Wage Inspectorate
Victoria’s Robert Hortle on Leading with Fairness
How South Carolina Oversees 43 Licensing Boards and Commissions
Guest Contribution
Regulatory Diplomacy: The Practitioner’s Path to Agility and Foresight
Career Opportunity
Western Canadian Regulator Accepting Applications for Registrar
Over the past year, The Registrar has transformed from a primarily Canadian publication into an international platform for regulators around the world. This evolution reflects both our growing readership and the shared recognition that the challenges and opportunities of professional regulation transcend borders.
With this issue, I am pleased to introduce The Registrar Forum, a global community of practice where regulators share knowledge, exchange ideas, and engage in meaningful discussion on regulation.
In the past 12 months, I have had the privilege of traveling to meet with regulators, listen to their experiences, and learn from their approaches. While every jurisdiction upholds the same broad mandate to protect the public, the governance models, operational structures, and cultural nuances that shape regulation differ dramatically. That diversity is precisely why a forum like this matters. We may take different paths, but our goals are aligned, and our collective learning is richer when we connect and collaborate.
This latest issue of The Registrar reflects that global perspective. For the first time, our cover features an Australian regulatory executive, Robert Hortle, Commissioner of Victoria’s Wage Inspectorate, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the National Regulators Community of Practice (NRCoP) conference in Brisbane this August. Other regulatory thought leaders, Grant Pink and Rob Warner, share their insight on regulatory diplomacy, while Meredith Butler of South Carolina offers a glimpse into how her licensing body protects the state’s public by overseeing more than 40 professions.
All of us in the field of regulation share a common purpose. Many of us, myself included, are deeply passionate about our work and its impact. I hope this expanded, globally connected version of The Registrar helps you see regulation through new lenses, offering ideas and inspiration from peers around the world. Regulation is never one size fits all, but by spending a few minutes in someone else’s shoes, we can all strengthen how we serve and protect the public.
Enjoy.
Daniel Roukema CEO, MDR Strategy Group Editor-in-Chief, The Registrar
Journalists and Contributors
Meredith Buttler
Collette Deschenes
Melissa Peneycad
Grant Pink
Daniel Roukema
Rob Warner
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
MDR Strategy Group Ltd.
Unsplash
CLEAR | Nick Robins
IAMRA | Bryan Brophy, Gareth Chaney
NRCoP | Dr Sue Pillans, Create Engage
Graphic Design and Production
Sofia Brovko Caitlyn Gass
Managing Editor
Melissa Peneycad
The Registrar magazine is produced and published by MDR Strategy Group Ltd.
115-200 Waterfront Drive Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4A 4J4
Recap: CLEAR’s 2025 Annual Education Conference, Chicago, USA
Career Opportunity: Registrar, ASTTBC, British Columbia, Canada
Communications Corner: The Core of Effective Regulation Is Communication
Cover: Robert Hortle’s Leadership at Wage Inspectorate Victoria
Photo Recap: NRCoP 2025 National Conference, Brisbane, Australia
Guest editorial contributed by Meredith Buttler, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR)
Central to the mission of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR) is the pursuit of making South Carolina a safe place to work and live. Of its many divisions, the Division of Professional and Occupational Licensing (POL) is by far the largest, overseeing the administration of 43 licensing boards and commissions.
Each licensing board presents its own set of unique challenges and requirements. As a result, the boards are nestled within four divisions: Medical, Health and Wellness, Buildings and Environmental and Business. These divisions enable POL to focus on boards with similar needs while the directors for each division collaborate to establish a foundational, operational framework that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of each board. We keep our processes, procedures, and messaging consistent so navigating professional licensing is easier for licensees and the public.
South Carolina is one of the few states in which licensing boards fall under one agency. Taking full advantage of the umbrella structure, LLR seeks to bring about meaningful innovation to the regulated professions.
Essential to maintaining a license, many boards require the completion of continuing education (CE) hours for renewal of licensure. Due to LLR’s centralized structure, we are able to display CE compliance status within the licensee’s online renewal. Gone are the days of licensees finding out they are not compliant during a post-renewal compliance audit. This proactive notification approach provides the licensee with a measure of assurance that they are meeting requirements to properly renew their license.
For many, the application process is stressful as they attempt to submit various required documents without a complete understanding of the overall process. In listening to our applicants, POL is reviewing each board’s application process and honing in on how we can reduce the stress and anxiety associated with the it. One solution currently implemented is the use of automated notifications throughout the application process. These automated notifications, tied to key points in the process, are designed to provide applicants with the necessary knowledge to progress to the next step as quickly as possible. It is our goal to educate our applicants and licensees so that they have the tools they need to practice with confidence and within the bounds of the law.
At the heart of licensing law, public protection is about creating a calculated reduction of risk for the consumer. It is therefore paramount to LLR that we develop instruments to educate licensees and the public on what constitutes safe practice and keep them informed of legislative changes. For example, in June 2025, the South Carolina Real Estate Commission hosted a virtual office inspection workshop, during which the Chief Inspections Officer reviewed updated inspection forms and walked licensees through the revised inspection process. Meanwhile, numerous Commission staff members responded to questions posted in the webinar chat box. Over 600 licensees attended the webinar, and several hundred questions were asked throughout. The recorded webinar is posted to the Commission’s website as a resource for licensees, and the questions asked during the chat were compiled and used to update the existing frequently asked questions. While virtual webinars, such as the one for the Real Estate Commission, offer the ability to connect with licensees across the state simultaneously, LLR also recognizes the importance and effectiveness of localized, in-person education seminars.
To develop processes that enhance the efficiency for all boards, it is crucial to understand the demographics of its applicants and licensees. For many boards, POL recognizes a growing demographic of English-language learners. Thus, to enhance services to these potential licensees, a partnership with the South Carolina
Commission for Minority Affairs is being developed. The hope is to create a series of in-person events where POL staff work with on-site translators to educate applicants on licensure requirements, application processes and other necessary information. We firmly believe that we cannot adequately protect the public if our applicants and licensees do not fully understand the intricacies of licensing law.
In considering how best to serve the public and our licensees, LLR recognizes that this will be achieved by embracing advances in technology while maintaining a focus on the personal interactions that characterize effective customer service.
In today’s world of instant, customizable information, we recognize that professional and occupational licensing must also follow suit. We are currently working to reduce applicant anxiety and improve the user experience on all board and commission webpages. For example, we aim to develop interactive webpages that help applicants determine whether they are qualified to hold a license and, if so, provide clear, customized information about what they will need and what the application process entails.
While advances in technology use work to reduce application anxiety, POL recognizes the importance of human interaction. Whether technology savvy or not, a good human customer service experience can never be replaced. As with other government entities, funding and staffing are limited; however, this does not directly correlate with quality. To best serve the public, we are focusing internally on several projects aimed at renovating our processing systems to make them more intuitive for our processing teams. These renovations, coupled with targeted training, aim to enhance knowledge while creating a supportive and encouraging working environment, enabling our teams to provide the highest level of customer service possible.
In South Carolina, professional and occupational licensing is more than just a checklist of application items and rules to follow. Licensing is about helping individuals serve their communities safely and to their fullest potential.
Chicago, IL, USA
September 2025
The Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of BC (ASTTBC) regulates approximately 6,000 applied science and engineering technologists, technicians, and technical specialists across 18 disciplines and 10 specialties.
Established in 1958, ASTTBC protects the public and the environment by upholding a Code of Ethics and maintaining high standards of competency, accountability, and professional practice.
As the second-largest professional regulator under BC’s Professional Governance Act (PGA)— and with responsibilities under the International Credentials Recognition Act (ICRA)—ASTTBC enforces legislation and standards where necessary, while promoting collaboration with other regulators. By championing professionalism, innovation, and inclusion, ASTTBC helps build a safe and sustainable future for all British Columbians.
ASTTBC is seeking a Registrar—a senior leadership position that plays a key role in advancing our mandate as a professional regulator.
Find more opportunities for leadership roles in professional regulation at RegulatoryJobs.org Read More
Turning Common Communication Challenges Into Opportunities
By Collette Deschenes, MDR Strategy Group
Effective regulation requires effective communication
This is a line you’ll hear frequently from the MDR Strategy Group team as we support regulators, and for good reason. To fulfill their public interest mandates, regulators need to communicate clearly, consistently and strategically with the public, the registrants they regulate, government and other key audiences.
The reality is that in this push to communicate clearly, transparently and often, it’s easy for strategy to get lost in the workload.
Many regulatory communications professionals are balancing heavy day-to-day demands, from mass emails and website updates to social media posts and preparing updates to council. This can lead to a constant flow of information without the time or space for teams to take a step back and ask the bigger questions.
Questions like: Are our communications aligned with our organization’s strategic goals? How are we measuring effectiveness? Are our messages consistent? Are they understood? Are the channels we’re using reaching our audiences?
Helping regulators take this step back and answer these questions is, quite literally, at the core of MDR’s Communications on Retainer (CORe) program.
We work closely with both large and small regulators, either filling the gap when there’s no dedicated communications team or supporting busy communications professionals as they strengthen and improve their approach. In every case, we quickly become an extension of the regulator’s team. CORe gives us a unique vantage point as we see the realities of the tactical load, and we also see the benefits of pairing that dayto-day work with the systems and strategies that make communications more effective.
Through this work, we’ve come to recognize a set of common communication challenges that surface early in our discovery conversations and in our review of communications for regulators seeking support.
Getting stuck in the tactical loop is one of the most common challenges. Teams often feel “always on” and always delivering communications but never ahead. The list of required outputs grows while the time for strategy shrinks.
Carving out time for a strategic communications approach tied to the regulator’s organizational priorities is critical. It’s also important to ensure the regulator’s communications team or professional is involved early and often. When communications is involved from the start, the regulator (and any organization) benefits from strategic advice and perspective before decisions are made, instead of focusing only on tactics after the fact.
Many regulators rely heavily on a few default communication channels. It’s common to see email as the go-to for registrants, while the website serving as the only channel for the public. A lot of content gets pushed through these channels without much consideration of audience preferences or habits. This overreliance, especially on email, often results in disengagement, confusion or misunderstanding of regulatory requirements or changes.
The challenge is only growing. Email inboxes are overloaded and shifting demographics bring shifting communication preferences. Social media is increasingly being used as a search tool, often drawing audiences away from a regulator’s website and onto social platforms.
At the same time, AI is disrupting traditional search engines, with tools like ChatGPT changing how people look for information. A review of your organization’s website analytics over the past few years will often show how traffic sources have shifted and how new tools like ChatGPT are becoming common sources of website traffic. The risk is that if regulatory information isn’t clear, accessible and adapted to shifts in audience behavior, key messages may never reach the people who need them most.
The solution starts with diversifying communication channels and making sure each one is used with purpose. That means aligning channels to the audiences you need to reach and, at times, moving away from default habits to make more conscious choices about where and how information is shared.
Tracking analytics, gathering audience feedback and clarifying the role of each channel all support a shift toward more strategic communications. Small adjustments can make a difference, like tailoring email campaigns for specific groups, cutting back on duplicate messages or strengthening your social media presence to meet audiences where they’re already searching for information.
Inconsistent communication of the regulator’s role is a common gap. Communications often zeros in on regulatory processes linking to forms and policies, without connecting back to the bigger picture. Regulated professionals may know what to do but still may not understand the regulator’s public protection role, or why it matters. Registrants may know what to do but still may not understand the regulator’s role in protecting the public or why that matters. At the same time, the public may have little or no awareness of the regulator’s mandate at all, often because there isn’t consistent or active communication directed to them.
The question of “what’s in it for me” (WIIFM) is important to weave into communications, especially when highlighting the regulator’s public protection role or during regulatory requirement changes and new initiatives. People naturally think about how a change will affect them. Making sure the WIIFM is clear helps all audiences see the connection between regulation and their own interests, whether that’s professional growth, safety, or accountability.
All these challenges are connected. They will build on each other, often leaving regulatory communications teams overwhelmed and the regulator’s audiences unsure. If these challenges resonate with you, it doesn’t mean your communications team isn’t strong. More often, it reflects the reality of balancing the constant demands of day-to-day tactical work with the need to pause, reflect and plan strategically, or the need for additional resources providing consistent strategic support.
What we see is that when regulators make the time, or have the support, to step back, align strategy with purpose and bring communications into the conversation early, these challenges turn into opportunities to build trust and strengthen regulatory effectiveness through effective communication.
Meet the Commissioner of Victoria, Australia’s Modern Worker Regulator
By The Registrar staff
When Robert Hortle was appointed Commissioner of the newly established Wage Inspectorate Victoria in June 2021, the task before him was daunting. Charged with setting up a statutory authority during the turbulence of a global pandemic, Hortle had to build not just an agency, but a culture, a strategy and a reputation for integrity from day one.
It was not just about launching a regulator. It was about creating trust in an institution whose mandate is to protect some of Victoria’s most vulnerable workers and to hold accountable those who might exploit them.
The Wage Inspectorate Victoria became an independent statutory authority on 1 July 2021. Its mandate is unusual: while most labour laws in Australia fall under the Commonwealth, the state of Victoria retains responsibility for several important areas. These include long service leave entitlements, child employment laws, and the rights of owner drivers and forestry contractors. More recently, it has taken on new responsibilities such as a construction complaints hotline, ensuring concerns on government building sites are properly referred.
The agency’s remit may seem narrow compared with the sweeping reach of federal workplace regulators, but its impact is anything but small. For many Victorians, the entitlements the Inspectorate enforces make the difference between fairness and exploitation. Long service leave, for example, is a deeply rooted workplace entitlement unique to Australia, designed to reward extended service. Child employment laws safeguard young people under 15, ensuring their work is appropriate for their age and development. The owner driver legislation protects contractors who are often vulnerable to unequal bargaining power.
In short, Wage Inspectorate Victoria occupies a distinctive and vital space in the labour landscape.
Regulation looks familiar in principle across jurisdictions, but the machinery varies from country to country. Australia’s system is largely government-operated, with most regulators sitting within state departments or statutory authorities. They oversee economic areas such as utilities and transport, social areas such as child employment and workplace safety, and environmental areas such as resource management and protection. Independent professional regulators do exist, but they are fewer than in some other jurisdictions.
By contrast, in Canada the regulatory landscape is dominated by licensing and professional bodies that are independent, self-governing and established by statute. Professions such as nursing, engineering or social work are typically overseen by colleges or councils accountable directly to the public through legislation, but outside of government structures.
Ireland offers yet another variation. There, regulators often straddle both models: professional bodies exist in health and law,
but economic and social regulation is heavily centralized through government agencies.
These differences in structure highlight a common truth. Regardless of where regulators sit — inside government, as independent authorities or as selfgoverning professional bodies — the fundamentals remain the same. Laws are enacted by elected representatives, regulators are empowered to administer and enforce them, and the public interest is the ultimate measure of success.
Hortle did not plan to become a regulator. Like many in this profession, his entry was almost accidental. As an undergraduate business student, he took a year off to gain experience. That placement, answering phones at the Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, changed the course of his life.
“I started there literally answering the phones,” he recalls. “But through that work, I discovered the regulatory aspect of Australia’s workplace relations system and I became more and more involved.”
Over the next 18 years, Hortle built his career across inspection, management, policy and executive roles within the Commonwealth. He eventually transitioned to Victoria’s state system, drawn by its experimentation with wage theft laws and its appetite for reform. That move set the stage for his appointment as Commissioner.
Hortle also invested in his own growth, completing postgraduate studies in public sector leadership and attending executive programs at Harvard Kennedy School. These experiences sharpened his perspective on leadership, integrity and the delicate balance regulators must strike.
If establishing a new regulator were not challenging enough, Hortle had to do it under lockdown conditions. Offices were shut, staff were dispersed and uncertainty was everywhere.
“We had new laws that were completely untested,” he explains. “We had a group of people, some from existing agencies, some brand new. We had to form
a culture, manage massive expectations and do it all remotely.”
The logistical challenges were immense. Office space had to be secured, IT systems built and processes designed from scratch. The agency invested heavily in its case management system, Regworks, which allowed compliance and enforcement functions to integrate smoothly.
Perhaps more difficult was the human challenge. Leading a workforce of around 100 people through turbulence required more than policy knowledge. It demanded compassion and clarity. “Humans are not particularly well conditioned to change,” Hortle admits. “It was difficult for a lot of people, and for me. But building a culture of high performance and collaboration was essential.”
By 2023, following changes in remit, the agency reduced to around 60 staff, but is growing again as new responsibilities emerge. This “feast and famine” cycle is familiar to regulators around the world.
When asked what he is most proud of, Hortle does not begin with statistics. Instead, he points to culture.
“Everything follows your performance, and performance follows culture,” he says. “We built an organization where people understood we had to be trustworthy, where people-first performance was the expectation. That’s what I am proud of.”
Still, the numbers are compelling. Since its establishment, the Wage Inspectorate has helped thousands of workers reclaim underpaid entitlements. In one recent year alone, it helped recover more than $750,000 in long service leave for employees, while courts ordered over $2.1 million in fines and costs from offenders. Nearly 50 prosecutions have been launched across its jurisdictions, sending a clear signal that exploitation will not be tolerated.
Child employment remains the most high-volume function. Employers require a licence to hire children under 15, and inspections ensure safety and suitability. For Hortle, this is one of the most vital areas of oversight, as it safeguards both dignity and opportunity for young Victorians.
One of the defining features of Hortle’s leadership has been his insistence that communications are not peripheral, but central to regulatory success.
“We baked strategic communication into our strategy as one of four pillars,” he explains. “It is not a nice-to-have. It is an essential compliance tool.”
That philosophy means case studies and real stories are used to make abstract entitlements relatable. It also means the Inspectorate invests in engagement with industry, unions and community groups. By making the law clear and accessible, compliance is more likely to follow.
This approach reflects Hortle’s belief that regulators are judged not just by their sanctions, but by their ability to earn and sustain trust. “You have to be effective to be trusted, but you have to be trusted to be effective,” he says.
Regulators often face criticism from two sides. Some argue they are too soft, others that they are too heavy-handed. For Hortle, the priority is clear. “I would rather be criticized for doing too much than too little,” he says.
That conviction is rooted in a long line of public inquiries and Royal Commissions in Australia, where regulatory failures have had devastating consequences. To him, courage means taking
difficult matters forward even when litigation is hard, costly or unpopular.
It also means resisting the temptation to see regulation as static. New challenges such as the gig economy, artificial intelligence, and platformbased work require constant adaptation. For Hortle, staying ahead of change is critical, even when jurisdictional boundaries limit what the Inspectorate can address.
In 2024, Hortle was named a Fellow of the Institute of Public Administration Australia (Victoria) for his contributions to ethical leadership. In 2025, he was awarded the Public Service Medal in the King’s Birthday Honours. Both accolades reflect a career not only defined by technical expertise, but by values.
Yet Hortle resists any suggestion that he or his agency are “special.” Instead, he points to lessons that any regulator can take on board: have the courage to act, be clear about vision, and embed trust as the foundation of effectiveness.
At its core, the story of the Wage Inspectorate Victoria under Rob Hortle’s leadership is not about statutes, prosecutions, or IT systems, important as they are. It is about people.
It is about the worker who receives long service leave after years of commitment. It is about the young teenager employed safely and legally. It is about contractors negotiating fairly with hirers. And it is about public servants building a regulator in the middle of a pandemic because fairness at work matters too much to wait.
For Hortle, that is the ultimate measure of success. “Having the courage to be innovative, to push into uncomfortable spaces, and to take decisions that are difficult at the time but are right for the community—that is what regulation is about.”
As regulators worldwide grapple with questions of independence, trust, and impact, the experience of Victoria, Australia, offers a powerful reminder. Institutions matter. Laws matter. But leadership, compassion, and social justice matter most of all.
Brisbane, Australia
August 2025
The NRCoP 2025 National Conference – Regulation 2025 to 2050: Disruption, Change and Continuity brought together more than 600 in-person and 145 virtual delegates from 192 regulatory agencies, academia, and industry across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
Held in Meanjin, Brisbane, at the end of August, the event explored the future of regulation in a rapidly changing world, with themes including AI, First Nations voices, climate change, economic pressures, and regulatory stewardship. Attendees heard from global thought leaders such as professor Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania) and professor Christopher Hodges (University of Oxford), joined interactive panels, and enjoyed a live recording of “The Westminster Tradition” podcast featuring Danielle Elston, Alison Lloydd-Wright, and Caroline Croser-Barlow.
The conference also launched the inaugural Regulator of the Year Awards, recognized innovation through a poster competition, and featured Dr Sue Pillans’ live graphic illustration capturing insights in real time. Session recordings will be available online soon.
Photo credits: NRCoP, Dr Sue Pillans, Create Engage
Guest editorial written by Rob Warner, chief advisor of strategy at Maritime New Zealand, and Dr. Grant Pink of RECAP Consultants, pracademic advisor to the National Regulators Community of Practice.
Republished with permission from the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZOG).
Link to the original article
As regulatory practitioners, we’ve all felt the increasing complexity and pace of the challenges coming across our desks and confronting us in the field. Whether it’s overseeing innovation, governing risks, or getting ahead of emerging threats – the issues we face are increasingly borderless and rapidly evolving. For this reason, fragmented, go-it-alone approaches are less and less likely to be appropriate and/or tolerated in this hyper-connected and inter-dependent world.
Regulatory Diplomacy is a concept that can be used as part of:
‘actively shaping global regulatory frameworks, raising standards internationally and influencing global norms through international relationships and influence. … [In order to] help to solve problems that require a global approach’. [i]
As such, regulatory diplomacy has become a critical part of a regulator’s core toolkit. At its heart, regulatory diplomacy is about forming and mobilising international networks that allow us to connect, coordinate, and problem-solve alongside our counterparts worldwide. These channels provide a powerful paradigm for navigating the uncertainty together with others. They enable leveraging collective capabilities and experience, to help ensure our organisations remain fit-for-purpose for the ‘now’, and ready for what might come in the ‘near’ and ‘next’ operating horizons.
In our ANZSOG editorial on Navigating Regulatory Landscapes: Four Sights to advance regulatory practice and governance [ii] we laid out a framework that gets to the heart of why diplomatic approaches are helpful. The framework champions the AAA trifecta: Anticipatory, Agile and Adaptive as organisational postures that assist regulators to be more resilient and future ready. Regulatory diplomacy can enable each of these postures. Further, a mix of formal and informal networks across jurisdictions helps provide resilience and can extend capability in times of strategic uncertainty, and can form
part of the early warning systems that a regulator can establish and access to detect signals of change rippling through globally, regionally and domestically.
Through dialogue and exchange of perspectives with likeminded regulators (or even not so likeminded, so as to avoid ‘group think’) that reside beyond our borders – regulators can gain or improve the situational awareness to anticipate emerging issues and risks at the earliest possible stage. Those faint and early signals can lead to or become clear patterns when we pool information, intelligence, and insights across borders. This foresight positions us to be proactive, getting ahead of risks or problems before they manifest locally.
The NESTA report [iii] Renewing regulation – ‘Anticipatory regulation’ in an age of disruption reinforced this urgency, especially when it comes to governing exponential technological change. We need global regulatory networks providing that continuous horizonscanning to develop truly future ready policy frameworks, that can be operationalised. Standalone efforts will almost always leave us a step behind.
Diplomatic channels don’t just enhance foresight – they can also turbocharge our ability to adapt our approaches based on lessons learned across contexts (whether shaped at a continent scale or commodity level). Within these networks, we can gain access to insights about what works, what doesn’t work, and where any pitfalls might be. Importantly these insights are based on the lived experiences of peers who have faced or are facing similar challenges. We can absorb those learnings, reflect and refine our own policies and practices in a much more agile fashion.
Perhaps most powerfully, regulatory diplomacy enables collaborative innovation and experimentation in a way siloed domestic efforts simply cannot match. Our regulatory counterparts across these networks are pioneers too, piloting novel approaches like regulatory sandboxes, and regulatory stewardship to test and update
oversight models. By joining forces, we have the potential to multiply our speed of iteration, learning, implementation, and adaptation.
This cycle of co-creation, joint testing, shared evaluation, and continuous refinement allows us to develop pragmatic, localised regulatory innovations tailored to our unique on-the-ground realities. We can elevate our regulatory agility exponentially by moving forward in disciplined formation, all of which assists with achieving or advancing regulatory outcomes.
However, making, maintaining, and sustaining trusted global connections, contacts, and circuits to bridge diverse legal systems, operating environments, and/or cultural nuances won’t always be easy. Having a good understanding of context and building a solid backdrop for engagement is key. Useful and sustainable relationships for effective regulatory diplomacy take work and thoughtful relationship maintenance and management – but the potential payoffs are simply too impactful to ignore.
At its core, regulatory diplomacy provides a useful evolutionary path towards more resilient, future ready stewardship models that are fit for our hyper-connected era and inter-dependent world. Regulatory diplomacy is an ethos of enhanced foresight, continuous adaptation, joint problemsolving, and coherent international networks to promote the critical public interests we’re all committed to protecting.
Perhaps most crucially, regulatory diplomacy affords opportunities for collaborative experimentation, iterative learning, and continuous improvement. Within this ecosystem of open dialogue and mutual understanding, regulators can pilot innovative regulatory approaches within their respective jurisdictions and regulatory domains, continuously refining and optimizing their methods based on shared learnings. This iterative cycle of trial, evaluation, and adaptation allows regulatory regimes and corresponding regulatory practices to evolve in lockstep with the realities they seek to govern, promoting greater agility, responsiveness, and long-term resilience.
© Rob Warner & Grant Pink (2024)
Set a direction for discovery, be clear and intentional – before diving in, understand the specific regulatory environment you’re dealing with and where new perspectives may bring the most mutual benefit. Consider cultural norms, existing frameworks, and potential challenges. Think about what you are working with, do your research – consider what matters, analyse relevant policies and background information, conduct consultations, and try to understand the needs of all involved parties.
Imagine reaching out and making that first approach – establish an initial communication pathway with your regulatory counterparts. Open doors for dialogue, fostering understanding and building trust.
Think introductions, information exchange and invitation – share regulatory frameworks, situational awareness and identify areas of potential collaboration.
Imagine a brainstorming session that creates meaningful connection – move beyond basic contact. Explore shared goals, identify common challenges, and brainstorm solutions together.
Think joint sense-making workshops and capacity building – develop programs that address mutual concerns, fostering a spirit of teamwork.
Imagine a symphony that is well set up and can be scaled – combine strengths and expertise to achieve more together. Develop moments of bilateral and multilateral collaboration that benefit could all parties.
Think joint initiatives and mutual value building – identify ways to streamline processes, ‘take rather than make’ solutions, and regulatory approaches that could transcend across borders.
The 4C’s – Context, Contact, Connect, Collaborate – provide a frame for regulators to be more intentional in terms of their regulatory diplomacy efforts.
In an era marked by accelerating change and escalating complexity, the ability to network, extend agency through connections, and continuously experiment is not just a luxury for regulators – it is an imperative.
Regulatory diplomacy is not a silver bullet – it is, however, a powerful tool that can help with the challenges of operating within and across the modern regulatory landscape.
[i] BEIS (2022). International Regulatory Cooperation Strategy. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy: UK Government. See Link
[ii] Warner, R. & Pink, G. (2023). ‘Navigating Regulatory Landscapes: Four Sights to advance regulatory practice and governance’. Guest Editorial, Regulation Policy & Practice Newsletter, APO, Edition 40, November 2023.
See Link
[iii] Armstrong, H., Gorst, C., & Rae, J. (2019). Renewing regulation – ‘Anticipatory regulation’ in an age of disruption. NESTA: London.
See Link
Warner and Pink’s 4C’s framework—context, contact, connect, collaborate—gives regulators a clear path from first conversation to joint action in service of protecting the public interest. The second annual AI in Regulation conference (Feb. 2-3, 2026) in Toronto aims to support that path. With a focus on practical steps that improve transparency, reduce risk, and speed up learning across jurisdictions, it provides the perfect venue for regulators to take the next step with AI, from awareness to action.
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
STRATEGIC OVERSIGHT IN PUBLIC INTEREST DR
HILTON TORONTO AIRPORT HOTEL & SUITES
Join regulators, policymakers, and government leaders from Canada and beyond to explore how artificial intelligence is transforming regulation. Building on last year’s sold-out event, this year’s program moves from exploration to action, with a focus on adoption, implementation, and oversight. The expanded agenda includes governance training for boards and senior leaders, providing the insight and tools needed to navigate AI with confidence and protect the public interest.
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
HILTON TORONTO AIRPORT HOTEL & SUITES
By Melissa Peneycad, MDR Strategy Group
My career has led me deep into artificial intelligence (AI), not as a technologist but as someone deeply committed to protecting the public interest. I’ve worked with boards and councils, compared policies across jurisdictions, tested vendor claims, listened to experts and frontline practitioners, and written books on the topic. One theme keeps surfacing: explainability is central to trust.
AI is rapidly becoming ubiquitous. With it come risks, challenges and opportunities regulators cannot ignore.
Explainability and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are tied to fair process, reasons for decisions and public confidence. AI models can be complex, but their explanations should not be. If we cannot clearly explain when and how AI assists our work, we are not ready to use it. That standard applies whether AI is used by regulated professionals in practice or by regulators in their own processes.
Straightforward communication has always underpinned effective regulation. The same transparency that helps people understand licensing requirements, complaint processes and disciplinary pathways also builds trust in decisions supported by AI.
XAI applies those principles by bringing openness, fairness and clarity to the tools regulators are beginning to use, showing what they do, why they are used and where people remain in control.
If people can’t understand the role AI played in a decision, they will not trust it. Public confidence also drops when people do not know what regulators do, where to turn for help or how a complaint becomes a disciplinary decision. The same is true when applicants and professionals do not understand licensing or renewal pathways, continuing professional development requirements or the appeals process.
The techniques and processes that make model decisions understandable call for the same openness. When a tool assists with applicant screening, complaint triage, investigations or other regulatory functions, people deserve to know what the tool does, how and why it is used, what data it relies on, where humans review and decide and how to challenge an error. Good communication and XAI are two sides of the same trust practice.
A simple alignment helps in everyday work:
Audience clarity Purpose clarity
Communications starts with who it is for. XAI begins by identifying the step the tool assists with and explaining why it’s suitable.
explaining inputs, logic, safeguards and human oversight, and doing so in plain language.
Effective communication involves publishing clear steps, documents, and timelines. For XAI, show the step where the tool supports the process, the human checkpoint and what happens if the tool is uncertain.
Communicators avoid jargon. XAI requires the translation of model logic into everyday terms that a layperson can understand.
I use a simple test: If I cannot explain an AI concept or AI-assisted outcome to my mom in under a minute, I need to refine it. In regulation, the rule is similar: if we cannot explain an AI-assisted step to a member of the public, an applicant, or a regulated professional in under a minute, we are not ready to use it. This forces clarity about purpose, data, safeguards, accountability and practicality — which is where trust lives.
Reasons for decision Reasons with evidence
Regulators must explain decisions. With XAI, include the main factors the tool highlighted, how human judgment was applied and the evidence relied on.
Not every AI-supported decision needs the same level of explanation. The higher the effect on a person’s rights, livelihood, or reputation, the higher the duty to explain.
Regulated professionals, applicants for licensure, members of the public and other stakeholders have the right to ask questions. When it comes to the use of AI, make it easy to request a human review and specify timelines.
• Low-impact, low-risk: Provide a brief note that an AI tool assisted with a routine step, highlight where the human checkpoint is and who to contact with questions.
• Moderate-impact, moderate-risk: Offer a short explanation of key factors, how staff used the output and what safeguards apply.
Records management Audit trail
Log inputs, outputs, staff actions and overrides so reasons are traceable.
Explainable AI isn’t about publishing source code or exposing confidential information, it’s about
• High-impact, high-risk: Provide a full explanation of factors, data sources, human reasoning, any exceptions and a transparent process for questions or appeal, supported by the audit trail.
At the governance level, set expectations that align with core duties, such as:
• Adopting an explainability standard
• Keeping AI on the risk register so explainability, incidents and improvements are reviewed regularly
• Embedding XAI requirements in contracts with vendors and service providers
• Assigning a role that is responsible for the final decision and the explanation that accompanies it
At the leadership and operations level, turn policy into practice by:
• Publishing process maps with checkpoints showing where AI informs work and where staff intervene.
• Providing short, readable templates so explanations are consistent and timely.
• Running regular learning and calibration sessions where staff practise giving explanations and learn from complex or edge cases.
• Adding a plain language “ask for a human review” option on relevant pages and letters, with response times.
In strategic communication, we often, and for good reason, separate “the public” from “those regulated” when tailoring messaging. However, both audiences need similar things with XAI.
• Members of the public: What the tool does in plain terms, why it is used, the human role, privacy protection and how to question or appeal decisions
• Regulated professionals and applicants for licensure: The same, plus where to find requirements, how to prepare and submit documentation and what to expect if an AI tool flags an issue
Providing clarity reduces confusion and increases acceptance, even when outcomes are difficult.
Mistakes can occur in any system — human or AIassisted. The test, however, is in how we respond. A good response acknowledges what happened, explains the impact, outlines immediate fixes, offers a path for review and reports on longterm changes. Pausing the use of a tool when appropriate shows control, and publishing a short post-incident report shows learning. Both are communications disciplines and examples of explainability in action.
Publish one clear statement where people look for guidance:
“When AI assists our regulatory work, people will receive clear, timely reasons that explain what the tool did, what our staff decided and how to request a human review or an appeal.”
Back this statement with policy, process and training. Start with the highest-impact, highestrisk decision points and expand from there.
Good communication already helps people see the regulator’s mandate in action: where to go, what to expect and how decisions are made. XAI extends that clarity into a new part of the work. When we make AI make sense, we honor fairness, support openness and transparency, reduce disputes, improve decisions and keep confidence where it belongs — with the public.
By Daniel Roukema MDR STRATEGY GROUP
Recently, the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) suspended nurse Amy Hamm for one month and ordered her to pay $94,000 in costs. The penalties followed a March ruling that found some of her public statements about transgender people were discriminatory and derogatory, and that her identification as a nurse connected those statements to her professional role.
Both the verdict and the penalty are now under appeal to the British Columbia Supreme Court.
A few days later, federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the college, calling the decision “authoritarian censorship” and claiming it punished a nurse for “pointing out there are two genders.”
In doing so, he was not only responding to political sentiment but also commenting directly on the outcome of an independent regulatory process.
Regulators exist to protect the public. They are created by statute, operate independently of politics, and apply evidence, standards and jurisprudence to their decisions. When politicians intervene in active cases, they risk shaking public confidence in both the regulator and the entire system of professional accountability.
A global community of practice sharing knowledge, exchanging ideas, and engaging in meaningful discussion on regulation.
Regulatory independence is not a courtesy. It is the foundation of public trust. Regulators must be able to act without fear of political retribution.
When elected officials, motivated by ideology or public pressure, question or second-guess disciplinary decisions, people begin to wonder whose interests are really being served.
The BCCNM panel’s ruling was part of a transparent and reviewable process. The decision stretches across hundreds of paragraphs, carefully weighing which statements crossed the line and why.
stayed the penalty until that process concludes. That is how the system maintains both fairness and independence.
Respecting regulatory independence does not end public debate; it directs it to the right place.
Public figures can and should discuss values, legislation and policy. But they should not undermine the legitimacy of a regulatory process designed to be fair, transparent and reviewable.
The roles are clear: regulators investigate and decide within their mandate, the courts review those decisions and elected officials set the legislative framework and ensure good governance.
“Regulatory independence is not a courtesy. It is the foundation of public trust.”
That is what due process looks like in professional regulation. To dismiss it as censorship overlooks the painstaking effort to balance competing rights, ethical responsibilities and the profession’s duty to provide equitable care.
Health regulators are entrusted to ensure every patient can rely on safe, competent and ethical care. That duty includes taking action when professional conduct suggests prejudice or threatens equitable access.
In this case, the panel concluded that Hamm’s statements showed she could not meet the standard of equitable care expected of a nurse in the province. Agree or disagree, the decision was grounded in evidence and investigation. The courts are the proper venue for review, not social media.
Disagreement with regulators is fair. Hamm has exercised her right to appeal, and the panel itself
What they must not do is prejudge outcomes or inflame public opinion while a case is still before the courts.
Most regulatory bodies operate under provincial or territorial law, but federal politicians have a responsibility to respect those boundaries as well. Independence is not diminished by jurisdiction. When national political leaders publicly contradict provincial regulators, they risk eroding trust across the entire system.
The BCCNM panel has issued detailed reasons. An appeal is underway. That is the process: transparent, reviewable and designed to protect the public. Politicians should let it unfold.
“Intervening in active cases does not protect free speech. It weakens the very independence that keeps professional regulation credible.”
Regulators are not in the business of politics. They are in the business of protecting the public. That means making decisions based on evidence, law and standards of practice, even when those decisions are difficult or unpopular.
When elected leaders comment on active cases, they create the impression that professional regulation is political. That does not build confidence; it breaks it.
Independence is not negotiable. It is what allows Canadians to expect safe, competent and equitable care, and it is the foundation of public trust in every profession.
Respecting that principle does not silence discussion. It ensures that debate happens where it should: in legislatures, in courts and within open, accountable governance, not in headlines or on social media.
The 16th International Conference on Medical Regulation, hosted by the Medical Council of Ireland in Dublin, brought together more than 460 delegates from 37 countries— marking IAMRA’s first European gathering in over a decade.
Centered on the theme “People-focused regulation for a safer global community,” the event highlighted the importance of putting patients and communities at the heart of medical regulation. From exploring AI and digital innovation to advancing cultural safety and health equity, discussions focused on how regulators can adapt to a rapidly changing health care landscape.
Key outcomes included plans to launch a Global Peer Learning Program, establish an AI and Emerging Technologies Network, and promote compassionate, culturally responsive approaches to regulation. The conference reinforced IAMRA’s global mission to protect the public while supporting a resilient, future-ready health workforce.
Photographers: Bryan Brophy, Gareth Chaney
December 3–5
Regulators and stakeholders from across the globe will gather in Wellington, New Zealand for CLEAR’s International Congress on Professional and Occupational Regulation.
The Congress will open with the popular Regulatory Research Day, offering a deep dive into the latest studies and findings shaping the regulatory landscape. Following that, attendees will engage in sessions exploring international approaches, shared challenges, and innovative strategies for strengthening regulation in an era of rapid change.
The Congress provides a unique opportunity to learn from global peers while experiencing New Zealand’s renowned hospitality and culture. Beyond the sessions, attendees can connect with colleagues through networking events designed to foster collaboration and exchange of ideas. With its combination of cutting-edge content and international perspectives, the Congress promises to be a cornerstone event for anyone committed to advancing effective and proportionate regulation worldwide.
