Page 2751 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As you can see from the report, particularly from page 10 onwards, a number of papers were presented and workshops held as part of the conference. We heard about the High Court and the committee, the Victorian experience of scrutiny of Bills, and the New Zealand approach to the scrutiny of Bills. We also revisited the resolutions which were made at the third conference, held in Perth in 1991. We heard from Mr Jon Sullivan, MLA, of the Queensland Committee on Subordinate Legislation, on mutual recognition of regulatory standards between States.
We had a workshop entitled "That Delegated Legislation Committees be allowed to suspend regulations during any time when Parliament is not sitting", and a further workshop entitled "Why is regulatory scrutiny so far in advance of the scrutiny of Bills?". A very informative workshop was led by Stephen Argument, the secretary to the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. He presented a workshop and paper entitled "Quasi-Legislation: Greasy pig, Trojan Horse or Unruly child?". It was a very stimulating discussion. We also heard about rule making by Commonwealth agencies, proposals for reform in the Commonwealth jurisdiction, and recommendations of the Administrative Review Council's report No. 35.
There was another workshop entitled "When should a matter be seen as more appropriately handled by an Act rather than by a Regulation?", and a further workshop entitled "Drafting: should delegated legislation be drafted by a specialist drafting office?". Further papers presented were "Fundamental Legislative Principles"; "Do Parliamentary Review Committees achieve anything worthwhile for the public?"; "Overseas Practices in Regulation Review - Towards Effective Rule Making"; "Who takes care of the caretaker's daughter? - The Victorian Supreme Court's Approach to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962"; and "Incorporation of Third Party Documents in Regulations - Issues of Accessibility, Compliance and Accountability".
In a further paper, "Justice Delayed and Denied - A case study", Senator Stephen Loosley, the chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, dealt with the committee's consideration of two determinations under which justice was not only delayed but denied. I will expand on this paper briefly. The concerns centred around a problem with credits received in lieu of recreation leave for a number of public service officers who had joined the service before 1966 and who had retired after 1973; due to a combination of factors, they received less money than that to which they were fairly entitled. As a result of the Senate committee's actions, over $4m was included in the 1992 budget to meet the concerns of the committee. It is an example of where scrutiny committees can be very effective in making sure that the rights of individuals are protected and that any moneys, as in this instance, they are entitled to are paid to them. The final paper, presented by Senator Amanda Vanstone, was about the reversal of the onus of proof in primary legislation.
Members will recall that our committee visited the Northern Territory and Queensland earlier this year to meet with our scrutiny committee counterparts in those jurisdictions. Next week, on 2 September, we will be hosting members of the Victorian scrutiny committee, which hosted the conference in Melbourne that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .