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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3037 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It strikes me that we should take a page out of the Prime Minister's book. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, when Ministers get together and make an agreement, if he disagrees, who cares? He can take an entirely different view. Who cares if all the Ministers around Australia get together and agree on something? He can dismiss that. So, I think it is appropriate for us to take a page out of his book and say, "Who cares if these public servants all around Australia get together and make a design rule? If we have a good reason, we will change it". But, of course, we would consider these things, and it is very clear that this Assembly is very good at scrutinising things. We go through many things very carefully.

Mr Kaine: But do you want to look at which nut goes on which bolt under which screw?

MR MOORE: Knowing nuts and bolts and screws is a very important thing. It seems to me that the sort of thing that happens is that the industry tends to draw members' attention to issues when something is put in that ought to be considered for disallowance. That is why we retain this power.

My guess is that the power will be used in very unusual circumstances, as disallowance generally in this Assembly is rarely used. The reason it is rarely used is that it is there. When it is there, it means that Ministers are very careful about what goes through, because that disallowance power is there and they do not want to be embarrassed by their decisions being overturned. Public servants are aware that that is the case and public servants are aware that the power lies with their Minister. But, in the end, it is this Assembly that has the power to allow things. We delegate appropriately to Ministers. They, in turn, delegate to their public servants. In the end, the responsibility lies in this chamber. I think it is a very sensible amendment that Mr Whitecross has put up.

MR WHITECROSS (10.53): Mr Kaine, when he does not have a good argument, always resorts to the argument that everyone else does not know what they are talking about, which is very reminiscent of his argument that he wonders why everyone else is struggling to understand his illogical policy. The facts of the matter are very simple. It is a simple principle of parliamentary scrutiny. The fact is that those 600 amendments to the Australian Design Rules that Mr Kaine talked about are all disallowable instruments in the Federal Parliament, and they seem to get by just fine. So, I do not see that it is a big problem.

As Mr Moore rightly says, the scrutiny of amendments to the manual would be rare, rather than frequent. Let me give just one example of why this power might be useful. Mr Kaine's predecessor, Mr De Domenico, got out of bed one morning and, in spite of the Australian Design Rules specifying an amount of tint that it was appropriate to put on windows of cars, in his infinite wisdom, decided that a different level of tint was appropriate for cars; that they could be darker than the Australian Design Rules specified. If Ministers and departments can decide to override Australian Design Rules and specify a darker degree of tint than is specified in the Australian Design Rules, then I think that the parliament has a right to say, "We like the Australian Design Rule better.

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