Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2890 ..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
Queensland indicating that clauses showing where regulatory impact statements were not necessary were more often used than those showing where they were necessary.
The bill allows the minister to issue guidelines in deciding whether a proposed law is, or is not, likely to impose appreciable costs to the community, in which instance those guidelines become a disallowable instrument. The minister may exempt the proposed subordinate law from the need for regulatory impact statements, but this instrument is also a disallowable instrument.
There may be an issue with the definition of appreciable cost to the community. The definition of cost talks about burdens and disadvantages, and direct and indirect economic, environmental and social costs. It would not be appropriate merely to consider a dollar value as the determinant.
It is the intention of the bill that, when subordinate laws are being prepared, the drafters give some consideration to the impact of that legislation and determine whether it has a significant impact on a community. If it does, then a regulatory impact statement should be prepared.
One could ask if the changes to the regulations attaching to the Dangerous Goods Act in relation to the sale of fireworks will have a major effect on the fireworks sales industry, and also on the general public. If the answer is yes, then a regulatory impact statement would be needed. It need not be long, but would draw attention to many of the issues facing such an industry.
One could also ask whether the determinations on the application of the GST ought to carry a regulatory impact statement because they have an appreciable affect on the gaming industry. Again, the regulatory impact statement need not be long, but would assist in the process of the legislation's passage through the Assembly by removing much uncertainty. Any regulation that might change the allocation of poker machines to the casino would, I hope, attract a regulatory impact statement.
Finally, this bill is intended to enhance the production of good subordinate legislation, and to involve stakeholders who are significantly affected by the legislation. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries ) adjourned.
MR CORBELL (10.53): I move:
That this Assembly deplores the record of the Minister for Urban Services in his failure to properly administer planning and land management in the Territory and reasserts planning in the ACT as a public function which recognises every Canberran's right to participate as an equal in shaping the future of our City.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .