Page 2898 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am simply saying that codes of practice are very important in legislation. Rather than have a situation where members must seek disallowance of a particular regulation, it should be a matter that comes before the Assembly, and we should approve the code of practice, amend the code of practice, or disallow the code of practice as we choose. I know that the Minister will say that it is already disallowable; but I make the point that Bills are not, that amendments are not, and I see the same rules for something as important as a code of practice applying in the matter of amendments and Bills.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.09): Madam Speaker, I think that if the code of practice provisions were in just clauses 34 and 35 I could understand Mr Stevenson's point, and I think he would be making a valid point; but I think he has to focus on clause 33 to get the full picture here. Codes of practice are not introduced just like legislation. They are not something that the Minister dreams up as a whim and puts before the Assembly, subject to disallowance, as perhaps one might say a Bill is, although it obviously goes through the Cabinet process.
The unique process here and why these codes of practice differ from any other regulations is not in the manner of their disallowance, which is subject to this Assembly and to the very powerful disallowance provisions of this Assembly - more powerful than any of other State or Territory parliament as a result of an initiative that we took while in opposition. These are different because they must be prepared in accordance with the clause 33 provisions. Any Minister cannot just dream up a code of practice and impose it on industry here. We have very consciously picked provisions which other States have trialled and which require that before the code of practice is made by regulation there be this extensive consultation.
Clause 33 says that the director shall arrange for consultation with, and invite submissions from, industry groups. He is directed to do that. We are really requiring, under clause 33, that the director go out and get this consultation going. That then forms the basis of a code of practice. The Minister gazettes it and the Assembly can disallow it. We are really saying here that codes of practice will be bottom-up documents. They will be documents that come before the Minister before they come to the Assembly from the consultation process with industry. We are not saying that really the Assembly should be dreaming up the codes of practice. We are saying that they ought to come from industry.
I would say to Mr Stevenson and to other members that, when considering the structure of the code of practice, you cannot look at just clauses 34 and 35; you have to bear in mind clause 33. The significant point of this is that it requires, mandates, a process of consultation with industry, and the code of practice procedure is a procedure which presupposes a level of cooperation between consumers and industry and the bureau before a Minister introduces a code. The Assembly always has the final say and can repeal it, but the provisions that we have in clause 33 require that consultative process. In effect, Mr Stevenson's amendments would give the Assembly the power without a consultative process to enact these codes. I think that our provision, modelled on, as I say, the New South Wales provision, is a more sensible one.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .