| In 2002, 136 regulations and
one State Environment Protection Policy were made and reviewed by
the Regulation Review Subcommittee.
The Committee did not make any Reports to
Parliament concerning regulations made in 2002. While the Committee
did not make any Reports to Parliament, where the Regulation Review
Subcommittee had concerns with regulations it wrote to responsible
Ministers seeking clarification on each occasion. The Committee
is pleased to report that Ministers generally responded promptly
to all concerns expressed by the Regulation Review Subcommittee.
Appendix
2 contains a list of correspondence between
the Regulation Review Subcommittee and Ministers concerning regulations
made in 2002.
Inconsistent with the Objectives of the
Authorising Act
Under section 21(1)(c) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examines regulations to ensure that they are consistent with the
objectives of their authorising Acts.
Example
SR 9 – Health (Quality of Drinking
Water) Regulations 2002 impose standards and obligations on
water supply authorities to protect water supplies from contamination.
These Regulations replaced the Health (Quality of Drinking Water)
Regulations 1991 (the 1991 Regulations). Under the 1991 Regulations
the maximum penalty for non-compliance was $5,000 whereas under
these Regulations the maximum penalty which may be imposed is $2,000.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee considered that the new maximum
penalty for non-compliance was very low given the serious consequences
which can result from non-compliance.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote
to the Minister pointing out that the maximum penalty imposed under
the Regulations may be inconsistent with the objectives of the Health
Act 1958 and seeking advice as to why the penalties for non-compliance
had been reduced. The Minister indicated that the penalties had
been reduced because of provisions in the Premier’s Guidelines
which indicate that penalties exceeding $2,000 should be contained
in primary legislation, that is Acts rather than Regulations.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee considers
that regulations may impose penalties exceeding $2,000 as long as
the authorizing Act specifically provides power for regulations
to impose those sorts of penalties. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
accepted the Minister's response.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 9 – Health (Quality of
Drinking Water) Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 30 August 2002 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Health (Quality of Drinking Water)
Regulations 2002 replace the Health (Quality of Drinking Water)
Regulations 1991. The Regulations impose standards and obligations
on water supply authorities to protect water supplies from contamination.
More specifically the Regulations –
-
Impose a general duty upon water supply
authorities to take reasonable precautions to ensure that
their water supply systems are protected from contamination;
-
Require officers of water supply authorities
and councils who suspect that water supplied by a water authority
may be the cause of an illness or the means by which an illness
is being (or has been) transmitted to report the matter to
the Secretary within 24 hours of forming the suspicion;
-
Require water supply authorities to
take samples of water within their control at set intervals;
-
Require water samples to be tested
for E-coli and total coliform bacteria;
-
Require water authorities to comply
with any directions from the Secretary requiring more frequent
sampling.
The penalties imposed for non-compliance
with these provisions is $2,000 whereas under the previous regulations
a maximum penalty of $5,000 could be imposed. The RIS notes that
the regime of monitoring and testing water supplies operates to
reduce the probability of major contamination incidents such as
that which occurred in Sydney in 1998 and which is estimated to
have cost $300 million. The Subcommittee notes that the penalties
imposed seem to be very low in light of the serious consequences
which may result from failure to comply with these Regulations.
Section 21(1)(c) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 allows the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
to report to Parliament where a regulation appears to be inconsistent
with the objectives of the authorising Act. Two of the objectives
of the Health Act 1958 are –
(c) to reduce the incidence of disease,
disability, distress and symptoms of ill health;
(d) to reduce the incidence of untimely
death.
The Subcommittee notes that significant
benefits are obtained from the regulation of water authorities
as contained in these Regulations. The regime of sampling and
testing established by the Regulations reduces the probability
of water contamination incidents. However the penalties for non-compliance
with this regulatory regime are very low, given that non-compliance
could result in serious illness and death. It is on this basis
that the Subcommittee considers that the penalties imposed under
these Regulations may be inconsistent with the general objectives
of the Health Act 1958 and may possibly constitute a breach of
section 21(1)(c) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to
why the penalties imposed for non-compliance with the Regulations
were reduced, given the serious consequences which may result
from non-compliance. The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your response.
Minister's Response[27]
SR 9 – Health (Quality of
Drinking Water) Regulations 2002
Thank you for your letter of 13 September
2002 regarding the levels of penalties in the Health (Quality
of Drinking Water) Regulations 2002.
