House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Subordinate Legislation (Proposals to Vary Regulations) Amendment Bill SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (PROPOSALS TO VARY REGULATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 April 2012.) Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:19): I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Proposals to Vary Regulations) Amendment Bill 2012. The principal act regulating the making, printing and publishing of certain subordinate legislation is the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978. As members would be aware, we make new and amend old laws, statutes, in this place and if they have the support of another place, with or without amendment, then we have a process for legislation. But there is a considerable amount of subordinate legislation which is prepared, often by the departments, to support the operation of the principal laws that we pass. It is a machinery process, which is necessary. It is fair to say that, from the opposition's perspective, we find disappointing that the current government regularly attempts to use subordinate legislation to identify what should be in the statutes. Frequently, I am in this place with other members of the opposition to say, 'No; that issue, that definition, the extent of application that is identified here should be in the principal act.' Whilst we have a dispute frequently with the government about what aspects should be in the act, and what should be in the subordinate legislation in the regulations particularly, I think only once have I raised questions about whether the rules of court or other rules associated with the subordinate powers should be incorporated in legislation. In any event, it is a common concern of the opposition. The process we have, though, to deal with subordinate legislation is one of accountability, which says that the regulation or subordinate aspect must be tabled in both houses within six sitting days of being made and can be disallowed by either house within 14 days of tabling. There have been attempts to vary this process because of, particularly, the difficulty in not being able to excise or challenge a small portion of the whole of the regulations. In 2009, the then Liberal MLC, the Hon. Robert Lawson, introduced a private member's bill in the Legislative Council which proposed a number of changes, including allowing parliament to vary or substitute regulations; similarly, the Hon. Stephen Wade introduced an amended version on 15 February this year. Under this bill, tabled by the member for Fisher in April this year, the proposal is that processes introduced for the Legislative Review Committee of either house of parliament can propose variations to regulations and receive a response from the responsible minister. Essentially, this is a process that would run parallel, rather than incorporate the disallowance process. From our consideration, we would be a little concerned that this process is likely to be confused with the disallowance process and, accordingly, we will not be supporting it. The proposed process we consider also to be too time-limited, whereas the disallowance motion only needs to be moved within 14 days of tabling. Finally, there is no consequence for the minister failing to comply with the duty to respond. It is already, of course, within the capacity of either house to suggest a variation to regulation and to enforce it with a threat of disallowance. I can think of situations we have had in this place, before my time, when ministers have repeatedly introduced regulations, they have been disallowed, they have been voted down, and then ministers have come back and introduced the regulations again. One of them I remember researching was the question of school fees: I think the then minister Buckby would introduce the fees, they would be disallowed, he would come back again the next year, do it again, etc. That is not an uncommon situation when there are sufficient numbers in the house to support a disallowance. So, as an opposition, we would like to evolve the practices of the parliament, rather than amend the laws at this stage. For example, if the house is considering a disallowance motion, the better practice may be to ask members to speak to a motion and indicate their position a sitting week prior to the disallowance vote being taken so that the government is aware of the likely outcome and has an opportunity to further provide advice before a final vote to disallow the motion is taken. For those reasons the opposition will not be supporting the bill—but, well done, member for Fisher. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.