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 15 November 2012.) Mrs GERAGHTY House of Assembly Torrens Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:01): The government has for a long time opposed attempts by members in this house and in other places to amend the Subordinate Legislation Act to allow either house of parliament to disallow part of a regulation or even to vary or substitute regulations. This is because, without proper understanding of the principal act under which the regulation is made or the policy reasons as to why particular wording was used in the regulation, the disallowance of one provision or a variation of a provision could fundamentally change the effects of the regulation. The member for Fisher proposes an alternative approach in his bill, that is, it gives the Legislative Review Committee, as part of its inquiry into the regulation, or either house of parliament, by resolution, the opportunity to suggest one or more variation to a regulation. Although the minister is obliged to consider the suggestions and to advise the committee or the relevant house of his or her response via written report presented to the committee or tabled in the relevant house within nine sitting days, the minister is under no obligation to agree to the amendments. Although the government understands the intention behind the bill, it does not support the bill. The bill imposes no limitations on how many amendments to the regulations may be suggested or that they be of any relevance to the policy issue that the regulation is trying to address. It is possible that the responsible minister could end up having to consider and respond to copious amendments that may not be practical or even possible and the regulation could still end up being disallowed. Further, although the proposed processes may allow minor issues to be resolved or unintended defects to be cured without resorting to disallowance of the entire regulation, it is already (as noted by the opposition) within the capacity of either house to suggest a variation to a regulation before moving a motion of disallowance. It is for those reasons that the government opposes the bill. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:03): From the opposition's point of view, the process proposed in this bill runs parallel to, rather than incorporating, the disallowance process. We are concerned that the proposed process is likely, potentially, to be confused, therefore, with the disallowance process. I fear that members may pursue the new process, receive a response beyond the time for a motion for disallowance and lose the opportunity to disallow. The proposed process is too time limited. Whereas a disallowance only needs to be moved within 14 sitting days of tabling, the proposed process requires that a motion is moved, debated and voted on within 14 sitting days of tabling. There are no consequences of the minister failing to comply with the duty to respond. It is already within the capacity of either house to suggest a variation to a regulation and to enforce it with the force of a threat of disallowance. In our view, the government is potentially failing to engage on disallowance motions until they pass, which increases the risk of unintended consequences. We think it is better for the processes and practices of the parliament to evolve rather than amend this law. If a house is considering a disallowance, maybe a better practice would be to ask members to speak to a motion and indicate their positions a sitting week before the disallowance being taken so the government is aware of the likely outcome and would have the opportunity to take further advice before a final vote. There are many ways this could be dealt with which we feel would be preferable to this piece of legislation, much as we appreciate the member for Fisher's intent in introducing it, but on this occasion we will not be supporting the bill. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:05): I thank the government and the opposition for their contributions. The intent of the bill was to get away from the sudden-death play-off that we currently have with regard to regulations and allow for a negotiated improvement or change to the regulation. When you have a sudden-death play-off I do not think that is necessarily the most rational or logical way to go about things, but if nothing else I hope that raising this issue might lead to some reform, and not just with regard to this process. I think a lot of the processes in this place and the other place need reform. I was encouraged by the remarks of the opposition spokesperson that they believe there might be some other strategies and techniques that could be employed. So, if I have it on the radar for the government and the opposition, I think it is part of the wider requirement that we reform some of the ways in which we run this place because many of them, in my view, are not as efficient and effective as they could be and they are not all that rational. I still put this, and that is the reason I put it forward, to bring about a better and more rational way of dealing with issues in this place. Second reading negatived.