Page 1485 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
support at least from members of the scrutiny of bills committee. It is possible that the officers or staff in the Attorney-General’s office have misunderstood this simple bill or its intent.
Very clearly, if passed, these amendments to the Legislation Act would not require the government or any other proponent of a bill to conduct consultation; nor do they specify a form or degree of consultation were it conducted; nor does the bill suggest what form or what detail any report on any consultation must take. It merely requires the explanatory statement to a bill to include a report on any consultation that has been conducted in the development of the bill.
Since tabling the bill, we have seen numerous instances where a little more care in ensuring that key stakeholders are brought up to speed on the development of a bill would either obviate considerable angst or deal with problems before they become intractable.
If a simple report on consultation—let us say a list of the bodies consulted—made it clear that, for instance, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia had not seen the asbestos legislation bill that we passed last week, then my office would immediately have referred the bill to them. Instead I accepted the verbal advice that all relevant stakeholders were fully aware of developments, but they were not. There would have been sufficient time to work with those stakeholders and address concerns they might have had if the information had been available.
Similarly, to keep our focus on the frustrations of recent small-scale miscommunications that a simple report on consultation would have prevented, I draw attention to the recent Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The government consulted with its animal welfare advisory committee. That committee provides expert advice to the government but does not consult with the wider membership of animal welfare groups. So the assumption we made that the RSPCA, which is a very significant organisation with regard to animal welfare, would have been consulted was wrong.
It would have been helpful and constructive if my office or others had circulated that bill when it was introduced, in order to elicit a wider response. A report on consultation would, by its omissions, have suggested such a course of action. There are countless other instances where some formal recognition of the groups has been built into the development of legislation. On occasions, some insight into their response or concerns would assist us in responding constructively and efficiently to legislation before the Assembly.
Mr Stefaniak talked about the lack of resources of private members and used that as an argument against reporting on consultation. I want to use that as an argument to support the listing of consultations, because our lack of resources means that we must go to the community organisations—
Mr Stefaniak: No. You have got me wrong there.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): Mr Stefaniak, you can use the standing orders to explain yourself later. Do not interject.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .