Page 151 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Again, it is a matter of principle. If members can pass laws and amend laws, they should have powers to pass subordinate laws that impact on people. Members all seem to accept that there is a proper prohibition or restraint on private members in relation to money Bills, and I hope that we can get some consensus on where we should erect the barriers of restraint around money measures that are dealt with by subordinate regulations. The Government supports the Bill in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.17): The Opposition also will be supporting this Bill, and we are happy to see discussion occur around the chamber about how the detail stage of the legislation will be handled. As Mr Connolly and Mr Moore have both indicated, this legislation deals with what appears to be an anomaly, in that the Assembly itself can initiate, defeat or amend substantive legislation, but can do only one of those three things in the case of subordinate legislation, and that is defeat it. It is strange that minor legislation or minor laws should, in a sense, be more invulnerable than what I might call major laws. The disallowance procedure is a device which operates to a large extent to the convenience and security of the Executive. It gives that body a relatively free hand to exercise certain discretions. It allows the Assembly to determine, if you like, the big picture and the Executive to work out the fine details.
There have been increasing concerns, as the Attorney indicated, about those details in recent years. We have reached a point where it can be argued that in many ways the detail of regulations under legislation in some respects is as important as the legislation itself. To quote two examples, the Animal Welfare Bill was - - -
Mr Stevenson: The animal farewell Bill?
MR HUMPHRIES: Whatever. That Bill was of great concern to this Assembly, but in many respects the crux of the legislation was not so much in the legislation itself as in the codes under that legislation which are still, I think, being enacted. Those codes are quite fundamental to how the legislation is to operate. The Assembly obviously would have an interest in what is to occur under those codes. The other area that I might refer to is the Bill which is currently before the Assembly and which is due for debate this afternoon, the Smoke-Free Areas (Enclosed Public Places) Bill. I think most of us could support the principles engaged in the Bill but would have difficulties with the way in which it is implemented if that is not spelt out very clearly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we see in both those cases a very strong need for the Assembly to have closer scrutiny of what occurs underneath substantive legislation rather than in the legislation itself. Obviously, as the Attorney pointed out, the Assembly, if it really wanted to, could initiate legislation to amend subordinate legislation, but that would be a cumbersome process and one which I do not think we would recommend generally. This Bill allows the Assembly more say in terms of subordinate legislation, without giving it total control over that process. In other words, although we can defeat or amend subordinate legislation, we cannot initiate it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .