While it was found that the regulatory burden imposed by the WELS Scheme on product registrants has reduced in recent years and is now broadly acceptable, there are opportunities to further reduce this burden. The time taken to register products is compounded by the need (for some registrants) to undertake two separate processes for products covered under two schemes. On this basis, pursuing the development of common portal with a unified registration process for products covered by one or more related schemes could reduce regulatory burden on industry, as well as administrative costs for government. While implementation of a common portal with a unified registration process would contribute much to reducing the regulatory burden on industry, it should also be noted that other modifications assessed also contribute to this including a more equitable cost-recovery target, more appropriate – compliance and enforcement arrangements, and measures that will reduce the overall cost-base, which lead to lower direct financial costs. A five year product registration cycle has merits based on potential benefits to industry and cost savings for government, but it may be impractical based on the: impact on industry of the of upfront registration fees required risk that registration fee income was not adequate, or WELS Scheme administration could not be sufficiently reduced to provide adequate confidence in its financial sustainability. However, further stabilisation of the WELS Scheme and firming of long-term data on product registration trends should further consideration of this aspect over coming years. On this basis, it is hoped that as the Scheme further matures and the series of modifications found beneficial by this Review are implemented, it will be possible to revisit the prospect of a five year registration cycle before or at the next independent review in 2020. Recommendations The Review makes recommendations focussed on securing current and future benefits while reducing financial costs and regulatory burden to industry and government. They are made cognisant of the fact that the WELS Scheme has recently undergone reform and change. Recommendation 1 The WELS Scheme should be retained including retaining unchanged: – current objects of the Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cwlth), and thus objectives of the WELS Scheme current of products covered by the WELS Scheme WELS Scheme as a discretely publically-visible consumer advisory scheme including external – public branding and marketing. Recommendation 2 The cost-recovery target should be changed to a 50:50 split between industry and all Australian governments with the proportional split between the Commonwealth Government and state and – territory governments remaining equal, at 25 per cent each.
While it was found that the regulatory burden imposed by the WELS Scheme on product registrants has reduced in recent years and is now broadly acceptable, there are opportunities to further reduce this burden. The time taken to register products is compounded by the need (for some registrants) to undertake two separate processes for products covered under two schemes. On this basis, pursuing the development of common portal with a unified registration process for products covered by one or more related schemes could reduce regulatory burden on industry, as well as administrative costs for government. While implementation of a common portal with a unified registration process would contribute much to reducing the regulatory burden on industry, it should also be noted that other modifications assessed also contribute to this – including a more equitable cost-recovery target, more appropriate compliance and enforcement arrangements, and measures that will reduce the overall cost-base, which lead to lower direct financial costs. A five year product registration cycle has merits based on potential benefits to industry and cost savings for government, but it may be impractical based on the: impact on industry of the of upfront registration fees required risk that registration fee income was not adequate, or WELS Scheme administration could not be sufficiently reduced to provide adequate confidence in its financial sustainability. However, further stabilisation of the WELS Scheme and firming of long-term data on product registration trends should further consideration of this aspect over coming years. On this basis, it is hoped that as the Scheme further matures and the series of modifications found beneficial by this Review are implemented, it will be possible to revisit the prospect of a five year registration cycle before or at the next independent review in 2020. Recommendations The Review makes recommendations focussed on securing current and future benefits while reducing financial costs and regulatory burden to industry and government. They are made cognisant of the fact that the WELS Scheme has recently undergone reform and change. Recommendation 1 The WELS Scheme should be retained – including retaining unchanged: current objects of the Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cwlth), and thus objectives of the WELS Scheme current of products covered by the WELS Scheme WELS Scheme as a discretely publically-visible consumer advisory scheme – including external public branding and marketing. Recommendation 2 The cost-recovery target should be changed to a 50:50 split between industry and all Australian governments – with the proportional split between the Commonwealth Government and state and territory governments remaining equal, at 25 per cent each.
2015-wels-scheme-review-final-report.docx