Page 1218 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

I understand that the scrutiny committee raised similar concerns, questioning whether the regulation-making power of the bill inappropriately delegated legislative powers. A broad provision of this nature should be subject to a policy debate and consideration, including consultation with the industry, rather than being embedded in a straightforward amendment which formalises current policy. As a result I have moved an amendment to omit those elements of the bill. The amendment retains the elements of the bill relating to the use of audio devices but omits the additional broader provisions.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Doszpot): Ms Burch, are you also tabling a supplementary explanatory statement?

MS BURCH: And a supplementary explanatory statement.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.19): The Greens will not be opposing the amendment. Ms Burch touched on this towards the end of her remarks: this is one of those issues where one can fall either way. There is an argument that this is the type of matter that it is appropriate to provide for by regulation and that giving a regulation-making power to prohibit particular attributes is a sensible mechanism. It would allow a quicker response to these issues as they arise. It is important to remember that, in the context of approving new machines, any changes to machines by manufacturers will only be to enhance the effectiveness and therefore the harmfulness of the machines.

Equally, I can see the argument that the government does not believe that it should have such a wide discretion to regulate these matters. That is also a legitimate position. I do have to note the irony, as perhaps Ms Burch did, that typically in the past roles have been reversed and the government has been arguing for greater regulation-making powers while the Greens have sought to maintain a greater role for the Assembly. I hope that the position that the government has adopted today will be applied consistently in the future. As I said, I agree it is legitimate and equally appropriate that this type of role be reserved exclusively for the Assembly. I will not be opposing the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

National container deposit scheme

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.21): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video