Page 2900 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (12.16): Madam Speaker, the extent to which the Assembly should have the power to intervene in what is really delegated legislation and the extent to which the Government should be given a free hand to conduct legislation of that kind is always a difficult question. Obviously, in opposition, one likes to have a bigger hand. That, undoubtedly, is why the Labor Party moved the amendment to standing orders in 1990 that Mr Connolly referred to. Perhaps it has had cause to regret that since it came back into office. The Minister shakes his head, but not with much conviction; so I am not sure about that. Madam Speaker, that debate is a debate for another day. In this case the thing that swings our view against supporting the amendment that Mr Stevenson has moved is that we are talking here about agreements that have been reached between the industry or parties in the industry and government.
Mr Stevenson: That is in the lap of the gods.
MR HUMPHRIES: It is not in the lap of the gods; it is in the lap of those who are parties to the negotiations. I think it would be unfortunate if there were to be interposed in this not only the Government's view, as is the case under the legislation, but also the view of the Opposition and other members of the Assembly. That would certainly complicate matters and I think that that would be unfortunate.
There is the power to disallow. That is a vitally important power which has to be availed of on occasions. Generally speaking, for us to get into the business of changing words here and amending this there and otherwise effectively becoming a party to the negotiations, I think, would be unfortunate. If I were in government, which I am sure I will be after the next three years, I would expect to be able to negotiate in those terms with parties to industry and, unless the arrangement was outrageous or it was unacceptable, to have it dealt with, in its entirety, by the Assembly and either disallow it or not disallow it as the case might be.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.19): Yes, for the reasons that Mr Humphries has given and for another very important reason. Unlike the New South Wales legislation, initially, which I believe provided for interim codes - in other words, that the Government could, without negotiating with anybody, regulate through interim codes until such time as those negotiations took place - this piece of legislation, I believe, does compel the Director of Consumer Affairs to negotiate directly with the industry. In other words, I think it is a bit stronger than the initial New South Wales legislation, which gave any government the power to regulate through interim codes. This piece of legislation does not do that. For that reason and the reasons that my colleague Mr Humphries gave, the Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendments.
MR STEVENSON (12.20), by leave: I should refer to subclause 33(2). It states:
For the purpose of preparing a draft code of practice, the Director shall arrange for consultation with, and invite submissions from, such persons and organisations as, in the opinion of the Director, would have an interest in the terms of the proposed draft code of practice.
All reasonable people would say, "Look, it is perfectly well covered". However, most people in our society believe that members of parliament should also consult with industries prior to introducing legislation. I think the points I made
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .