I orea te tuatara ka patu ki waho

4/9/2023

Here’s my analysis of regulatory reform and administrative burden, speaking from my public policy expertise:

The conversation about cutting “red tape” often misses the crucial distinction between necessary oversight and genuine administrative burden. Let’s look at what meaningful regulatory reform looks like, using the COVID-19 vaccination rollout as a telling case study.

The Te Puni Kōkiri evaluation provides a masterclass in intelligent regulatory design. What makes this example particularly instructive isn’t just what was achieved but how it was achieved. The officials didn’t simply slash requirements – they reimagined how services could be delivered while maintaining accountability.

Here’s what genuine burden reduction looks like in practice:

Consider the learning costs first. Traditional regulatory approaches often assume everyone has equal capacity to understand and implement new rules. But the vaccination program showed us something different: by funding providers who already understood their communities, they dramatically reduced the cognitive load on whānau. This wasn’t about cutting corners—it was about making the system work efficiently for its intended users.

The psychological burden is equally significant but often invisible in traditional cost-benefit analyses. When the vaccination program utilized trusted community providers, they weren’t just delivering a service but reducing the anxiety and stress that often accompanies interaction with government systems. This psychological aspect of regulatory burden has real economic and social costs that rarely appear in spreadsheets.

The compliance framework is particularly instructive. By collecting only necessary data and streamlining reporting requirements, officials demonstrated that accountability doesn’t have to mean overwhelming paperwork. They focused on meaningful metrics that demonstrated performance rather than creating busy work.

There’s a crucial lesson for those embarking on regulatory reform programs: effective reform isn’t about slash-and-burn approaches to regulations. It’s about understanding the full spectrum of costs – learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs – and designing systems that achieve public policy goals while minimizing these burdens.

Real regulatory reform requires nuance and careful consideration. It’s not enough to count the number of rules or measure direct compliance costs. We need to examine how regulations actually work in practice, who bears their burden, and whether they’re efficiently achieving their intended outcomes.

This brings us to a critical point about implementation: successful regulatory reform isn’t a one-time exercise. It requires ongoing evaluation and adjustment, constantly balancing the need for oversight with the practical realities of compliance. As we saw with the vaccination program, we can achieve better outcomes with less burden when this balance is struck correctly.

The whakataukī referenced reminds us that solutions come through persistence and creativity. In regulatory reform, this means moving beyond simplistic approaches to cutting red tape and instead focusing on smart, evidence-based redesign of our regulatory systems.