Page 149 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This issue was briefly discussed before the Assembly late last year, when Mr Humphries pointed out that the schedule to an omnibus amendment Bill that we were bringing through provided for some amendments to regulations. We had a discussion about that, and as a result I sought an opinion from the Parliamentary Counsel - Mr Hunt, QC - as to the validity of that, because neither of us could precisely recall precedents where an Act amended a regulation, although we both agreed that in principle that must be so because an Act is a superior instrument to a piece of subordinate legislation. I sought that opinion, which I seem to recall I tabled in this place. That opinion from our Parliamentary Counsel confirms that an Act may itself amend a regulation.
Given that a private member may introduce a private members Bill, it follows that private members can amend a regulation; but they have to do it by way of a Bill, which is fairly cumbersome. If they can do it anyway, and if as a matter of principle it follows that if private members can introduce any Bill they ought to be able to move something inferior to a Bill, the Government accepts the principle that it would be sensible for this Assembly to have a clear and simple process whereby subordinate legislation can be initiated or amended by private members just as Bills can be.
The difficulty, of course, is how that power to amend or initiate subordinate laws, just as private members can amend or initiate laws, fits into the prohibition in the standing orders and indeed the self-government Act in relation to money Bills. I would like - and I have discussed this privately with Mr Moore - to have some discussion to see whether we can come up with a workable system that would see a significant advance in the powers of private members and that would again put this Assembly at the forefront of Australian practice. As the Government has the final responsibility for money Bills, and we stand or fall on the budget, equally the executive of the day has to stand or fall on a lot of the fees and charges that flow from that. There is still the ability to disallow fees. To some extent, if private members would like to introduce the fees we would be quite happy. They could take the heat. It may be that private members would not be rushing around falling over themselves to be the ones to announce the good news of fees going up in the annual round of fee increases.
There is an issue of principle that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed with some care. In some brief discussions I have had with the law officers and Mr Moore I have not quite been able to come up with what the precise form of the amendment should be, but I am confident that we can come up with one. This is not a government stalling tactic. I am being genuine about this. To show our genuineness, we are saying that we agree with the Bill in principle because it is a good thing. The Assembly would probably be unanimous in saying that in principle if a private member has the ability to amend or initiate any law it follows that they should have the power to initiate or amend any subordinate law. If this Assembly is of one voice on that principle, we will stand in stark contrast to our colleagues. Liberal governments in other parts of Australia might follow this example, given that the Liberal Party here has supported it - although I note that many issues that the Liberal Party here supports enthusiastically their colleagues in government seem to back away from, which is a very peculiar set of circumstances.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .