Regulation Review Committee

About this Item
Speakers - Hall Ms Jill; Cruickshank Mr Adrian
Business - Committee, Report

REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report on Regulations

Ms HALL (Swansea) [1.20]: This report indicates the detailed work of the Regulation Review Committee undertaken over a number of months. The list of regulations on the cover of the report, long though it is, presents but a fraction of the regulations examined and considered by the committee at its meetings. The report demonstrates the depth of investigation that my committee undertakes in order to ensure that regulations do not trespass on personal rights and liberties or transgress against our other grounds of review.

Members will be pleased to note that when the committee considers regulations in most cases it is able to clarify its concerns and bring about positive change where necessary by corresponding with relevant Ministers and without needing to resort to the ultimate sanction of recommending disallowance to Parliament. The committee is proud of its record in resolving in a non-partisan manner issues arising with regulations. In all of its deliberations the committee is concerned not to trespass upon policy issues, which are the province of the Minister, but to concentrate on the process of making regulations particularly with respect to the requirements under the Subordinate Legislation Act.

That Act requires that the substantive provisions of regulations and relevant alternative options to them be fully assessed in terms of their costs and benefits to the community. I can best illustrate the success of the committee's operations by referring to certain of the regulations contained in the report. In the case of the Boxing and Wrestling Control Regulation the committee found that the costs of administration of the Boxing Authority far exceeded the revenue received from the industry. On a straightforward cost-benefit assessment, therefore, the regulation could not be justified. The Minister indicated in her response that costs would be monitored and reviewed to ensure that all possible avenues for reduced government expenditure on boxing would be examined.

A similar case occurred in connection with the Poultry Meat Industry Regulation, with the relevant fees not recovering costs. The Minister indicated in his response that full cost recovery would be achieved in 1997. The committee was satisfied with this response. On the Medical Practices Regulation relating to infection control standards, the committee was concerned that the regulation relied more on complaints than inspection of premises and that uniform standards might not be ensured by this method. The committee was provided with a briefing by the director of the AIDS and infectious diseases branch of the New South Wales Department of Health on the effectiveness of infection control standards adopted under the regulation and was satisfied with it.

In the case of the Local Government Water Sewerage and Drainage Regulation, the committee raised the issue of the adoption of codes or standards in regulations. This has been a long-term concern to the committee and was initially raised in the committee's tenth report tabled in November 1990. The committee believes that cost-benefit analysis of standards adopted in regulations should be a uniform requirement. At present this is undertaken at the national level in accordance with the principles and guidelines adopted by the Council of Australian Governments in April 1995.

The committee also calls on the Government to provide appropriate advice to Standards Australia on the preparation and assessment of standards intended for adoption in New South Wales legislation and calls on the Premier to introduce the amendments to the Interpretation Act with respect to the disallowance of standards as recommended in its tenth report. In that report the committee recommended among other things that the Parliament should have the power to disallow the whole or part of any standard incorporated by reference in legislation. The committee has been awaiting action on this issue for some considerable time. The committee wrote to the Premier on 23 October 1995 concerning this issue and was advised in June of this year that consideration is still being given to the suggested amendments.

In the case of the Sydney Water Corporation Limited (Catchment Management) Regulation 1995, the committee held a formal inquiry on the regulation which it reported in its thirty-second report to the Parliament, of November 1995. It made eight recommendations for amendment of the regulation, particularly with respect to the rights of access to the catchment area. The committee was pleased to note that the Minister has also implemented several recommendations. A number of the outstanding issues are to be resolved by a management plan which is yet to be adopted. The committee will continue to monitor this situation. The Minister spoke of the committee's actions when addressing the estimates committee in another place. He said:

What we have tried to do, and Sydney Water has been extremely cooperative, with the support of the parliamentary Regulation Review Committee, is to ensure that there are protocols in place and strong relationships formed with those who seek to use water catchments in a passive way without harming the environment.

This, if anything, shows the positive, pro-active role that the Regulation Review Committee adopts in pursuing its concerns with Ministers, particularly
Page 5027
when it considers that the process for assessment of regulations may have fallen down in some particular respects. The committee helps the Minister to put the process of assessment and consultation back on the rails to ensure that regulations ultimately act in the best interests of the community as a whole. I do not think I need to mention many other examples of this approach contained in the report. I conclude by saying that the committee believes that its experience in bringing about regulatory reform by this consensus approach can now be put to greater use by extending the committee's functions to include the scrutiny of bills. The committee has made several recommendations in previous reports along this line and it has written to the Premier seeking his agreement to it. Reform of this kind has already been adopted by the Commonwealth Senate and by several other States. I commend the report to the House.

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [1.27]: I wish to make some brief comments on the report. An interesting 1994 publication by David Hamer entitled "Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia" remarks on the lack of community interest in regulations in contrast to the real importance they have to the community. In chapter nine, on parliamentary control of delegated legislation, he stated:

It would be idle to pretend that parliamentary control of delegated legislation is a burning issue in the community or that most voters would even know what delegated legislation is, and for these reasons it is difficult to find members of any of the parliaments prepared to take much interest in the matter. Nevertheless it is of great importance; uncontrolled delegated legislation offers a fertile field for executive despotism and bossy interference by bureaucrats. Delegated laws often have much more impact on the lives of ordinary citizens than do most Acts of Parliament.

In discussions about Commonwealth-State relationships it is obvious that there are far greater opportunities for abuse of human rights at the State level than at the Federal level. I have been a member of the Regulation Review Committee since 1989. Each time the committee is set up I note that new members come to it with some reluctance. One or two of them even regard the committee as being the last card in the committee pack. This view inevitably changes when those members start to realise that regulations represent more than just benign bureaucratic essays in the Government Gazette; they equate more truthfully with matters that require vigilant study and assessment because they deal with issues of great difficulty. Many represent the "too hard" basket of the legislator.

I have been reliably told that on settlement of bills it is common practice for knotty, intractable issues that cannot be resolved within the deadlines of a rushed legislative program to be thrown into the regulatory basket for later resolution. Unfortunately, these often contain matters of principle that should have been dealt with in the bill. At the other end of the scale are those issues characterised by suffocating detail such as might be found in a traffic law governing bus lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I sometimes get this regulation out to remind me again that regulations are meant for ordinary people and to be understood quickly. The regulation reads:

The words "bus lane crossing permitted" (with or without the addition of words or figures denoting distance) mean, and the direction represented by the traffic control sign on which they appear is, that despite the provisions of paragraph (z) the driver of a motor vehicle which is approaching the traffic control sign from the direction in which it is facing and along a traffic lane which is adjacent to a bus lane (as referred to in paragraph (z)) above or on which the sign is erected, displayed or marked may, between that sign and the next traffic control sign facing the driver on which appear the words "bus lane crossing zone ends", drive the vehicle across the bus lane for the purpose of gaining access to another traffic lane, provided that the crossing is made in accordance with these regulations and may be made without the danger of a collision.

I hope that explains why the Regulation Review Committee is in existence. That type of regulation is capable of lowering the spirits of even a hardened deregulator like me. I add that, in the case of this regulation, the committee strenuously sought to have it simplified, but without success. In contrast to such a detailed regulation there are many seemingly innocuous regulations that are, nevertheless, capable of stirring public passions, such as the regulation under the Animal Research Act which governs the persons or organisations entitled to be represented on an ethics committee to approve proposals for animal research.

It is often difficult to recognise the importance of a regulation. Unfortunately, many regulations have escaped my eyes and, to be truthful, the eyes of my fellow committee members, because of their unceasing flow through the Government Gazette. Sometimes the committee is literally overwhelmed by the quantity of regulations, each of which must be scrutinised, if practicable, within 15 sitting days of their tabling in the Parliament. I sometimes think that Parliamentary Counsel must have a professional staff of some 10 million lawyers who never leave their office in the Goodsell Building. In fact, some years ago I remember a short article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the indefatigable Mr Dennis Murphy, QC, the New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel, who occasionally remained in his office over the weekend.

It has always been a surprise to me that, over the years, the committee has remained on such good terms with the Parliamentary Counsel because, after all, the committee can make a good point only at the expense of his office. Mr Murphy, however, is a man of extraordinary good nature as well as great ability. The report of the committee is illustrative of its continuing endeavour to highlight, where necessary, for Parliament's attention and for action by government departments, particular aspects of the social and economic aspect of regulations. The work of the people on the Regulation Review Committee over the last 8½ years has been extraordinary. I think the people in the public service think of them
Page 5028
as traitors to their class as they make decisions, determinations and recommendations which do not endear them to many other parts of the public service, in particular, Ministers' offices. I commend those people as I think they do a tremendous job. For as long as we have those members of staff democracy in relation to regulations will be in very safe hands.

Report noted.

Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.33 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:25:31 : Update this page