Regulatory Performance Framework (RPF)

Reducing the burden of regulation and red tape is one of the Government’s top five priorities, with a stated reduction target of $1 billion per annum.

In October 2014, the Australian Government published the RPF to measure the performance of regulators. The RPF aims 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.

Read more on the Framework at Cutting Red Tape.

RPF KPI measures

NICNAS has undertaken a self-assessment of performance against the agreed evidence metrics, as required under the RPF.

For each of the KPIs listed below, NICNAS has detailed measures of good regulatory performance and identified possible outputs/evidence. These metrics create the foundation for the RPF reporting, the first of which was for the 2015-16 financial year .

  • 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

    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 (e.g. 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 are proportional to risk and regularly reassessed.

    Information on compliance strategy and enforcement framework published and updated as appropriate.

    Compliance actions (e.g. 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 performanceExamples 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 approaches based on risk and where possible take into account the circumstance and operational needs of the regulated entity.

    Information on compliance strategy and enforcement framework published and updated as appropriate.

  • 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:

    • Portfolio Budget Statement
    • Cost Recovery Implementation Statement
    • Annual Report
    • Regulatory Performance Framework KPI report
    • NICNAS Gazette
    • NICNAS Bulletin.

    2.  Industry workshops and training activities conducted.

    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 regulated entities regarding the operation of the regulatory framework.

    Performance data on standards of service in relation to responsiveness.

    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 burden and compliance costs where appropriate.

    Business improvement projects aimed at reducing regulatory costs Feedback from regulated entities on satisfaction with NICNAS’s consultative processes.

    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.

Reports - annual self-assessments of regulatory performance

Read the NICNAS RPF Self-assessment Report 2016-17 [PDF 165 KB]

Read the NICNAS RPF Self-assessment Report 2016-17 [WORD 141 KB]

Read the NICNAS RPF Self-assessment Report 2015-16 [PDF 178 KB]

Read the NICNAS RPF Self-assessment Report 2015-16 [WORD 122 KB]

Last update 17 September 2018