Page 148 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are plenty of provisions in this and other legislation requiring people to supply accurate information to consumers about what they are doing when they come to pay for products. This really extends that to a very important part of the budgets of most people in this community - the price they pay for petrol. I commend this Bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
SUBORDINATE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 15 December 1993, on motion by Mr Moore:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.07): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government will not be opposing this Bill - in fact, it will be agreeing to this Bill in principle - but it has some detailed suggestions that it would like to see incorporated in the Bill. Later in the debate, after the in-principal stage, we will be seeking an adjournment so that we can negotiate around the detail stage. This Government has a track record of enhancing the rights of the legislature to review subordinate legislation. Members of the First Assembly may recall that, in opposition, I introduced a private members Bill which locked in the fact that once disallowance was moved it was automatic that the disallowed instrument failed within 15 days unless the disallowance motion was debated, so it put the onus on the Executive to bring the debate on in the chamber.
Prior to that, a member could move disallowance, and if the disallowance was not voted on affirmatively within 15 days the disallowed instrument would remain valid. That always had the possibility for a member to move disallowance and for various parliamentary tactics to be employed to ensure that that debate did not come on within the window of time, and then that member would forever lose the ability to have the instrument disallowed. We thought that was inappropriate and we moved to change that. As soon as a member moves disallowance now, the guillotine is poised and, unless the Assembly affirmatively supports the disallowable instrument, it chops down. That was generally supported. I think the ACT Assembly - Mrs Grassby from the subordinate laws committee would know this - remains the only assembly in Australia that has done that. The Commonwealth Parliament did it some years ago in the Senate, but no other State has felt bold enough to do it.
At the moment the position is that the Assembly can disallow any subordinate law, and it has quite extensive powers to do it, given what we moved from opposition. The Assembly can disallow an Act in the sense that it can vote an Act out. Private members can also initiate or amend any Bill before this Assembly. At the moment private members can only, in effect, veto - disallow - subordinate law. In principle that does not seem to be right, and that is why we say that in principle we can support Mr Moore's Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .