Appendix 6: Assessing the options

Your feedback will also help to improve the evidence base supporting the preferred options and final decisions by Government. Any views you have on whether the right problems have been identified, whether the options will deliver the reform’s objectives more effectively than the status quo, or whether alternative options should be considered are welcome.

Purpose of this Annex

The assessment and identification of preferred options will focus on whether the package of options will be more effective than the status quo. That is, how they operate as a coherent system, including how the urban options interact with the infrastructure options.

The assessment criteria below will form a key input into the regulatory impact assessment which will be carried out as part of the final decision-making process. These are set out here to help inform the nature of your submissions to the consultation process.

If Government decides to take forward any legislative changes, the assessment of options will be subject to the usual scrutiny through the Select Committee and legislative processes.

Assessment criteria

Cabinet has agreed the following criteria to assess the various options in the discussion document, and/or any alternatives identified through the consultation process.

1. Economic efficiency

1. Cost, including compliance. Is the nature and level of the costs imposed (direct, indirect, transactional) positive, neutral or negative?
2. Certainty. Does it provide certainty for investment decision-making (eg, roles, processes, anticipated outcomes)?
3. Competition impacts and property rights. Is the impact on competition, innovation, experimentation, enterprise and property rights positive, neutral or negative (eg, is it a barrier)?
4. Timeliness. Is the impact on timeliness (eg, processing and decision-making time frames) positive, neutral or negative?

2. Environmental

3. Equity

1. Māori. Is the opportunity for Māori participation positive, neutral or negative?
2. Equitable outcome. Where do the costs and benefits fall? Is the level of legal redress positive, neutral or negative?
3. Engagement and buy-in. Is the opportunity for engagement positive, neutral or negative?

4. Tools and methods

1. Minimum necessary. Is the intervention the minimum necessary to address the problem (ie, has the case for regulation been made and the full range of regulatory options been considered)? Is the level of decision-making commensurate with the scale of likely impacts and the degree of technical expertise?
2. Avoids/minimises duplication. Does it reduce duplication with the RMA and other related Acts?
3. Generic and simple approach. Is it simple, straightforward and easy to understand? Is it easy to apply (eg, for local authorities, applicants and practitioners)?
4. Flexible, adaptable and durable. Is it able to cope with diverse and changing circumstances without the need for regular revision (ie, does it include a strong element of ‘future proofing’)? Does it provide a long- versus short-term solution?
5. Practical. Does it work in practice, both individually or as part of a package or is it overly complex?