Page 150 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government will support the Bill in principle. It is, as a matter of principle, a sensible measure. It is not in fact enhancing the power, because private members could, by a circuitous route, initiate or amend subordinate laws, regulations, now. But it would be a fairly circuitous route and it would put members to rather more bother than is necessary. This is a clear statement of principle which must be right. If private members can introduce Bills, it must follow that they should have the power to introduce something that is subordinate to a Bill.
Most business of government that impacts financially tends to occur through subordinate laws, determinations. We have shown, I think, some good faith there too. The Chief Minister and Treasurer some time ago made it very clear that all taxing measures will be brought into the chamber and tabled. That is correct in principle, but some parliaments have taken the view that powers to disallow subordinate laws are limited to laws and that fees and charges and taxes and tax measures should be somehow different. Certainly the disallowance power remains, but initiation and amendment of taxing fees and charges are a separate issue that I think requires some careful thought. We commend Mr Moore for the principle of the Bill. We support the principle of the Bill. This Assembly will be going a further step to distinguish itself from other parliaments if it adopts this Bill, which it probably will unanimously in principle. It is a step that the Government can quite openly say we have supported, because we supported similar extensions when we were in opposition.
There is an issue that needs to be very carefully thought about - how we finesse this around issues of fees and charges. I would like, in good faith, to have some discussions with Mr Moore and other interested members on that. As we develop some amendments, I will certainly give them to Mr Moore and any other members who are interested, and we can perhaps come up with a workable compromise that enhances the appropriate power of individual elected members of this place to deal with laws that affect the public. As is very clear, and as Mrs Grassby's committee often points out in reports, the laws that impact on a citizen are often not the Bills that have been debated in this Assembly but the subordinate laws that are passed underneath them.
We actually have a quite good record in this place which we should be justifiably proud of. Our regulations are actually not so extensive. If you looked on the table in the New South Wales, Victorian or South Australian parliament you would see the volumes of statutes. As they are more grandiose parliaments, they probably have leather bound, luxuriant volumes. Being a modest parliament, we have our statutes in the cardboard loose-leaf folders.
Mr Humphries: I think "poor" is the better word than "modest".
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, that is probably right. You would see roughly an equivalence of what we have in Acts, but you would probably see about as much again in the sheer volume of the regulations. I seem to recall seeing a report or some papers that came out of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which in fact broke our package down. Our package is much, much smaller. We have been quite cautious about regulations. It may be a function of the size of this Assembly that matters that in another parliament would not warrant coming before the parliament but would be done by the Executive tend to be brought forward here by way of legislation. That is probably a good thing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .