Page 1008 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Since the establishment of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation in 1989, the committee has taken a keen interest in all aspects of the delegated legislation and Bills that have come before it. Some of the comments that it has made could arguably be seen as not coming strictly within the terms of reference of the committee. These comments have been on errors within the Bills or subordinate legislation, missing explanatory statements or memoranda, and the use of sexist language.
The committee considers that the legislation produced by the Legislative Assembly either directly or under its authority should be of a very high standard. This is especially so when we operate as a unicameral parliament and often pass legislation very quickly. Accordingly, the committee has resolved that it continue to comment on the matters previously mentioned, and that the committee's terms of reference be amended to reflect this practice. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.55): I rise to support the chairman of the committee and her comments with respect to expanded terms of reference. I, in fact, was involved in drafting those new terms of reference. They arise, as Mrs Grassby has indicated, out of a desire to make sure that the things it does reflect what is actually in the terms of reference. For example, the committee often makes comment on sexist language within legislation, explanatory memoranda or delegated legislation. There is, in fact, no term of reference which presently provides for that to happen. It is appropriate, therefore, that we regularise the way in which the committee operates so that we operate within appropriate terms of reference.
There is always a danger with a committee such as the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills that things will be done which go outside the strictly technical nature of the committee. This is not a committee which deals in policy matters that other committees in this Assembly deal with. It is a technical or procedural committee in a very real sense. The only other analogous committee in the Assembly perhaps is the Administration and Procedures Committee, which deals with procedural matters, obviously. It is therefore important to draft terms of reference which reflect the strictly technical nature of what we are doing on that committee. In this case, giving the committee the power to, if you like, set technical and stylistic standards is not intended to allow the committee to, for example, comment on matters of policy contained in legislation.
The committee also considered at the same time, for example, a wider term of reference which would give it the power to consider the efficacy of legislation, but rejected that term of reference on the basis that it might provide for this or future committees to begin to comment on content, the policy behind legislation or the effectiveness of legislation. That kind of thing is perhaps not what the committee should be about. I commend this motion and I believe that it will make sure that we operate on better settled terms of reference.
MR MOORE (11.58): I rise to support the motion and to add something that occurs to me. I would like to add the following new subparagraph:
... the explanatory memorandum accompanying it meets the technical and stylistic standards to which such a Bill or explanatory memorandum ought, in the opinion of the Committee, to conform.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .