Fee Structure
Other format
This information is also available in the following format:
- Cost Recovery Impact Statement
PDF [1mb]
May 2010
Fees Charged for the Management of Beef, Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Export Quota
- 1. Overview
- 2. Policy Review — Analysis of Activities
- 3. Design and Implementation
- 4. Ongoing Monitoring
- 5. Certification
- 6. Cost Recovery Links
1.Overview
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) is to demonstrate that a proposed change to existing cost recovery charges for the administration of Australia's European Union (EU) beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat tariff rate quotas and the United States of America (US) beef tariff rate quota is compliant with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.
The change involves an increase from 0.05 of a cent a kilogram to 0.2 of a cent a kilogram to quota holders, for the allocation and variation of quota, who export to countries that have quota conditions. The increase, required due to the exhaustion of a surplus of revenue collected prior to 2004, will ensure the fees continue to cover the costs to the government for managing the quota arrangements.
The request means materially amending regulations. The charge is collected by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Department) and there is no budget funding for this activity.
1.2 Background
The Department manages Australia's beef, sheepmeat, goatmeat and dairy export quota systems on a cost recovery basis.
Government made a decision in March 1997 to transfer the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation's (AMLC) regulatory authority concerning quota administration, amongst other things, to the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and that the costs of administering this authority be recovered from industry.
In 2000 an independent consultant recommended a cost recovery system that was acceptable to both the Department and the beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat industries. The cost recovery arrangements have been in place since January 2001 and draw revenue on the basis of cents per kilogram of quota entitlement allocated to, or used, by exporters.
In 2001, with industry agreement, the fees were set at 0.8 cents per kilogram. The rate was based on the Quota Unit receiving some funding from the Red Meat Advisory Council, the costs involved in managing three small quotas (EU beef and sheepmeat/goatmeat and US lamb) and estimates of the cost of replacing the aging computer system used to administer the quota. However, with the emergence of the large US beef quota in 2002 and the actual cost of replacing the computer system being lower than anticipated, a surplus of funds resulted.
In 2004 it was agreed that given the fees were received by the Department as unearned revenue, the Quota Unit surplus would be used to fund the ongoing management of the quotas until it was exhausted, offset by the continued application of a nominal fee to quota users. This, in effect, allowed excess funds, provided by the industry for quota management, to be returned to the industry through means of a very low nominal fee of 0.05 of a cent per kilogram. The Minister agreed to review the fee when the surplus had been exhausted.
The surplus is expected to be exhausted shortly. Industry has indicated that it continues to require the services of the Quota Unit and has formally agreed to the Department's proposal to increase the fee to 0.2 of a cent per kilogram, which is in line with the cost of managing the quotas without the over-collection drawdown subsidisation.
The fee is prescribed in regulations. Details of this can be found in section 3.2.
1.3 Australian Government Cost Recovery Policy
In December 2002 the Australian Government adopted a formal cost recovery policy to improve the consistency, transparency and accountability of its cost recovery arrangements and promote the efficient allocation of resources. The underlying principle of the policy is that entities should set charges to recover all the costs of products or services where it is efficient and effective to do so, where the beneficiaries are a narrow and identifiable group and where charging is consistent with Australian Government policy objectives. Cost recovery policy is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation and outlined in the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines (Cost Recovery Guidelines).
The policy applies to all Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies and to relevant Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) bodies that have been notified. In line with the policy, individual portfolio ministers are ultimately responsible for ensuring entities' implementation and compliance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.
The 2008 DAFF CRIS concluded that the Quota management unit complies with the Australian Government's cost recovery policy.
2. Policy Review — Analysis of Activities
Australia's beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat industries asked that the Commonwealth assume management of the export quota arrangements and agreed to the service being funded through set fees. This ensures that the greatest users of the quota incur a higher level of the cost, as a flat fee would prove prohibitive to small quota holders and a levy on the broader industry cannot be justified as the benefits would only flow to users of the quota service.
The management of the quotas is consistent with the Department's objective of guaranteed access to controlled markets as negotiated through the World Trade Organisation and Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The controlled markets are:
- the EU for high quality beef quota of 7,150 tonnes and 20,000 tonnes of grain fed beef and for sheepmeat and goatmeat quota of 18,848 tonnes annually.
- the US, which currently gives Australia quota access for beef of over 400,000 tonnes. The US beef quota increases at a set rate under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
The Department's Quota Administration and Statistics Unit (the Quota Unit) allocates quota entitlement, issues certificates, monitors and reports on the use of quotas and provides statistical reporting services to the industries. This service allows exporters to access the EU and US markets at reduced or zero tariff rates and provide real-time export statistics.
Regular monitoring of the Quota Unit's costs includes examining the effect on revenue due to changes to the total quota access, which can result in a reconsideration of the quota fee.
Policy approval for the Department to administer Australia's managed red meat export quotas on a cost recovery basis, is ultimately provided for in the Australian Meat and Live-stock (Quotas) Regulations 2000 and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Regulations 1998.
Description of Activities
These activities relate to the administration and on-going management of all the meat quotas and include:
- Creating and maintaining a statistical data base of Australia's total global red meat exports.
- Receiving and processing applications for annual allocations.
- Calculating initial allocations and advising recipients of allocations.
- Managing any returns of unwanted allocated quota.
- Invoicing applicants for allocated quota and first-come-first-service quota.
- Updating and maintaining data sources used in the allocation calculations.
- Maintaining exporter performance accounts.
- Issuing monthly performance reports to exporters.
- Issuing approval/certificates.
- Monitoring quota usage and publishing weekly web reports.
- Monitoring quota entitlement and performance transfers.
- Recalling and reallocating quota entitlements.
- Responding to queries from exporters on quota or export procedures.
- Assisting in the resolution of bilateral quota management issues in consultation with other Australian and foreign government agencies.
- Developing and maintaining IT systems.
The costs associated with the quota management administration are process-based, not task-based. For example, to produce a certificate (or many certificates), information for all meat shipments are downloaded from EXDOCS (the AQIS electronic documentation system); the data is cleansed and sorted; and the approvals, certificates, performance, records/transfer and statistical tables are generated as part of that day's processing.
Below is an example of numbers of activities undertaken and documents that are processed for all meat quotas in an example week during calendar year 2010:
Request for Permits processed: 2200
Approvals processed: 350
Certificates issued: 350
Entitlements transferred: 7
Performance transferred: 700
Stakeholders
The stakeholders are all potential red meat exporters. The stakeholders are aware that quota fees may change from time to time to cover the Quota Unit's costs and have been consulted via the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) in relation to this proposal. AMIC has formally accepted and supports the proposal.
The administration of the allocation of meat quotas is a service received by this particular group of stakeholders, which represents approximately 120 exporters.
Conclusion
The tasks undertaken by the Quota Unit to provide the service remain the same. The proposed increase is to an appropriate level of revenue, which will meet continued cost recovery requirements when subsidisation of the fee through the surplus is no longer available.
Out-of-quota shipments of tariff rate quota type products to the EU and US markets attract prohibitive tariffs and represent a far higher cost to exporters than the cost recovery fees imposed. The benefits of continued access to quota also provide applicants with commercial certainty and facilitate development of commercial contracts and forward planning by meat exporters.
The Australian Government will continue to seek the reduction or removal of barriers to trade. However, the need for government to be involved in administering the allocation of meat quotas will remain in the foreseeable future.
Quota allocation relates to the issuance of legally exclusive rights and privileges to sell/export a specified amount of a specified product. Quotas provide a limited number of commercial entities with exclusive access to tariff-free or tariff-reduced overseas markets for a specified amount of a specified product. Any commercial entity exporting product to the same market out-of-quota would be forced to pay the full tariff rate. The commercial benefit to quota holders can be described as the price premium that companies obtain by being able to access a particular market place at a low in-quota tariff while the price in the market is higher (quota rent). Others cannot free-ride on access obtained by exporters who obtain quota allocations.
Cost recovery continues to be an effective tool to administer quota management. The Australian Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines (p. 24) state that those in receipt of exclusive rights (quota entitlement in this case) should pay for the cost of administering the regulation.
3. Design and Implementation
3.1 Basis of Charging — Fee
Government and industry have agreed that the costs associated with the administration of the quota system should be recovered by means of a fee. As occurs at present those using the services of the Quota Unit should continue to be subject to cost recovery measures. Those affected by the proposal are the Department and meat exporters.
Explicit government regulation is already in place to apply a fee. Regulations made under the Australian Meat and Live stock (Quotas) Act 1990 and the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 prescribe the fee at 0.05 of a cent per kilogram of quota provided to eligible exporters. Any change to the prescribed fees will require amendment to the regulations.
The revised fee needs to be set at a level that ensures the costs of the Quota Unit are recovered. In establishing the fee level, it is assumed the current quota arrangements will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Access to the additional 20,000 tonnes of EU beef quota is a recent event. Potential revenue from usage of this quota will not be known until it has been in operation for at least 12 months. For 2009-10 usage is expected to be minimal. Beyond 2010-11, usage will depend on an entity's commercial arrangements with EU importers. As the European Commission and not Australia will be managing this particular quota, costs are expected to be minimal (mostly relating to the production of verification certificates). Costs will be borne by meat quota holders and users until a review into this arrangement is conducted in 2012.
The Department and industry are of the view that the cost recovery framework for providing Australian exporters with on-going access to the EU and US meat tariff rate quotas should be as fair and equitable as possible and that costs should be borne by the users of the quota service.
3.2 Legal Requirements for the Imposition of Charges
The Australian Meat and Live-stock (Quotas) Act 1990, paragraph 6(2)(a) provides the legal basis for prescribing a fee for granting quota entitlement and the Australian Meat and Live stock Industry Act 1997, paragraph 28(3)(b), provides the legal basis for prescribing a fee to vary quota. The Regulations under these Acts prescribe the actual fees associated with granting and varying a quota.
The Quota Unit's cost recovery arrangements are subject to:
- Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997
- Australian Meat and Live-stock (Quotas) Act 1990
- Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997
The amended fee regulation will provide a seamless transition between old and new fees and old and new quota periods. The next quota period begins on 1 July 2010 and quota certificates are issued accordingly to meet shipping deadlines.
3.3 Costs to be Included in Charges
The current cost recovery framework in the Quota Unit has been operating since 2001 and is required to recover direct and indirect costs. It has proven cost effective and reflects the cost of providing the service for all meat quotas. The meat exporting industry has indicated it would prefer a fee-for-service charge, which is based on the following items:
| Expense | What the cost represents and what is included in the cost |
Rationale for the inclusion of the cost: directly or indirectly attributable |
2009/10 projected annual cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee Expenses | 1.5 full-time equivalents and 1.5 part-time equivalents. This is made up of lx 75% of EL1; 1X75% APS 5; 1 x 33% APS4; 1x66% APS3 |
Direct/indirect | $207,000 |
| Consultancy | The Quota Unit use a reporting tool (CORVU) not used by anyone else in the Department. Consultants are required to provide technical assistance and maintenance for this reporting tool. |
Indirect | $2,000 |
| IT Communications & Office Equipment l |
Certificate transmissions, equipment leases for computers, printers, faxes, telephones, copiers, rent on servers, midrange systems and support, maintenance with ALADN |
Direct/indirect | $97,000 |
| Domestic Travel2 | Several meetings with AMIC every year. Location may not always be Canberra. |
indirect | $1,000 |
| Other Administration | Credit card charges, workers compensation, archives, etc. |
Direct | $3,000 |
| Special Category | Overheads, corporate services, security, etc. |
Indirect | $32,000 |
| Development & Depreciation3 |
IT enhancements and depreciation for the purpose designed IT equipment (SARA), which supports the data processing required to administer beef quotas |
Indirect | $100,000 |
| Total 2009-10 Costs | $442,000 |
1Includes the cost for infrastructure and support. This projection is based on the decreasing trend of actual costs of $222,895 in 2007/08 and $172,540 in 2008/09.
2Based on the average actual costs for the previous 2 years, which were $2613 in 2007/08 and $275 in 2008/09.
3It was agreed that depreciation applied over 5 years and the IT system would be fully depreciated by 2009-10.
This estimate is based on the average yearly usage of the Quota Unit's services. A. significant proportion of the costs are incurred regardless of the level of use of the quotas or the number of export certificates issued. As such the fee structure is not intended to recover specific costs associated with each individual's quota access, but to contribute towards the aggregate costs of the service, which is how the cost tables are provided. Costs are the same for each category of quota and regardless of the take up.
To minimise costs, the Department has sought efficiencies through introduction of updated electronic systems, which has meant fees have remained stable. However, the most significant costs are associated with IT and staffing. See table of draft tprolections below.
| Expense | 2010/11 projected annual cost |
2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee Expenses1 |
$215,280 | $223,891 | $232,847 | $242,161 | $251,847 |
| Consultanc 2 | $2,036 | $2,073 | $2,110 | $2,148 | $2,187 |
| IT Communications & Office Equipment3 |
$98,746 | $100,523 | $102,333 | $104,175 | $106,050 |
| DomesticTravel4 | $1,018 | $1,036 | $1,055 | $1,074 | $1,093 |
| Other Administration5 |
$3,054 | $3,109 | $3,165 | $3,222 | $3,280 |
| Special Category6 | $32,576 | $33,162 | $33,759 | $34,367 | $34,986 |
| Estimated IT software development Costs7 |
$100,000 | $92,000 | $84,000 | $76,000 | $68,000 |
| Total projected annual cost Estimated Revenue |
$452,710 |
$455,795 |
$459,269 |
$463,146 |
$467,442 |
1Staffing is projected to remain stable, although the Department's Collective Agreement indicates that employees will receive a salary increase of 8.2% to be introduced over the life of the two year Agreement. This has been averaged at 4.0% per annum. These same projections have been made past the life of the existing Collective Agreement.
2Required as the Quota Management Unit utilises a reporting tool (CORVU that is not used by anyone else in the Department. Consultants are required to provide technical assistance and maintenance for CORVU, when required. This cost is projected to remain stable, but is indexed At 1.8% as per current government arrangements.
3Iincludes the cost for infrastructure and support, including paying rent on servers, midrange systems support etc. This expense is projected to remain stable, as this is the projected minimum costs for these types of expenses, despite the previous downward trend. It is indexed at 1.8%
4Based on the average actual costs for the previous 2 years, which were $2613 in 2007/08 and $275 in 2008/09. This expense has been indexed at 1.8%.
5Projected to remain stable but has been indexed at 1.8%.
6Includes overheads, corporate services, security etc. Overheads are projected to remain stable, until the department finalises its new way of calculating overheads but it is indexed at 1.8%.
7The department is continuing to make new system enhancements to SARA in order to keep pace with new technology and upgrades to other systems. These include the electronic certification of US beef quota and-online access for quota holders. Changes to the AQIS ExDoC system are being planned, and as SARA downloads all export data from ExDocs, amendments to the existing interface are likely to be required. In addition electronic certification for other quotas is planned. These costs are estimates only based on previous experience with software development and it is estimated that these costs will reduce over the period of the CRIS, given that most of the major variations are already in place. It is unlikely that development costs will ever be $0.
3.4 Outline of Charging Structure
Costs are calculated using the estimates of the Quota Unit's total running costs for a year. These costs are apportioned equally across users of the beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat quotas based on the work undertaken by the Quota Unit in the previous year. The total revenue generated by the fee structure will be a function of the commercial attractiveness of the tariff rate quota markets. When the support of the reducing surplus is removed around June 2010, revenue will be more dependent on the uptake of quota and fluctuations in market conditions.
3.5 Summary of Charging Arrangements
The level of fees charged are based on expected access to the quotas and not on the volume of activity. The fee reflects the fact that administration costs continue to be incurred whether or not shipments take place, so fees are not refundable and provide security that some of the Department's costs in administering the quota system will be recovered even if quota usage falls due to changing market conditions.
The Department considers that the fee structure is an appropriate balance between the cost of providing the service and an individual entity's ability to pay based on the potential benefits they receive by using quota. Therefore, the fees represent an equitable framework for recovering costs involved in administering the meat quota system.
| 2008-09 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Past take up | Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Cost Recovered for Activity ($) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.05 | 3,575 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.05 | 9,393 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
398,214 tonnes | 55% | 0.05 | 110,415 |
| TOTAL | 123,383 | |||||
| 2009-10 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Past take up | Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Cost Recovered for Activity ($) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.05 | 3,575 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.05 | 9,393 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
403,214 tonnes | 65% | 0.05 | 131,323 |
| TOTAL | 144,291 | |||||
| 2010-11 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Expected take up |
Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Expected Cost Recovered for Activity ($) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.05* | 3,575 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 37,572 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
403,214 tonnes | 50% | 0.2 | 403,214 |
| TOTAL | 444,361 | |||||
*As quota fees had not been increased prior to start of 2010 EUHQB allocation year, new rates will not be brought into force until the 2011 EUHQB quota year.
