Department of Sustainability and Environment Forests (Recreation) Regulations 2010 Regulatory Impact Statement This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Victorian Guide to Regulation incorporating Guidelines for the Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden. September 2009 Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, October 2009 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. ISBN 978-1-74242-205-3 (print) ISBN 978-1-74242-206-0 (online) For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186 Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication . 2 FORESTS (RECREATION) REGULATIONS 2010 REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 to facilitate public consultation on the proposed Forests (Recreation) Regulations 2010. In accordance with the Victorian Guide to Regulation , the Victorian Government seeks to ensure that proposed regulations are well-targeted, effective and appropriate, and impose the lowest possible burden on Victorian business and the community. The prime function of the RIS process is to help members of the public comment on proposed statutory rules before they have been finalised. Such public input can provide valuable information and perspectives, and thus improve the overall quality of the regulations. The proposed regulations remake the Forests (Recreation) Regulations 1999 and are being circulated to key stakeholders. Your feedback is sought. A copy of the proposed regulations is provided as an attachment to this RIS. Public comments and submissions are now invited on the proposed regulations. All submissions will be treated as public documents and will be made available to other parties upon request. Written comments and submissions should be forwarded by no later than 5:00pm, 15 February 2010 to: Ben Plowman Senior Policy Officer, Forests and Parks Division Department of Sustainability and Environment PO Box 500 EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 or email: [email protected] This Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment by Regulatory Impact Solutions Pty Ltd. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for an error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. 3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................6 1. WHAT IS THE ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED?.......................................................................................16 2. OBJECTIVES OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION........................................................................29 3. OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................35 3.1 REGULATORY AND NON -REGULATORY OPTIONS ...............................................................................35 3.2 GROUPS AFFECTED ..............................................................................................................................39 3.3 REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ...............................................................39 4. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE OPTIONS ........................................................................................42 4.1 BASE CASE ...........................................................................................................................................42 4.2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................43 4.3 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF OPTIONS .....................................................................................................45 4.A FEES ........................................................................................................................................................56 4.A.1 PRINCIPLES OF FEE SETTING ..........................................................................................................56 4.A.2 DISCUSSION OF COST -RECOVERY OPTIONS ...................................................................................56 4.A.3 SUMMARY OF MCA .........................................................................................................................59 4.A.4 CALCULATION OF THE PROPOSED FEES .........................................................................................60 5. ASSESSMENT OF COMPETITION IMPACTS....................................................................................62 6. THE PREFERRED OPTION....................................................................................................................64 6A. CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.....................................................................................68 7. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES .......................................................................69 7.1 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT .....................................................................................................69 7.2 PENALTIES ............................................................................................................................................70 7.3 IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................................................................................................70 8. EVALUATION STRATEGY ....................................................................................................................71 9. CONSULTATION......................................................................................................................................73 10. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................74 11. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................75 12. ATTACHMENTS...................................................................................................................................78 ATTACHMENT A – DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED STATUTORY RULE ....................................................................79 ATTACHMENT B – COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED REGULATION .....................................................91 ATTACHMENT C – FOREST PARKS AND RESERVES COVERED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ......................105 ATTACHMENT D – REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................124 ATTACHMENT E – COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PREFERRED OPTION ..............................................................125 ATTACHMENT F – SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIVE COMPLIANCE COSTS ...............................................................132 ATTACHMENT G – COSTS AND BENEFITS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................139 ATTACHMENT H – PROPOSED FEES FOR FOREST (R ECREATION ) REGULATIONS 2010.....................................142 ATTACHMENT I – STATEMENT OF NO MATERIAL IMPACT ................................................................................144 ATTACHMENT J – GROUPS OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED ...........................................................................145 4 ABBREVIATIONS DSE – Department of Sustainability and Environment MCA – Multi-criteria Analysis NCC – National Competition Council NCP – National Competition Policy PV – Net Present Value Premier’s Guidelines – Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 Guidelines RIS – Regulatory Impact Statement ‘the Act’ – Forests Act 1958 ‘the current Regulations’ – Forests (Murrindindi Scenic Reserve) Regulations 1999, Forests (Steavenson Falls Scenic Reserve), Regulations 1999, Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 2003, Forests (Thomson River Forest Reserve) Regulations 2005 ‘the proposed regulations’ – Forests (Recreation) Regulations 2010 VEAC – Victorian Environmental Assessment Council VCEC – Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission VPS – Victorian Public Service 5 Regulatory Impact Statement – Forests (Recreation) Regulations 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of a Regulatory Impact Statement In Victoria the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires that new or remade regulatory proposals that impose an ‘appreciable economic or social burden on a sector of the public’ be formally assessed in a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) to ensure that the costs of a regulatory proposal are outweighed by the benefits,