Australia has many regulatory agencies performing important work, including, by familiar acronym, ASIC, AMSA, ACCC, TGA, CASA, ACMA, plus regulatory areas within departments, and many more in state and territory governments. Often derided by the term ‘red tape’, designing, managing and enforcing regulations helps to keep us safe, build trust and confidence, ad operate with integrity, resilience, and transparency.

The APS Job Family Framework lists six Compliance and Regulation options covering roles in enforcement, inspection, investigation, and regulation/compliance. Regulatory work requires skills in:

• Risk assessment.
• Attention to detail.
• Analysis of information to reach evidence-based conclusions.
• Project management.
• Working with a multi-disciplinary team.
• Emotional intelligence (self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy).
• Building productive relationships across agencies, jurisdictions, industry, community stakeholders, international regulatory bodies.
• Building collaborative and long-term partnerships.
• Influencing and negotiating.
• Solving complex problems.
• Writing clearly and persuasively.

Regulatory roles may require knowledge of:

• The relevant laws, regulations, procedures, emerging issues.
• Complaints handling.
• Quality assurance.
• Law enforcement.

Four reports can help applicants understand the context of, and issues associated with, regulation, as well as inform their applications.

Report 512: Report of the inquiry into the administration of Commonwealth regulations

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiring into the administration of Commonwealth regulations examined how Commonwealth entities assess compliance risk, inform compliance and enforcement strategies, and identify and address incidences of non-compliance with rules and regulations. Based on five Auditor-General reports, the inquiry assessed performance and evaluation frameworks for compliance with Commonwealth regulations.

Report 512 (March 2025) explains that regulation exists because ‘governments identify a problem that requires an intervention to minimise, mitigate or eliminate some kind of harm. It can be defined as ‘any rule endorsed by government where there is an expectation of compliance’.

The report examines four areas – governance, practice, performance and policy guidance – and offers nine recommendations.

The Chair’s Forward states: ‘What the Committee found was diverse—some entities were failing to effectively regulate at all, or their regulation was only partially effective. Even where entities were found to be largely effective, there were gaps and inconsistencies across various areas that go to the effectiveness of the administration of regulation.’

It also states that: ‘Finance has not been able to satisfy the Committee that its policy advice is actually fit-for-purpose in the light of the shortcomings in performance consistently uncovered by the Australian National Audit Office’ and makes recommendations to improve regulatory effectiveness.

To understand how regulation ‘works’ and regulatory issues, this report is worth reading, particularly the sections on:

• regulatory practice and governance: (how entities collect, use and manage data; the extent to which risk-based assessments of compliance are undertaken; the nature and extent of policies, procedures and plans for compliance management; and the existence of ministerial statements of expectations and regulator statements of intent).
• analysis of ANAO reports.
• policy guidance, particularly the lead role of the Department of Finance and the two documents they produce: the Regulatory Policy, Practice & Performance Framework (Framework), and Resource Management Guide 128: Regulator performance (RMG
• 128).

Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025

The Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025 is the OECD’s flagship publication on rulemaking, regulatory delivery, and review. The report is structured around four topics:

• Regulating for people.
• Regulating for the planet.
• Regulating for the future.
• Regulating for effectiveness.

Given regulatory roles include requirements for social skills – communication, relationship building, consultation, collaboration, emotional intelligence, teamwork, influencing and negotiating – this report is worth reading for its discussion of stakeholder engagement.

OECD Members have ‘made good progress in ensuring meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly consultation through digital platforms, extending feedback periods, and enabling the public to provide evidence on both the anticipated and actual impacts of regulations’. However, ‘a lack of effective communication with stakeholders about how their contributions have influenced decisions is leaving stakeholders disillusioned and less inclined to participate in future consultations’.

To regulate better for people and tackle inequalities ‘governments must more systematically estimate how regulatory impacts are distributed across society and account for regulatory burdens’.

A first step to improved regulation of the planet is ‘engaging stakeholders to understand differentiated effects of the environmental risks and to overcome potential resistance to environmental policies and regulations’.

The report includes a brief profile of Australia with areas for improvement.

The Regulatory State: Faults, flaws and false assumptions

Written by James Shipton, Senior Fellow, Melbourne Law School, this policy brief (Feb. 2025)  suggests that regulatory failures (perceived or actual) ‘often result from chronic flaws in the design and structure of the regulatory system (not to mention the breach of law and community trust by those who broke the rules in the first place)’. We need to better understand the broader system of regulation, how their design, structural, and operational characteristics frequently malfunction.

The Regulatory State ‘identifies 12 systemic flaws and false assumptions that result in unreconcilable expectations for regulators and damage to their credibility’. There is some overlap with issues raised in Report 512, including:

• Regulatory systems (in their entirety) are rarely properly designed; and if they have been, the design quickly becomes out-dated
• Regulators very often lack precise and meaningful role clarity in their governing statutes (or foundational documents).
• Many regulators suffer from sub-optimal internal corporate governance structures and poor external accountability structures.

Governance in the Age of Generative AI

Regulatory role applications may ask for an awareness of, and/or the ability to anticipate, emerging issues. This is particularly relevant in relation to technology, and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The World Economic Forum’s White Paper Governance in the Age of Generative AI (October 2024) claims to equip ‘policymakers and regulators with implementable strategies for resilient generative AI governance contained within a 360-degree governance framework. The pillars of the comprehensive framework address regulatory gaps, stakeholder-specific governance challenges and the evolving demands of this rapidly advancing technology.’

While there is a certain obviousness about their 360-degree approach – Harness past, Build present, Plan future – it is a useful reminder of the scope of regulating in a changing environment. Key recommendations are:

• ‘Prior to developing new AI regulations or authorities, governments should assess existing regulations for tensions and gaps; clarify responsibility allocation through legal and regulatory precedents and supplement efforts where gaps are found; and evaluate existing regulatory authorities for capacity to tackle generative AI challenges.
• Governments must use a broader set of governance tools, beyond regulations, to address challenges unique to each stakeholder group; cultivate multi-stakeholder knowledge-sharing and encourage interdisciplinary thinking; and lead by example by adopting responsible AI practices.
• Governments need to develop national strategies that feature foresight mechanisms through upskilling government; horizon scanning of generative AI innovation and foreseeable risks; impact assessments and agile regulations; and international cooperation to align standards and risk taxonomies.’