Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 376 ..

Similarly, we would like to be able to look at the response that was provided to the organisation after they were consulted, so that, if someone provided ideas in relation to legislation and the ideas were not found to be favourable, we can see what the Government or the Minister gave back to the person who had consulted and what indication the Government gave as to why the notions that the person had put or talked about were not acceptable or perhaps were being modified. That would give us a clear window into how government deals with the community, deals with the interest groups and deals with the ideas that people put up.

Similarly, I think it is important also to include further feedback as a built-in part of the consultation process. We saw this most graphically in the adoption debate. There had been a high level of consultation, but when amendments were made in the house the matter ended up going to a committee because no process of further consultation had been established. I think it is important for the Assembly to see how the Government would deal with further consultation with interest groups should the Assembly wish to amend or modify legislation when it hits the Assembly. If no consultation took place, it is important that that also be said. In the many cases where consultation does not really need to take place, the Assembly can be informed that there was no consultation, and it can then make its own judgment on whether that was appropriate. If we were provided with information on consultation, at least we would know who was talked to, when they were talked to, why they were talked to, what the impact of the discussion was and whether the consultation modified the legislation. Then we would be able to debate the issues before us with much better mutual information, rather than trying to second guess who spoke to whom and when, and what they said.

As I said, this is not something that has come solely out of my head. It has been pretty thoroughly canvassed at the Federal level. The Federal committee that canvassed the evidence and had a look at the different submissions that were put forward has encapsulated quite well why it is so important for government to undertake consultation and has given points which I think it is probably easiest for me to repeat rather than reword in my own way. Let me list the arguments that they accepted as cogent justification for a general consultative process being built into all legislation that is presented by the Executive. It improves the quality of the final product. It is also an important part of developing finely tuned rules that administer government programs so that you have a notion of how they all work. It utilises in an open forum expertise that may be lacking in government. It legitimises delegated legislation by bringing those involved in the legislation closer to the process. It gives a formal voice to those affected by legislation in a much more efficient and fair way than any form of review in court. It is necessary to prevent regulatory capture - that is, cosy regulatory structures - from being developed between government and those who are routinely consulted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .