Table 3: Summary of the costs and benefits of the options Option Estimated Benefits in controlling key areas of risk Ranking Comments cost Improvement to the Addresses the limitations Scope of reviews better accountability of in the legislation identified reflect policy intent decision-making by the panel Option 1 Low Very low Very low Very low 3 Fails to address the risk factors Option 2 Low Medium Medium if issues in the Medium if issues in the 1 Proposed changes to the framework have framework around scope of framework are addressed the potential to mitigate against the risk the review and matters the of narrow interpretation of the legislation Tribunal can consider are and limitations in going beyond the addressed matter raised in the ground for review. Option 3 High High Low, given the risks Medium if issues in the 2 Introduces significant new risks associated with establishing framework are addressed associated with establishing a new This may a new review body. review body and there is insufficient ultimately be evidence to support change. There may This could rise to medium if approach SCER’s be additional costs to governments and that risk is mitigated and should the risk other stakeholders that have not been issues in the framework that the Tribunal quantified, depending on how the new around scope of the review cannot deliver the body is established. and matters the Tribunal can policy intention consider are addressed be realised, even Proposed changes to the framework have with substantive the potential to mitigate against the risk changes to the of narrow interpretation of the legislation existing and limitations in going beyond the frameworks matter raised in the ground for review.
Table 3: Summary of the costs and benefits of the options Option Estimated cost Benefits in controlling key areas of risk Ranking Comments Improvement to the accountability of decision-making Addresses the limitations in the legislation identified by the panel Scope of reviews better reflect policy intent Option 1 Low Very low Very low Very low 3 Fails to address the risk factors Option 2 Low Medium Medium if issues in the framework around scope of the review and matters the Tribunal can consider are addressed Medium if issues in the framework are addressed 1 Proposed changes to the framework have the potential to mitigate against the risk of narrow interpretation of the legislation and limitations in going beyond the matter raised in the ground for review. Option 3 High High Low, given the risks associated with establishing a new review body. This could rise to medium if that risk is mitigated and issues in the framework around scope of the review and matters the Tribunal can consider are addressed Medium if issues in the framework are addressed 2 This may ultimately be SCER’s approach should the risk that the Tribunal cannot deliver the policy intention be realised, even with substantive changes to the existing frameworks Introduces significant new risks associated with establishing a new review body and there is insufficient evidence to support change. There may be additional costs to governments and other stakeholders that have not been quantified, depending on how the new body is established. Proposed changes to the framework have the potential to mitigate against the risk of narrow interpretation of the legislation and limitations in going beyond the matter raised in the ground for review.