4.1

The Act was introduced into the Legislative Council on 9 November 1999 by the Honourable Marsha Thomson MLC. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 10 November 1999. The Act received Royal Assent on 14 December 1999.

4.2

The Act provides that certain invalid decisions of the Federal Court of Australia or the Family Court of Australia may have effect and be enforced as decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Act is the State Governments response to the High Court’s decision in Re Wakim¹¹ which effectively struck down the ability of State Parliaments to invest Federal Courts with State jurisdiction. The High Court also determined that the Commonwealth Parliament is not able to confer or to consent to the conferral of State jurisdiction on federal courts.

The main features of the Act are –

• the rights and liabilities of persons affected by invalid decisions of the Federal and Family Courts (‘federal courts’) are declared to be the same as if those decisions had been valid Supreme Court decisions;
• invalid judgments of federal courts can be enforced in the same way as Supreme Court judgments; and
• matters on foot in the federal courts can be dealt with as though they had commenced in the Supreme Court.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

The majority of the High Court found that the vesting of State jurisdiction in federal courts is ineffective. The decision impacts on the general cross-vesting scheme introduced by the Commonwealth and State Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Acts under which State and federal courts have reciprocal jurisdiction. Also affected is the jurisdiction of the federal court under the Corporations Law, which operates throughout Australia as State and Territory laws, and which is reliant on cross-vesting arrangements.

In addition, other State laws associated with commonwealth-state cooperative schemes apply certain federal laws as State law and also confer jurisdiction on the federal court. These cooperative schemes include the agriculture and veterinary chemicals scheme, competition policy scheme, gas pipelines access scheme, National Crime Authority scheme and the price exploitation scheme associated with the federal government’s goods and services tax (GST). All these schemes are affected by the decision in Re Wakim.

The effect of the High Court’s decision is to render decisions previously made by the federal court and the family court relying purely on cross-vesting arrangements liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Another effect is to prevent the further exercise of purely State jurisdiction by federal courts.

On the other hand, the cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State and State and State and Territory is not affected, nor is the vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts under the Commonwealth Judiciary Act 1903. Similarly, the decision does not affect the exercise by a federal court of accrued jurisdiction, where the court has jurisdiction to resolve a whole controversy containing both federal and State law elements.

The Act declares that in relation to State matters, as defined, the rights and liabilities of a person affected by a judgment of the Federal Court or the Family Court, including an appeal judgment of one of those courts, are the same as if the judgment had been a valid judgment given by the Supreme Court. The Act specifically provides that such rights and liabilities are exercisable and enforceable as if they were rights and liabilities under judgments of the Supreme Court. Similarly, any acts or omissions in relation to such rights and liabilities are taken to have the same effect and consequences as if occurring under a judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is also given power to vary or otherwise deal with any such rights and liabilities.

The Act provides a mechanism for the transfer to the Supreme Court of current proceedings in federal courts relating to state matters where a Federal Court determines that it has no jurisdiction to hear the State matter.

…

The Act contains consequential amendments designed to remove exclusions of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court appearing in the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995 and the New Tax System Price Exploitation Code (Victoria) Act 1999. Those exclusions cannot stand now that the Federal Court is unable to hear matters arising under those acts.

4.3

Section 2 the provisions of the Act come into operation on the day after Royal Assent.

Sections 6 and 7 declare that all rights and liabilities are to be the same as if the ineffective judgment had been given by the Supreme Court and that these rights and liabilities may be enforceable as though they were made pursuant to valid judgments of the Supreme Court.

Section 11 provides that certain federal proceedings on foot may be transferred to the Supreme Court.

Section 15 provides that any State enactment conferring jurisdiction on a federal court or excluding State jurisdiction in a State Court is taken not to have that effect.

Section 17 permits the Governor in Council to make regulations to give effect to the Act.

Sections 18 and 19 make amendments to the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995 and the New Taxation System Price Exploitation Code (Victoria) Act 1999. Both these Acts conferred State jurisdiction on federal courts and excluded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil and criminal matters arising under the respective Acts.

4.4 Alteration or variation of section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (section 4D(b)(i) and (ii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968)

Section 16 declares that it is the intention of Part 2 to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

Section 85 statement

It is the intention of Part 2 of the Act to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. I therefore make the following statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act of the reasons for altering or varying that section.

