1998 Agricultural College Act 2005 h 45 Agricultural Standards Act 1994 e 40 Agricultural Standards Regulation 1997 e 54 Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 e, h 132 Animal Care and Protection Regulation 2002 e 45 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 h 144 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Regulation 2009 e 33 Apiaries Act 1982 h 34 Apiaries Regulation 1998 c 16 Biological Control Act 1987 e 43 Brands Act 1915 h 45 Brands Regulation 1998 h 15 Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988 b 60 Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control e 49 Regulation 1999 Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1976 f 16 Diseases in Timber Act 1975 c 9 Diseases in Timber Regulation 1997 e 4 Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 e 54 Exotic Diseases in Animals Regulation 1998 e 12 Exotic Diseases in Animals (Avian Paramyxovirus) Notice e 4 2011 Fisheries Act 1994 c 172 Fisheries (Asian Bag Mussel) Disease Declaration 2007 c 3 Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003 c 59 Fisheries (East Coast Trawl) Management Plan 2010 c 179 Fisheries Regulation 2008 c 614 Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 e 98 Food Production (Safety) Regulation 2002 e 146 Forestry Act 1959 c 214 Forestry Regulation 1998 c 43

82 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Forestry (State Forests) Regulation 1987 c 20 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 c 189 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Management) Regulation c 38 2003 Plant Protection Act 1989 c 80 Plant Protection (Approved Sugarcane Varieties) c 19 Declaration 2003 Plant Protection Regulation 2002 c 155 Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 h 30 Rural and Regional Adjustment Regulation 2011 h 172 Stock Act 1915 f 92 Stock (Cattle Tick) Notice 2005 f 42 Stock Identification Regulation 2005 f 75 Stock Regulation 1988 f 85 Sugar Industry Act 1999 f 34 Sugar Industry Regulation 2010 f 6 Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 c 71 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 b 58 Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2002 b 21 Total (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 1724 1935 Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act 2007 c 23 Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 c 126 Coastal Protection and Management Regulation 2003 c 58 Currumbin Bird Sanctuary Act 1976 c 10 Environmental Protection Act 1994 c 670 Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 c 12 Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 c 11 Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 c 232 Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation c 106 2000 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 c 38 Gurulmundi Secure Landfill Agreement Act 1992 c 21 National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 c 81 National Trust of Queensland Act 1963 h 24 Nature Conservation Act 1992 c 193 Nature Conservation (Administration) Regulation 2006 c 167

83 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Nature Conservation (Dugong) Conservation Plan 1999 c 6 Nature Conservation (Estuarine Crocodile) Conservation c 31 Plan 2007 Nature Conservation (Forest Reserves) Regulation 2000 c 14 Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 c 22 Nature Conservation (Macropod) Conservation Plan 2005 c 71 Nature Conservation (Macropod Harvest Period 2012) c 11 Notice 2011 Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) c 143 Regulation 2006 Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulation 1994 c 137 Nature Conservation (Protected Plants) Conservation Plan c 51 2000 Nature Conservation (Protected Plants Harvest Period) c 8 Notice 2012 Nature Conservation (Whales and Dolphins) Conservation c 14 Plan 1997 Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation c 253 2006 Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 c 85 Newstead House Trust Act 1939 h 10 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 h 123 Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003 h 11 Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 h, c 272 Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation 2011 c 25 Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act c 92 1993 Wet Tropics Management Plan 1998 c 56 Wild Rivers Act 2005 c 57 Wild Rivers Regulation 2007 c 3 Total (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) 1702 1565 Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Aboriginal Land Act 1991 h 201 Aboriginal Land Regulation 2011 c 35 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act 1985 h 25 Acquisition of Land Act 1967 c 62 Acquisition of Land Regulation 2003 c 3 Allan and Stark Burnett Lane Subway Authorisation Act 1926 h 14 Aurukun and Mornington Shire Leases Act 1978 c 27

84 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Regulation 2001 c 5 Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 h 192 Building Units and Group Titles Regulation 2008 c 28 Clean Coal Technology Special Agreement Act 2007 h, c 26 Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers’ Superannuation Act 1989 d 8 Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 e 185 Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 d, e 273 Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty. Limited Agreement f 87 Act 1957 Explosives Act 1999 h, e 85 Explosives Regulation 2003 e, h 135 Foreign Governments (Titles to Land) Act 1948 i, c 6 Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988 c 45 Foreign Ownership of Land Register Regulation 2003 c 4 Fossicking Act 1994 c 65 Fossicking Regulation 2009 c 28 Geothermal Energy Act 2010 c 257 Geothermal Energy Regulation 2012 c 78 Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009 c 277 Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulation 2010 c 41 Ipswich Trades Hall Act 1986 h 11 Lake Eyre Basin Agreement Act 2001 c 38 Land Act 1994 c 467 Land Regulation 2009 c 100 Land Title Act 1994 c 160 Land Title Regulation 2005 c 9 Land Valuation Act 2010 c 176 Valuation of Land Regulation 2003 b 7 Mineral Resources Act 1989 c 729 Mineral Resources Regulation 2003 c 329 Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 e 157 Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Regulation 2001 d, e 113 Mount Isa Mines Limited Agreement Act 1985 c 56 Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 c 22

85 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

New South Wales- Queensland Border Rivers Act 1946 i 85 Offshore Minerals Act 1998 c 232 Petroleum Act 1923 c 273 Petroleum Regulation 2004 c 66 Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 c 720 Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation d, e 250 2004 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 c 249 Place Names Act 1994 h 12 Place Names Regulation 2005 c 3 Registration of Plans (H.S.P. (Nominees) Pty. Limited) Enabling c 14 Act 1984 Registration of Plans (Stage 2) (H.S.P. (Nominees) Pty. Limited) c 12 Enabling Act 1984 River Improvement Trust Act 1940 c 39 River Improvement Trust Regulation 1998 c 10 Soil Conservation Act 1986 c 29 Soil Conservation Regulation 1998 c 8 Soil Survey Act 1929 c 6 Starcke Pastoral Holdings Acquisition Act 1994 c 4 Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011 c 193 Strategic Cropping Land Regulation 2011 c 6 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 i 117 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Regulation 2004 i 27 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure (Survey Standards) b 4 Notice 2010 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure (Survey Standards – b 3 Requirements for Mining Tenures) Notice (No.1) 2011 Surveyors Act 2003 b 94 Surveyors Regulation 2004 b 9 Thiess Peabody Coal Pty. Ltd. Agreement Act 1962 f 65 Thiess Peabody Mitsui Coal Pty. Ltd. Agreements Act 1962 f 43 Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 c 137 Torres Strait Islander Land Regulation 2011 c 22 Valuers Registration Act 1992 b 45 Valuers Registration Regulation 2003 b 11

86 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Vegetation Management Act 1999 c 180 Vegetation Management Regulation 2000 c 169 Water Act 2000 c 731 Water (Market Rules) Notice 2008 c 4 Water Regulation 2002 c 221 Water Resource (Baffle Creek Basin) Plan 2010 c 51 Water Resource (Barron) Plan 2002 c 67 Water Resource (Border Rivers) Plan 2003 c 46 Water Resource (Boyne River Basin) Plan 2000 c 24 Water Resource (Burdekin Basin) Plan 2007 c 87 Water Resource (Burnett Basin) Plan 2000 c 75 Water Resource (Calliope River Basin) Plan 2006 c 20 Water Resource (Condamine and Balonne) Plan 2004 c 56 Water Resource (Cooper Creek) Plan 2011 c 49 Water Resource (Fitzroy Basin) Plan 2011 c 151 Water Resource (Georgina and Diamantina) Plan 2004 c 21 Water Resource (Gold Coast) Plan 2006 c 64 Water Resource (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006 c 41 Water Resource (Gulf) Plan 2007 c 82 Water Resource (Logan Basin) Plan 2007 c 70 Water Resource (Mary Basin) Plan 2006 c 86 Water Resource (Mitchell) Plan 2007 c 55 Water Resource (Moonie) Plan 2003 c 42 Water Resource (Moreton) Plan 2007 c 96 Water Resource (Pioneer Valley) Plan 2002 c 123 Water Resource (Warrego, Paroo, Bulloo and Nebine) Plan c 43 2003 Water Resource (Whitsunday) Plan 2010 c 76 Water (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2008 c 9 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Act 2006 h 6 Total (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) 6673 3426 Minister for Energy and Water Supply Clean Energy Act 2008 c 23 Electricity Act 1994 f, a 432

