Page 1482 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Wales, parliamentary standing orders state that government bills must and non-government bills may be accompanied by an explanatory statement.
In addition, the fifth edition of House of Representatives Practice does not prescribe the content of statements but states that they usually consist of an introductory outline of the general purpose of the bill and notes on clauses which explain the provisions of each clause. The ACT position is different again. Standing order 168 (c) simply requires that, when a member presents a bill, the member must also present any associated explanatory statement. Presumably if one is not written, then there is no breach of the standing order. Perhaps it would be appropriate to address that if we intend this requirement to apply to all bills.
The government is also concerned that a person or organisation may not wish to be named in a public consultation report in connection with an issue under debate in the Assembly. While public organisations might expect such exposure, I doubt that most individuals would wish to be drawn into controversy simply because an MLA asked their opinion on a legislative proposal. That would be the effect of Dr Foskey’s legislation.
The consultation process in the context of this debate is just that. It is a process leading to the final version of legislation. Whatever the Assembly may decide to be the best approach for presenting explanatory statements, those documents should reflect the policy intent of the bill, not the policy objectives of some or all of the stakeholders involved in the process who may or may not have achieved their objectives.
The government’s view is that the intent underlying this bill is misguided. The principal purpose of the explanatory statement is to assist the reader of the document to understand the legislation to which it relates. The process by which the bill was developed, however, and the nature of the discussions leading up to its presentation are very much a matter for discussion and debate within this Assembly and, where it applies, the relevant standing or select committee.
I think it is important to stress that the role of standing committees in examining and undertaking consultation about new legislation must not be ignored. Together with the opportunity offered by debate in this place, standing committees are for all participants a forum in which to express their views on whether the legislation meets their needs or accounts for their particular interests.
Given those arguments, and also when you look at the consultation report Dr Foskey has provided for this bill, you have to ask whether it adds anything meaningful to the debate. The fact that Dr Foskey has listed five entities and organisations in her bill and says “that’s my consultation” in the government’s view adds nothing to the debate. For example, we do not know what they said. Did they agree or disagree? Were they just told and not offer an opinion? These are the sorts of question marks that underlie the misguided approach to this legislation.
The government’s view is that the government and indeed all members should justify why they have come to a particular position when they present legislation to this Assembly. Those matters can be explored in detail in the debate itself and in standing committees and select committees of this place, if that is where a bill ends up. There is a thorough and adequate process to explore whether or not a piece of proposed legislation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .