In this month’s Institute of Regulation podcast, Marcial Boo, Chair of the Institute of Regulation, speaks to Australian winners of awards for good regulation: Gerard Brody from the Essential Services Commission in Victoria and Atul Sharma from the Australian Environmental Protection Agency. Rebecca Billings, Chair of the National Regulators Community of Practice (NRCoP), introduces the awards and explains how NRCoP supports regulators across Australia and New Zealand in much the same way the IoR supports the regulatory profession in the UK. Gerard discusses how his regulator secured better energy deals for consumers through clear purpose, proactive engagement, and targeted enforcement. Atul explains how data‑driven approaches helped reduce illegal waste dumping through collaboration and practical guidance for businesses. The speakers highlight the importance of communication, stewardship, and designing regulatory systems that respond to real‑world harms. Looking ahead, they emphasise the need for agility, long‑term thinking, and learning across jurisdictions to support growth and share effective practice.

Keywords: regulatory excellence, consumer protection, data‑driven regulation, compliance and enforcement, regulatory stewardship

Are regulators lightning rods for blame? This month's podcast talks to Matthew Flinders, a professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, and former regulator CEO Martin Stanley about the way politicians sometimes deflect criticism by blaming regulators. They discuss how easy it is for regulators to be blamed, whether by politicians, the media, or those they regulate, and how difficult it can be for regulatory leaders to deal with blame, perhaps especially if the regulatory leader has come from outside the political world. The threat of blame can be pernicious and, at worst, influence regulatory decisions and compromise independence, as well as put off good people from working in regulation or taking up senior roles. The speakers on the podcast discuss solutions - including having good, trusting relationships with ministers and civil servants, as well as being able to tell a clear, persuasive narrative to the media, the public, and opposition politicians about the regulator's work. Support networks are important too, including those set up by the Institute of Regulation to help Chairs, CEOs and regulatory staff to navigate these tricky areas and share advice and good practice. Finally, the speakers advise that regulators sometimes need to stand their ground when others blame them wrongly. And that's why good relationships with Whitehall are necessary. Regulators may be able to stand their ground with Ministers in private. But it's never good for a regulator, if blamed by a politician, simply to blame them back in public. You can listen to the podcast here.

Keywords: Regulators, blame, accountability, regulatory leadership, public trust, support networks, Institute of Regulation, political deflection, regulation challenges

In this month's podcast, New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour MP talks to Institute of Regulation Chair Marcial Boo about regulatory reform in New Zealand, including their Regulatory Standards Act, just passed. David, who is also Minister for Regulation, says that regulation must maximise benefit and minimise cost. This includes the option not to regulate. He argues that regulation has often increased costs in response to infrequent risks: the fear of earthquakes increases burdens on property developers, for example. His new law sets a more consistent framework, so that new burdens are not imposed on the basis of emotion, but through a transparent methodology, so that the impact of new regulations is known. He recognises that some politicians find it hard to apply regulatory discipline in practice when under pressure to 'do something'. So, he will incentivise good behaviour through a regulatory standards board to assess new regulations and make sure that additional checks and balances are put in place through regulation, actually bringing benefits. He says that the regulatory profession needs to look at itself in the mirror too, to assess whether the benefit of their work outweighs the cost imposed. David also discusses international collaboration and how countries can benefit by trusting the regulatory scrutiny and assurance of other jurisdictions to save time and money, although he accepts that taking rules from others can reduce the scope for domestic innovation. David ends by advising UK policymakers to look carefully at the costs and benefits of each additional rule to assess whether regulatory accretion is really worthwhile.

Keywords: regulatory reform, cost-benefit analysis, risk management, transparency, international collaboration, improving regulatory discipline