This is very much a technical provision inserted out of an abundance of caution, and not one that should alarm those members concerned to protect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Part 2 of the Act does not in terms deem invalid judgments of federal courts to be judgments of the Supreme Court. Rather, what the Act does in Section 6 is to declare the rights and liabilities of all persons to be the same as if the invalid judgment had been a valid judgment of the Supreme Court. That course has been adopted very deliberately to minimise the potential for challenge to the Act on constitutional grounds. Nevertheless, for technical reasons Section 7 provides that, for the purposes of an appeal, an invalid Federal Court judgment is to be deemed to be a valid judgment of the Supreme Court. Arguably, this deeming mechanism alters the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by creating by a legal fiction a judgment of the Supreme Court where previously there had been none.

To take another example, Section 12 provides for functional equivalence between an invalid Federal Court judgment and an order of the Supreme Court for the purposes of the law of contempt.

It might be argued that by doing so, the Section takes away from the Supreme Court’s discretion by presenting the Supreme Court with a legal fiction that it must treat similarly to one of its own orders. There might be similar arguments made about other Sections contained within Part 2.

To the extent that Part 2 alters or amends section 85 of the Constitution Act, it does so purely for the purpose of making better provision for dealing with ineffective judgments of federal courts. Absent the Act, many decisions of the Federal Court and the Family Court given over a period of more than 10 years would be liable to be set aside. Such cases would need to be re-litigated, with all the attendant expense and, in some cases, misery, that might entail. Many litigants would find themselves out of time if forced to recommence litigation in the Supreme Court. The Act deals with this problem both for matters already heard and for matters that are still on foot. The minor and theoretical variation in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in the government’s view, is amply justified by the mischief that would be caused by failing to pass the Act.

5.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 10 November 1999 by the Honourable Rob Hulls MLA with the Honourable John Thwaites MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 11 November 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent on 21 December 1999.

5.2

This Act amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) providing increased access to documents. The main features of the Act are –

• removing recent changes to the Act that prevent access to documents that identify any person, including public servants, named in those documents.
• narrowing the exemption from disclosure for cabinet documents;
• narrowing the exemption from disclosure relating to ‘commercial confidentiality’;
• compelling ministers to explain to the Parliament the reasons for appealing to the Supreme Court a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to release documents; and
• removing the $170 appeal fee at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for ‘deemed refusals’;

5.3

Section 2 the amendments come into operation on1 January 2000.

Documents affecting personal privacy

Section 4 repeals Part 3A comprising sections 27A to 27G of the Act dealing with documents containing personal information.¹²

Section 6 deals with documents affecting personal privacy and inserts a new section 33(2A) in the Act providing that an agency or Minister in deciding whether the disclosure of a document would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person may take into account (as well as other matters) whether the disclosure would or would reasonably likely to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Information relating to the personal affairs of any person includes information that identifies any person or their address or location or from which identity, address or location can reasonably be determined.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

The previous government recently amended the Act to exempt from release, documents that identify any person, including public servants. A person wanting this information is forced to apply to VCAT, incurring additional costs in the process. The amendments were said to be in response to the tribunal’s decision in the Coulston case.

Not only have the amendments unjustifiably narrowed the operation of the Act, the amendments have also created an administrative nightmare for government departments and agencies, which have been required to painstakingly examine documents the subject of a request in order to delete identifying information relating to a person.

The Act repeals those amendments, contained in Part IIIA of the Act.

In conjunction with repealing Part IIIA, the Act clarifies that ‘information relating to the personal affairs of any person’ as contained in section 33 of the Act includes identifying information of any person, such as the person’s name or address. Recent VCAT rulings have raised doubts as to whether information relating to the personal affairs of any person includes the names and addresses of persons. The Act gives guidance on this issue.

The government recognises that there will be instances where the release of identifying information may be inappropriate: for instance, where a person’s life or physical safety may be at risk. The Act permits a decision-maker, in deciding whether disclosure of a document would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information, to take into account in addition to any other matters whether the disclosure of the information would, or would be reasonably likely to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

Cabinet documents

Section 5 substitutes a new section 28(1)(b) the effect of which is to remove the exemption for documents that are merely considered by Cabinet without having the status of a Cabinet submission. The substitution removes the words struck through –

(1) A document is an exempt document if it is –

(b) a document that has been prepared by a Minister or on his or her behalf or by an agency for the purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet. (or a document which has been considered by the Cabinet and which is related to issues that are or have been before the Cabinet)

Commercial confidentiality

Section 7 amends section 34(1) of the Act to narrow the exemption for documents relating to business, commercial and financial information acquired by an agency or Minister. The substituted section will allow a narrower test for exemption for documents where disclosure ‘would be likely to expose a business unreasonably to disadvantage’

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

Commercial confidentiality

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for a range of information relating to business, commercial or financial matters that is obtained by government agencies from business organisations. This exemption has been employed in the past, under the guise of commercial confidentiality, to prevent disclosure of documents that should be open to public scrutiny.

The Act narrows the ambit of this exemption. Under the proposed amendments documents will be exempt only if disclosure of information relating to business, commercial or financial matters would be likely to expose a business organisation unreasonably to a disadvantage.

This narrower exemption will operate in conjunction with the government’s policy commitment to post all contracts for the delivery of services to the community on behalf of the government on the Internet. This will ensure that Victorians are aware of and better able to scrutinise business undertakings entered into by the government.

Report to Parliament by Minister on appeal of VCAT’s decision

Section 8 inserts a new section 65AB in to the Act requiring a Minister to cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament within seven sitting days, a brief statement of his or her reasons, or the reasons of an agency as to why leave to appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to release documents is being sought.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

Ministers’ accountability

As part of its commitment to accountability, the government promised to require ministers to explain to the House why the public interest is served by the government appealing from a decision by the tribunal to release documents. The Act requires the relevant minister to make a brief statement of reasons as to why they are appealing to the House within seven sitting days from when a summons for leave to appeal is filed with the court.

Section 9 provides for transitional matters to cover requests, fees proceedings and other matters already applied for, paid or commenced prior to the commencement of the provisions in this Act.

Removal of fees where refusal to disclose is deemed

Section 10 substitutes a new paragraph (x) in item 7 of Schedule 3 to the Tribunals and Licensing Authorities (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998. This amendment removes the $170 fee for ‘deemed refusals’ under section 53 of the Act. The fee was payable in circumstances where an agency or Minister has failed to respond to a request or failed to provide notification of a decision within the statutory time-limits. To review such a decision the applicant was required to commence proceedings before the VCAT.

6.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Council on 30 November 1999 by the Honourable Candy Board MLC. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 1 December 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent on 21 December 1999.

6.2

This Act amends the Gas Industry Act 1994 to make further provision relating to non-franchise customers and for other purposes.

6.3

Section 2 the amendments come into operation on the day after Royal Assent.

Section 4 makes certain statute law revision amendments.

7.1

The Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 10 November 1999 by the Honourable John Thwaites MLA with the Honourable Rob Hulls MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 11 November 1999. The Act received Royal Assent on 7 December 1999.

7.2

The Act allows ‘a visiting health practitioner’ to provide health care services in the State in connection with ‘special events’ without becoming registered under State law.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech –

The principal aim of the Act is to authorise visiting health practitioners to provide health care services to visitors in Victoria in connection with designated special events while exempting such practitioners from the provisions of Victorian law relating to health practitioners.

The Victorian government has made a commitment to host rounds of both the men’s and women’s football – soccer – competitions of the Olympic Games in September 2000. In addition, there may be other visiting teams associated with the Olympic Games who use facilities in Victoria for training prior to the games.

…

Provision is made in this Act for the Minister for Health to declare a special event in the Government Gazette. Visiting health practitioners will then be exempted from the offence provisions contained in a health registration act and from those contained in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act and its regulations.

…

This Act will streamline the process necessary for a visiting health practitioner to provide health care services to a member of a group or team associated with a designated special event.

7.3

Section 2 provides that saving section 20, the provisions of the Act come into operation on 1 January 2000. Section 20 comes into operation on the day on which section 100 of the Dental Practice Act 1999¹³ comes into operation.

Section 3 provides certain definitions for the Act including –

"special event" means a sporting, cultural or other event or class of events declared to be a special event by a special event Order.

Section 4 defines the meaning of "visiting health practitioner" as –

(a) the person is an individual who is a resident of another country; and

(b) the person is appointed, employed, contracted or otherwise engaged to provide health care services to a visitor; and

(c) notice is given, in accordance with the procedure specified in the special event Order for the special event concerned, of the person’s intention to provide health care services in the State to a visitor.

Section 5 defines the meaning of ‘visitor’ for the purpose of the Act and includes a resident of Australia in Victoria officially participating in a special event.

Section 6 allows the Minister to make a special event Order published in the Government Gazette declaring an event or class of events specified in the Order to be a special event taking place or is taking place in the State for the purposes of the Act.

Sections 7 to 9 a special event Order must specify certain matters such as procedures, the exemption periods, conditions, restrictions or limitations.

Section 10 provides that a special event Order may authorise supply and use of certain poisons under the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

Section 11 authorises a visiting health practitioner to provide health care services for the duration of a special event to visitors for whom the visiting health practitioner has been appointed, employed, contracted or otherwise engaged to provide those services.

Section 13 provides that a visiting health practitioner does not commit an offence under a health registration Act for; (a) providing health care services authorised by this Act; or (b) holding himself or herself out as being able to provide health care services authorised by this Act; or (c) using any name, initials, description, word, symbol, addition or title that he or she ordinarily uses or for certain other matters that may be otherwise offences under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 or any regulations under that Act.

Section 15 provides an exemption from the offence provisions in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 in relation to a licensed or otherwise authorised supplier of poisons under that Act, for the supply of certain scheduled poisons to any authorised visiting health practitioner if the visiting health practitioner is authorised in accordance with this Act to be supplied with the poison by wholesale.

Section 16 exempts pharmacists from certain offences under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 or any regulations under that Act for selling or supplying or dispensing a Schedule 4 poison or a Schedule 8 poison in accordance with a prescription written by an authorised visiting health practitioner for an authorised visitor within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.

Section 19 provides that the Governor-in-Council may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the Act.

8.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 10 November 1999 by the Honourable Rob Hulls MLA with the Honourable Steve Bracks MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 11 November 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent on 7 December 1999.

8.2

This Act amends the Legal Practice Act 1996 (the Act) with respect to the powers of the Legal Profession Tribunal.

8.3

Section 2 provides that the amendments come into operation on the day after Royal Assent.

Section 5 inserts a new section 136A into the Act permitting a Tribunal to dismiss a dispute if it considers it is more appropriately dealt with by a court. A dispute may be dismissed on the application of a party or on the Tribunal’s own initiative. If the Tribunal dismisses a dispute, it may refer the matter to the relevant court if it considers it appropriate to do so.

Section 6 amends section 160 and permits a Full Tribunal to refer a practitioner to the Supreme Court with or without a recommendation that the practitioner’s name be struck off the roll of practitioners. It also permits a Full Tribunal a separate power to disqualify, for a specific period, a practitioner from applying for a practising certificate or for a practising certificate with particular conditions.

Section 7 amend section 169A(1) allows a Full Tribunal in an appeal concerning a dispute to allow the costs of transcripts of the hearing before the Tribunal at first instance.

Section 8 provides for transitional arrangements in respect to existing disputes. The new provisions will apply only to disputes referred to the Tribunal after the commencement of this Act or apply in respect of charges brought in the Tribunal after the commencement of this Act.

Sections 9 and 10 make statute law revision amendments to the Act and to the Leo Cussen Institute Act 1972.

9.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 10 November 1999 by the Honourable Bob Cameron MLA with the Honourable John Thwaites MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 11 November 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent 21 December 1999.

9.2

This Act amends the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) to replace the compulsory competitive tendering requirements imposed on Councils with an obligation to ensure that Councils seek the best value in providing services.

9.3

Section 2 the amendments come into operation on the day after Royal Assent.

Section 4 amends Part 9 of the Act by substituting a new Division 3 comprising new sections 208A to 208I dealing with ‘Best Value Principles’ (the Principles). The Principles are set out in 208B.

A Council must, on or before 31 December 2000, develop a program for the application of the Principles. A Council must ensure that the program is available to the public. A Council must apply the Principles to all of the services it provides on or before 31 December 2005. A Council must ensure that any quality or cost standards it adopts are available for inspection by the public. At least once every year a Council must report to its community on what it has done to ensure that it has given effect to the Principles.

New section 208H allows for Ministerial Codes to be published in the Government Gazette in relation to how Councils are to give effect to the Best Value Principles. A Council must comply with any obligation imposed by such a Code that applies to the Council.

New section 208I allows the Minister to publish in the Government Gazette guidelines for Councils in relation to the Best Value Principles.

Section 5 repeals certain other competitive tendering provisions in the Act.

Section 6 increases the minimum compulsory tender amount in section 186(1) of the act from "$50,000" to "$100,000."

Section 7 provides for certain additional regulation-making powers to be substituted into Schedule 12 of the Act to give effect to the amendments made by the Act.

10.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 24 November 1999 by the Honourable Rob Hulls MLA with the Honourable Steve Bracks MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 25 November 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent on 21 December 1999.

10.2

The amending Act; renames the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Act 1994 (the Act) to the State Sports Centres Act 1994; renames the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre Trust (the Trust) as the State Sport Centres Trust; extends the powers of the Trust to enable it to manage the State Netball and Hockey Centre (the Centre) and other sports, recreation and entertainment facilities and services.

10.3

Section 2 the amendments come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed but not later than by 31 December 2000.

Section 4 changes the title of the Act to State Sports Centre Act 1994.

