Skip to main content

Published Impact Analyses

Official website for Published Impact Analyses for decisions announced by the Australian Government, Ministerial Forums and National Standard Setting Bodies.

Aust Gov
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 28 June 2013, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released updated guidance on financial resource, corporate governance, and disclosure and dispute resolution requirements for investment platform operators. Platforms are typically used to facilitate the acquisition and holding of assets by enabling investors to bundle product features such as custody of assets, execution and consolidated reporting. Investor directed portfolio services (IDPSs) and IDPS-like schemes are types of platforms. ASIC has assessed that changes to the platforms sector since the introduction of the original guidance in 2000 has rendered aspects of this guidance no longer fit-for-purpose. Some of these industry changes have been in response to the Government’s Future of Financial Advice reforms.

Aust Gov
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 5 June 2013, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an update to its Regulatory Guide 134, Managed Investments: Constitutions. ASIC is required to register managed investment schemes that meet relevant requirements under the Corporations Act. This includes the requirement for the scheme to have a constitution that sets out some (or all) of the rights, duties and liabilities of the responsible entity in its operation of the scheme. Regulatory Guide 134 provides guidance on how ASIC assesses whether a scheme’s constitution meets these legislative requirements. Regulatory Guide 134 was last updated in 2000, and since then the managed investment industry has changed significantly.

Aust Gov
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 19 June 2013, the Minister for Resources and Energy announced that the Government had finalised the details on how to extend the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) program to major new developments and expansion projects. The EEO program requires large energy users to undertake energy savings audits. While it is not mandatory for the large energy users to accept the recommendations from an energy savings audit it is publicly reported. The changes will require large construction projects to undertake an energy savings audit at the design stage of the project. Single projects with an annual energy use of over 0.5 petajoules will be captured. This equates to projects with approximately $10-$20 million per annum in energy expenses.

Aust Gov
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 19 June 2013, the Minister for Resources and Energy announced that the Government would not proceed with extending the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) program to energy networks. The EEO program requires large energy users to undertake energy savings audits. While it is not mandatory for the large energy users to accept the recommendations from an energy savings audit it is publicly reported. Trials undertaken indicated that the costs of extending the EEO Program to energy networks significantly exceeded the benefits. The decision not to proceed with extending the EEO program to energy networks was informed by a Regulation Impact Statement that was prepared by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and assessed as adequate by the Office of Best Practice Regulation.

Aust Gov
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 26 June 2013, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released the new Prudential Standard APS 330 Public Disclosure. The prudential standard, which is legally binding, requires locally incorporated authorised deposit-taking institutions to publicly disclose information on their risk profile, risk management, capital adequacy, capital instruments and remuneration practices. Following the global financial crisis, concerns were raised regarding the transparency of regulatory capital (ie the capital an authorised deposit-taking institution is required to hold) and market discipline. Specifically, the following factors were identified as contributing to market uncertainty during the crisis and exacerbating a loss of market confidence in authorised deposit-taking institutions operating overseas:

Commonwealth-State
Other

On 14 June 2013, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (‘the Forum’) announced the implementation of a front-of-pack labelling system for Australia. The decision involved a number of proposals in relation to front-of-pack labelling, including the introduction of a ‘Health Star Rating’ system to be applied to foods as well as requiring nutrient information icons on foods. The implementation option chosen was a voluntary system. If, following evaluation after two years, a voluntary implementation is found to be unsuccessful a mandatory approach will be introduced. The Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) best practice regulation requirements apply to decisions by ministerial councils or other bodies where there is a reasonable expectation of widespread compliance.

Aust Gov
Department of Health
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 17 June 2013, the Department of Health and Ageing made regulations to adopt the Sunscreen Standard 2604:2012 for cosmetic sunscreen products. The change will be introduced with a five-year transition period, during which cosmetic sunscreen products can conform to either the previous 1998 Sunscreen Standard or the revised 2012 Sunscreen Standard, and after which products must conform to 2012 Sunscreen Standard. The new Sunscreen Standard allows cosmetic sunscreen products to be labelled with a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) rating of up to SPF 50+ compared with the previous limit of SPF 30+. The new Sunscreen Standard also sets more stringent requirements for broad spectrum performance and makes these mandatory for skin care products.

Commonwealth-State
Impact Analysis (IA)

In June 2013, Safe Work Australia released a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) seeking stakeholder feedback on options for preventing and responding to workplace bullying. The consultation RIS suggests that there are still concerns with the way workplace bullying is dealt with by businesses. In particular, there are concerns with the quality of implementation of risk management processes by businesses, which vary depending on the jurisdiction, as well as concerns with the uptake of existing provisions. Therefore, the RIS proposes three options, apart from the status quo, which are:

Aust Gov, Commonwealth-State
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
Post Implementation Review (PIR)

On 12 May 2009, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced that a ‘job readiness test’ (to be known as the Job Ready Program) would be introduced to complement existing testing requirements for applicants under Australia’s skilled migration program. The introduction of the Job Ready Program was part of a suite of changes aimed at addressing issues such as the mismatch between the skills claimed by international students applying for permanent residency and the actual occupations they worked in. The Job Ready Program introduced a requirement that meant international students who completed a trade course must have undertaken 12 months paid employment in the same skill area as they studied before they could obtain permanent residency through Australia’s skilled migration intake.

Aust Gov
Department of Home Affairs
Impact Analysis (IA)

On 30 May 2013 the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced changes to regulate foreign workers who are employed in certain offshore resources activities.  The changes deem these workers to be in the migration zone. This has the effect of requiring them to hold a visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act). Prior to these changes non-citizens working on fixed platforms, such as oil rigs, or certain vessels which were attached to the seabed were required to hold a visa. However, non-citizens working on other vessels or floating facilities, which were not attached to the seabed, were not within the migration zone and therefore did not require a visa.  This was highlighted by a 2012 Federal Court decision which found that workers on board the Allseas Construction pipe-laying vessels did not require a visa.