Submission Home Affairs - KPMG Impact analysis SOCI Act reforms

• In determining whether to exercise the power, the Minister must consider the public interest – for example, whether issuing the direction is in the interest of public health and safety and is proportionate to the risk of inaction. [...] The direction may be issued either where: • The Secretary or relevant Commonwealth regulator has formed a view that an entity’s RMP is seriously deficient, following consideration of the facts and the entity’s obligations under the SOCI Act and delegated legislation; and • The deficiency carries a material risk to the socioeconomic stability, defence, or national security of Australia, or where: •. [...] These include the following: • Before issuing a direction, the Secretary or relevant regulator must give the entity a written notice that states the intended decision to issue a direction, reasons for the direction and invite the entity to respond. [...] Where the gaps identified in the SOCI Act are not addressed, industry and the Australian economy (including individuals, communities, and the environment) may incur additional costs, dependent on the severity and frequency of the disruption. [...] Therefore, Option 3 likely presents less economy-wide benefits than Option 2.” Governance Institute makes the following comments on the impact analysis of OPTION 3: • Option 3 lacks the necessary detail of the proposed costs and benefits as to provide a useful comparison to Option 2 • Option 3 may be a viable alternative to the risk of increasing costs imposed on entities and the associated spillo.