87 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Electricity Regulation 2006 a 168 Electricity-National Scheme (Queensland) Act 1997 f, a 196 Energy and Water Ombudsman Act 2006 i 71 Energy and Water Ombudsman Regulation 2007 i 4 Gas Supply Act 2003 f 200 Gas Supply Regulation 2007 a 29 Gladstone Power Station Agreement Act 1993 f 110 Gladstone Power Station Agreement Regulation 2004 a 16 Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 f 55 Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1909 f 147 National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008 f 14 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 h 17 South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail i 282 Restructuring) Act 2009 South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail i 3 Restructuring) Notice 2010 South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail i 16 Restructuring) Regulation 2010 South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail i 3 Restructuring – Retransfer Framework) Notice 2012 Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 e 48 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 e 359 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Regulation 2011 e, h 4 Total (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) 1954 243 Minister for Local Government City of Brisbane Act 2010 i 214 City of Brisbane (Beneficial Enterprises and Business i 110 Activities) Regulation 2010 City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) i 134 Regulation 2010 City of Brisbane (Operations) Regulation 2010 i 77 Local Government Act 2009 i 269 Local Government (Beneficial Enterprises and Business i 122 Activities) Regulation 2010 Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) i 144 Regulation 2010 Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 i 108 Local Government Electoral Act 2011 i 147

88 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Local Government Electoral Regulation 2012 i 3 Total (Minister for Local Government) 630 698 Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services Adoption Act 2009 h 234 Adoption Regulation 2009 h 15 Carers (Recognition) Act 2008 h 12 Child Protection Act 1999 g 315 Child Protection Regulation 2011 h 19 Child Protection (International Measures) Act 2003 g 61 Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian h 445 Act 2000 Commission for Children and Young People and Child h 15 Guardian Regulation 2011 Community Services Act 2007 h 74 Community Services Regulation 2008 h 8 Disability Services Act 2006 h 330 Disability Services Regulation 2006 h 37 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 h, g 86 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Regulation 2003 h 6 Family Services Act 1987 h 17 Forensic Disability Act 2011 h 99 Forensic Disability Regulation 2011 h 8 Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 h 72 Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Regulation 2009 h 9 Total (Minister for Communities, Child Safety and 1745 117 Disability Services) Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts Biodiscovery Act 2004 c 76 Gene Technology Act 2001 h 136 Gene Technology Regulation 2002 h 51 Libraries Act 1988 h 43 Public Records Act 2002 i 39 Public Records Regulation 2004 i 5 Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 h 40

89 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Queensland Museum Act 1970 h 40 Queensland Performing Arts Trust Act 1977 h 37 Queensland Theatre Company Act 1970 h 37 School of Arts (Winding Up and Transfer) Act 1960 h 7 Schools of Arts (Winding Up and Transfer) Act Amendment Act h 5 1981 Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project Agreement Act c 80 1998 Total (Minister for Science, Information Technology, 540 56 Innovation and the Arts) Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing Brisbane Forest Park Act 1977 c 55 Eagle Farm Racecourse Act 1998 c, h 5 Major Sports Facilities Act 2001 h 51 Major Sports Facilities Regulation 2002 h 11 Marine Parks Act 2004 c 119 Marine Parks (Declaration) Regulation 2006 c 110 Marine Parks (Great Barrier Reef Coast) Zoning Plan 2004 c 134 Marine Parks (Great Sandy) Zoning Plan 2006 c 87 Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 2008 c 228 Marine Parks Regulation 2006 c 135 Mt. Gravatt Showgrounds Act 1988 c, h 15 Mt. Gravatt Showgrounds By-Law 2001 c, h 12 North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011 c 16 Racing Act 2002 h, b 262 Racing Regulation 2003 b 12 Racing Venues Development Act 1982 h 14 Recreation Areas Management Act 2006 c 159 Recreation Areas Management Regulation 2007 c 53 Sports Anti-Doping Act 2003 h 7 Total (Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and 703 782 Racing) Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2011 h 22 Motor Racing Events Act 1990 h 42

90 Queensland Competition Authority Appendix B: Classification of Queensland Legislation by Broad Function

Number of Pages Acts and Subordinate Legislation Regulation Acts Subordinate Type1 Legislation

Motor Racing Events Regulation 2003 h 9 Tourism Queensland Act 1979 h 32 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Act 2001 b 14 Total (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business 110 9 and the Commonwealth Games) Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land h 72 and Other Matters) Act 1984 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities h 135 (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Regulation 2008 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 h 112 Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 h 106 Family Responsibilities Commission Regulation 2008 h 6 Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 h 115 Total (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 405 141 and Multicultural Affairs)

Total (All Ministerial Portfolios) 49945 21843

Total (All Acts and Subordinate Legislation) 71788

Sources: Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, Queensland Legislation, Acts, SL as in force, Website: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SL/Acts_SL.htm Administrative Arrangements Order (No.4) 2012 1: Regulation Type: (a) Economic regulation of infrastructure businesses or monopoly activity; (b) Professional and business licensing regulation; (c) Environmental, natural resource use and building regulation; (d) Workplace and labour regulation; (e) Health, safety, transport and consumer standards regulation; (f) Other regulation affecting the start up or efficient operation of a business or market; (g) Justice and policing regulation; (h) Other social regulation; and (i) Administration of government and parliament regulation and taxation regulation.

91 Queensland Competition Authority References

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), ABS publication 5220.0, Australian National Accounts: State Accounts.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2011), Submission to the Productivity Commission on the Annual Review of Regulatory Burden on Business, 29 July.

Australian Government (2010), Best Practice Regulation Handbook, June.

Australian Government Department of Finance and Regulation (2012), Business Cost Calculator, http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/bcc/index.html (accessed July 2012).

British Columbia Government (2012), BC’s Regulatory Reform Initiative, First Annual Report – 2011-2012.

Business Council of Australia (2011), Submission to Productivity Commission, November.

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland (2011), Blueprint for Fighting Queensland’s Over- Regulation: Update Paper.

Commonwealth Regulation Taskforce (2007), Rethinking Regulation: Report of the Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business, report to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, January.

Council of Australian Governments (2007), Best practice Regulation, October.

Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011), Estimating Compliance Costs: Guide for DERM Officers, August.

Healthy Waterways Limited (2011), Framework for the Integration of Flood and Stormwater Management into Open Space, August.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales (2006), Investigation into the burden of regulation in NSW and improving regulatory efficiency, October.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2012a), Measuring Regulatory Performance: A Practitioner’s Guide to Perception Surveys, Paris.

New South Wales Government (2012a), Premier's Memorandum M2012-02 Red tape reduction - new requirements, February.

New South Wales Government (2012b), Red tape reduction target: reforms delivered in 2011,

New South Wales Government (2011), Making it easy in NSW: Annual Update of Regulatory Reform.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2012b), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2010), Regulatory Policy and the Road to Sustainable Growth, Draft Report, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2008a), Regulatory Indicators Questionnaire, 27 May, Paris.

92 Queensland Competition Authority References

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2007), Cutting Red Tape: Comparing Administrative Burdens across Countries, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006a), Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance, Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006b), Cutting Red Tape: National Strategies for Administrative Simplification, Paris.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (2010), Business License Review (for Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance), January.

Productivity Commission (2012), Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: The Role of Local Government as Regulator, July.

Productivity Commission (2011), Identifying and Evaluating Regulatory Reforms, Canberra, December.

Productivity Commission (2010a), Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Occupational Health & Safety, March.

Productivity Commission (2010b) Report on the Contribution of the Not for profit Sector.

Productivity Commission (2009), Review of Regulatory Burden on the Upstream Petroleum (Oil and Gas) Sector, March.

Productivity Commission (2008), Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Quantity and Quality (November).

Productivity Commission (2007), Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation (February)

Productivity Commission (2005), Review of National Competition Policy Reforms, February.

Property Council of Australia (2012), Development Assessment Report Card 2012, March.

Queensland Government (2012a), Ministerial Charter Letter, Treasurer of Queensland, Minister for Trade (April)

Queensland Government (2012b), Six Month Action Plan: July-December 2012.

Queensland Government (2012c), First 100 Days: Final Report.

Queensland Treasury (undated), Regulatory Assessment Statement System Guidelines.

Standard Cost Model Network (2005), Delivering Reductions in Administrative Burdens: an Executive Summary of the SCM Method, October.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2011a), Strengthening Foundations for the Next Decade: An Inquiry into Victoria’s Regulatory Framework, Final Report, Melbourne, April.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2011b), Annual Report 2010-11.

Victoria Department of Treasury and Finance (2011c), Victorian Guide to Regulation, August.

93 Queensland Competition Authority References

Victoria Department of Treasury and Finance (2010a), Victorian Regulatory Change Measurement Manual, January.

Victoria Department of Treasury and Finance (2010b), Victorian Regulatory Change Measurement Manual Toolkit 1: Guide to Mapping, January.

Victoria Department of Treasury and Finance (2010c), Victorian Regulatory Change Measurement Manual Toolkit 2: Assessing and Calculating Costs, January.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2011a), Annual Report 2010-11.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2011b), Strengthening Foundations for the Next Decade: An Inquiry into Victoria’s regulatory framework, April.

Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission (2009a), Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Environmental Regulation.

Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission (2009b), A Sustainable Future for Victoria: Getting Environmental Regulation Right, July.

Victorian Government (2012), Budget Paper No. 2 Strategy and Outlook 2012-13

Winston, Clifford (1998), U.S. Industry Adjustment to Economic Deregulation, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer.

94