| 2011-12 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Expected take up |
Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Expected Cost Recovered for Activity |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 14,300 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 37,572 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
408,214 tonnes | 50% | 0.2 | 408,214 |
| TOTAL | 460,086 | |||||
| 2012-13 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Expected take up |
Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Expected Cost Recovered for Activity |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 14,300 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 37,572 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
408,214 tonnes | 50% | 0.2 | 408,214 |
| TOTAL | 460,086 | |||||
| 2013-14 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Expected take up |
Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Expected Cost Recovered for Activity |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 14,300 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 37,572 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
413,214 tonnes | 50% | 0.2 | 413,214 |
| TOTAL | 465,086 | |||||
| 2014-15 Activity | Method of Recovery |
Volume of Quota | Expected take up |
Cost Recovery Price (c/kg of quota allocated) |
Total Expected Cost Recovered for Activity |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | EU High Quality Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
7,150 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 14,300 |
| 1.2 | EU Sheep and goat meat quota administration |
Fee for service |
18,786 tonnes | 100% | 0.2 | 37,572 |
| 1.3 | US Beef quota administration |
Fee for service |
413,214 tonnes | 50% | 0.2 | 413,214 |
| TOTAL | 465,086 | |||||
The revenue for the EU quotas is not expected to change significantly as they are small quotas and highly sought after. The amount of EU quota will only change if additional access is negotiated. Revenue for the US beef quota is dependent on market conditions and difficult to forecast. Australia's US beef quota will increase by 5000 tonnes every 2 years (Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annex 2B).
4. Ongoing Monitoring
4.1 Monitoring Mechanisms
The Quota Unit's monitoring arrangements include ongoing system monitoring of quota accounts to ensure transparency, appropriateness and analysis of actual usage against estimates.
Explicitly, these mechanims include:
- Production of an annual stakeholders report, which provides transparency regarding costs and provides industry with an opportunity to query costs;
- ongoing consulation that allows industry to provide regular feedback; and
- a weekly update of quota usage and statistics on the website.
The revenue generated is a function of demand and the fees will be increased or decreased accordingly. Current predictions anticipate a slight under collection in 2010 but these will balance out with slight over-collections forecast in some of the following years.
Below is a graph depicting how the quota fee could change depending on the forecast take-up of the quotas. For example, at present, take-up of quota is approximately 50 per cent, and the corresponding price per kilogram is 0.2 cents. In future, should the take-up of quotas increase, there is reason to believe that the price of the quota per kilogram should decrease by the corresponding amount, and vice-versa.
The Quota Unit will seek to adjust the fee amounts should there be an under or over collection greater than six months operating costs or if the costs of administration are not being recovered. The Department will consult with industry each March on the fee rate, using the previous financial year's stakeholder report and the most current available year-to-date figures as a basis for discussion. Any change in fees that is greater than the Consumer Price Index will trigger preparation of a revised CRIS.
4.2 Stakeholder Consultation
Industry consultation is on-going in relation to all aspects of the Quota Unit's activities. Consultation for this particular amendment has included several meetings with AMIC and a formal letter of support to increase the quota management fees in a phased manner was received in April 2010. It was agreed that the Department would meet with AMIC at least twice a year to discuss costs and other quota management issues. AMIC raised the issue of possible surplus funds collected through this increase. It was agreed that should there be a significant surplus of funds through this increase, these would be used to offset quota fees in future, as has happened previously. This would be undertaken in a timely manner.
The Minister is also kept up to date where relevant and is supplied with expenditure programs each year via the Budget estimates and related processes. An annual stakeholder report is produced, which details the administration, mechanics and costings involved in managing the quota arrangements.
4.3 Periodic Review
The Quota Unit reviews its cost recovery arrangements annually and its operational costs are reported to both Houses of Parliament in the Department's Annual Report, The Quota Unit's operations are subject to both internal and ANAO audit provisions. The period of this CRIS will be from 2010-11 to 2014-15. A revised CRIS will be prepared in the 2014-15 financial year for implementation on 1 July 2015.
5. Certification
I certify that this CRIS complies with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines
[Signed]
Conan O'Connell
Secretary
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Date: 3/7/10
6. Cost Recovery Links
- The Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines and accompanying Finance Circular can be found at:
http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost recovery.html - For proposals that involve regulations or amendment to regulation that affects business, a Regulation Impact Statement is required. Contact the Office of Best Practice Regulation for further information at:
http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/index.html.
25 Jul 2011