Section 13 inserts a new Division 3 into the Act comprising sections 26A to 26F dealing with the State Netball and Hockey Centre land (the land). The Trust is to manage the land and may enter into leases and grant licences over the land. 26D establishes an advisory committee to be appointed by the Minister in accordance with 26D(2) to advise the Trust on the operation and management of the Centre and the land.

Section 14 amends section 28 and inserts new sections 28A and 28B establishing the State Netball and Hockey Centre Fund and separate accounts respectively for the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre and the State Netball and Hockey Centre.

Section 16 amends the regulation making powers in section 32 of the Act by inserting a new paragraph (ca) and also substitutes a new paragraph (e) –

(ca) the protection of people at any other sports, recreation and entertainment facilities or services managed or operated by the Trust from injury or nuisance";

(e) the exclusion or expulsion of persons found contravening the regulations from--

(i) the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre or the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre land; or

(ii) the State Netball and Hockey Centre or the State Netball and Hockey Centre land; or

(iii) any other sports, recreation and entertainment facilities or services managed or operated by the Trust."

The Committee is of the opinion that the amended regulation making powers are appropriate to give effect to the purposes of the Act.

Section 17 amends section 33 of the Act to permit the Trust to make By-laws, subject to the approval of the Minister, in respect to fees and charges for the admission to and the use of any facilities or services at –

(i) the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre or on the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre land;

(ii) the State Netball and Hockey Centre or on the State Netball and Hockey Centre land;

(iii) any other sports, recreation and entertainment facilities or services managed or operated by the Trust.

Section 18 provides for transitional provisions to ensure the change of name and other amendments have no adverse legal consequences and provides for appropriate legal continuity for leases, licences, contracts and projects.

11.1

This amending Act was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 8 December 1999 by the Honourable Steve Bracks MLA with the Honourable John Thwaites MLA. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 8 December 1999. The amending Act received Royal Assent on 14 December 1999.

11.2

This Act amends the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 (the Act) so as to –

• increase the membership of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee; and
• vary the role of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee; and
• establish a Committee of the Legislative Council to be called the Economic Development Committee for the duration of the Parliament in existence at the date of the passing of this Act; and
• increase the membership of the House Committee and vary its role.

11.3

Section 2 saving sections 11 and 12, the amendments comes into operation on Royal Assent. Sections 11 and 12 come into operation on the day on which the Assembly which is in existence at the date of the passing of these amendments - (a) expires by effluxion of time; or (b) is dissolved, whichever of those events first happens.

Section 4 increases the membership of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee from 9 to 10. The quorum of the expanded Committee is 6 members.

Section 5 amends the terms of reference for the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee by inserting a new paragraph (ba) in section 4D of the Act allowing the Committee –

"to consider any Act passed at any time between 3 November 1999 and 31 December 1999 and to report to the Parliament with respect to that Act on any matter referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)"

Section 6 inserts new sections 38 to 41 into the Act dealing with the establishment of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) as a select committee of the Legislative Council consisting of not more than 7 members. The quorum of the EDC is 4 members. The EDC must elect one of its members to be chairman and the chairman has a deliberative vote and a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes. This Committee established reverts to a Joint House Committee on the dissolution of the 54th Parliament.

New section 38 and 39 provides for the functions and role of the EDC.

New section 40 provides that the EDC holds office, and may exercise all the powers conferred on it by this Act or otherwise, for the 54^th Parliament during which it is appointed until, (a) the expiry of the Assembly by effluxion of time; or (b) the dissolution of the Assembly whichever of those events first happens.

(2) Subject to sub-sections (3) and (4), the EDC may sit and transact business during the period for which it holds office at such times (including times while either House of the Parliament has adjourned) and in such places in Victoria or elsewhere as are convenient for the proper and speedy dispatch of business.

The provisions in the Act namely sections 4H to 4L, 4N, 4O, 4R, 4T and 4U shall, as modified, apply to the EDC, and to any sub-committee of the EDC, as if it were a Joint Investigatory Committee or a sub-committee of a Joint Investigatory Committee.

Section 7 makes consequential amendments to the Act to give effect to the new Committee arrangements. Section 8 amends section 45 in increase the size of the House Committee from 10 to 11 members with the additional member to be appointed from the Assembly. The quorum is increased from 3 to 7 members.

Section 10 inserts transitional provisions as new sections 55 and 56.

New section 55 will ensure that statutory rules laid before the Parliament on or after 3 November 1999 and before the first appointments are made to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the 54^th Parliament, are subject to the same temporal limitations scrutiny limitations by the Committee as regulations made at any other time and are therefore subject to the same disallowance procedures, pursuant to section 23 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.