Regulatory Performance Framework KPI Measures
Regulator Performance Framework
In October 2014, the Australian Government published a framework to measure the
performance of regulators which strives to reduce the cost of unnecessary or
inefficient regulation imposed on industry and, by measuring and publicly reporting
on performance, will give confidence that regulators effectively and flexibly manage
risk.
The Framework establishes a common set of performance measures that will allow for
the comprehensive assessment of regulator performance and their engagement with
stakeholders. The Framework will allow regulators to report objectively on the
outcomes of their efforts to administer regulation fairly, effectively and efficiently. It
will also be a useful tool for regulators to identify opportunities for improvement and
better target their resources for greater impact. The Framework will assist in
highlighting where improvement of regulatory frameworks could reduce compliance
costs.
The Framework specifies outcomes-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that
articulate the Government's overarching expectations of regulator performance. For
each of the KPIs, we have drafted tailored measures of good regulatory performance
based on the high-level measures given in the Framework, and identified possible
outputs/evidence.
The new Framework will apply from 1 July 2015 — with the first assessment period
being the 2015-16 financial year. Further information on the Framework is available
at the Cutting Red Tape website.
Proposed NICNAS tailored measures and suggested output/evidence
against RFP KPIs
KPI 1 – Regulators do not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of
regulated entities
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Potential output/evidence
1. Demonstrated understanding of the
operating environment of regulated
entities
Evidence of engagement with industry
and industry associations, for example:




strategic consultative committee,
attendance at industry
meetings/forums
industry presentations to NICNAS
staff
industry survey to track regulatory
burden
Evidence would be quantitative where
possible (eg. number of meetings
held/attended)
2. Actions taken to minimise the
potential for unintended negative
impacts of regulatory activities on
regulated entities, through chemical
assessments being completed within
legislated timeframes
Percentage of new chemical assessments
completed in legislative timeframes
3. Continuous improvement strategies
implemented to reduce costs of
compliance for regulated entities
through effective contribution to
international harmonisation
Evidence of international collaboration,
for example:



bilateral arrangements with
Canada, ECHA, US EPA, NZ:
OECD activities (Task Force on
Hazard Assessment, Task Force
on Exposure Assessment,
Working Party on Manufactured
Nanomaterials, Clearing House on
New Chemicals).
APEC activities
Evidence would be quantitative where
possible (eg. how many bilateral
arrangements finalised, how many
assessments conducted under bilateral
arrangements)
KPI 2 – Communication with regulated entities is clear, targeted and
effective
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
1. Guidance material is kept up to date
and complies with government
accessibility guidelines
Guidance material reviewed including:


published guidelines
website content
Percentage of documents on NICNAS
website that comply with the Australian
Government accessibility requirements
Industry feedback on clarity and
consistency of guidance material
2. Targeted stakeholder consultation and
engagement with regulated entities, to
provide feedback as appropriate
Evidence of targeted consultation
undertaken and feedback considered (e.g.
on guidance material and chemical
assessments)
3. Regulatory decisions and advice are
provided in a timely manner, are
consistent and support predictable
outcomes.
Percentage of decisions made within
legislated timeframes
Number of matters referred to the AAT
for review, and outcome of review
Feedback from industry on timeliness and
consistency of decisions and advice
4. Industry understands reasons for
information requests
Information on why NICNAS may
request information in certain
circumstances published on website
Feedback from industry on understanding
of reasons for information requests
KPI 3 – Actions undertaken by regulators are proportionate to the
regulatory risk being managed
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
1. Assessment effort is proportionate to
the risk of the chemical
Information on risk-based assessment
approach documented and published
Chemicals that present lower risk are
subject to lower regulatory burden
2. Compliance and enforcement actions
Information on compliance strategy and
Measures of good regulatory
performance
are proportional to risk and regularly
reassessed
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
enforcement framework published and
updated as appropriate
Compliance actions (eg. monitoring,
compliance and enforcement actions) are
targeted to areas of greatest risk
KPI 4 – Compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and
coordinated
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
1. Regulated entities’ feedback obtained
on compliance approach
Regulated entities consulted on
compliance and monitoring programme
2. Coordinated programmes and shared
information with other regulatory
agencies
Evidence of coordinated programmes and
information sharing with other
Commonwealth and state and territory
agencies, e.g. Customs, TGA, Dept. of
the Environment, ACCC
3. Requests for information from
industry are made only when
necessary. Information shared
internally where appropriate.
Need for information can be clearly
demonstrated
Evidence of use of information received
Evidence of internally coordinated
compliance activities
4. Monitoring and inspection
Information on compliance strategy and
approaches based on risk and where
enforcement framework published and
possible take into account the
updated as appropriate
circumstance and operational needs of
the regulated entity
KPI 5 – Regulators are open and transparent in their dealings with
regulated entities
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
1. Regulatory activities are reported
appropriately
Information on activities published
through:






2. Industry workshops and training
activities conducted
Portfolio Budget Statement
Cost Recovery Implementation
Statement
Annual Report
Regulatory Performance
Framework KPI report
NICNAS Gazette
NICNAS Bulletin
Number of industry workshops and
training activities held
Evidence that workshops and training
sessions are informative for regulated
entities
3. Open and responsive to requests from Performance data on standards of service
regulated entities regarding the
in relation to responsiveness
operation of the regulatory framework
Industry feedback on perceived openness
4. Risk based frameworks are published
and available in a format that is clear,
understandable and accessible
Refer KPI 3.1 and 3.2
Information on risk-based assessment
approach documented and published;
compliance strategy and enforcement
framework published and updated as
appropriate
KPI 6 – Regulators actively contribute to the continuous improvement of
regulatory frameworks
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
1. Cooperative and collaborative
relationships with regulated entities
established to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the regulatory
framework and to develop
mechanisms to reduce the regulatory
Business improvement projects aimed at
reducing regulatory costs
Feedback from regulated entities on
satisfaction with NICNAS’s consultative
processes
Measures of good regulatory
performance
Examples of output/activity-based
evidence
burden and compliance costs where
appropriate to do so
2. Participate in regulators’ forums
Percentage of attendance at regulator
forums:


Department of Health Regulators
Forum
Community of Practice for
Commonwealth Regulators.
3. Effective liaison with relevant policy
agencies
Evidence of interactions with policy
agencies
4. Effective engagement with risk
management agencies
Evidence of interactions with risk
management agencies