The penalties in the new Regulations were
reduced to 20 penalty units or less having regard to the content
of paragraph 1.13 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 Guidelines
(1997) made by the Premier under section 26 of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994. Paragraph 1.13 sets out several matters
which should be in primary rather than subordinate legislation,
including matters that impose significant criminal penalties (such
as fines exceeding 20 penalty units or imprisonment).
It is understood that the difference between
matters properly the subject of primary or subordinate legislation
is derived from views previously expressed in the former Legal
and Constitutional Committee’s 24th Report on Subordinate
Legislation (November 1991) and the 3rd Report of the Scrutiny
of Acts and Regulations Committee on Subordinate Legislation (October
1993).
I trust that this clarifies the matter.
Hon. John Thwaites, MP
Minister for Health
Inconsistent with Principles of Justice
and Fairness
Under section 21(1)(h) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examines regulations to ensure that they are consistent with principles
of justice and fairness.
Example
SR 42 – Health Records Regulations
2002 set maximum fees for obtaining access to records under
the Health Records Act 2001 and set out the circumstances
for the collection of health information. These Regulations enable
people to access their health records where that information is
held by a private sector health service provider (for example private
hospitals, dentists, pathology services) or a private sector organisation
which holds health information (for example private schools, kindergartens,
crèches).[28]
In its submission as part of the RIS process
the Mental Health Legal Centre expressed concern about the ability
of pensioners and health care card holders to access their own health
records and suggested that these groups should have been granted
an exemption from fees. The Regulation Review Subcommittee considers
inability by low income groups to access health information because
of high maximum to be inconsistent with principles of justice and
fairness under section 21(1)(h) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic).
The Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote
to the Minister seeking clarification. The Minister acknowledged
the Regulation Review Subcommittee’s concerns and pointed
out that the Regulations provide a discretion to private sector
organisations not to charge fees where those seeking access are
financially disadvantaged. The Minister indicated that the Health
Services Commissioner does not keep statistics which specifically
relate to financially disadvantaged groups but that general enquiries
from consumers and health service providers are monitored. Interestingly
many of the telephone calls received by the Health Services Commissioners
have been from doctors complaining that the fees are too low. The
Minister confirmed that the comments made by the Mental Health Legal
Centre were taken into account prior to the enactment of the Regulations.
The Minister also indicated that the Department will monitor the
impact of the regulations on pensioners and health care cardholders.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee accepted
this response noting the need to carefully balance the competing
interests of providing access to health care records to financially
disadvantaged groups and the need for some level of cost recovery
by private sector oganisations. The Subcommittee is very pleased
to note that the Minister’s department will be monitoring
the impact of the Regulations on pensioners and health care cardholders.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 42 – Health Records Regulations
2002
At its meeting on 11 April 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee discussed the above Regulations following
up from comments made by the previous Subcommittee.
The Health Records Regulations 2002 set
maximum fees for obtaining access to records under the provisions
of the Health Records Act 2001 and set out the circumstances for
the collection of health information. The maximum fees payable
by an individual depend on the type of access sought to that information.
These fees are set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
The previous Subcommittee was concerned
about comments made by the Mental Health Legal Centre that the
cost of accessing health records for pensioners and health care
card holders may be prohibitive and that these groups should have
been granted an exemption. The Subcommittee's Legal Adviser was
requested to seek further information.
The Subcommittee notes advice provided
to the Department by Parliamentary Counsel that there is power
in the Health Records Act 2001 to fix a lower maxima for eligible
beneficiaries but not to impose a "nil fee" or to make
waiver mandatory. The Subcommittee also notes that usually where
private sector costs are reduced (for example electricity) the
Government provides a subsidy to organisations affected to compensate
for the lower charge. No Government subsidy is envisaged for organisations
affected by these Regulations. The Subcommittee is aware that
in setting maximum fees competing interests had to be carefully
weighed – provision of access to low income applicants and
allowing organisations, particularly those in the private sector
to obtain a reasonable level of cost recovery.
The Subcommittee remains concerned about
the ability of pensioners and health care card holders to access
their health information. The Subcommittee seeks your advice as
to how the Regulations are operating in practice and in particular
whether there is any data available about the extent to which
pensioners and health care card holders are accessing their health
information. The Subcommittee considers that if the maximum fees
imposed by the Regulations are inhibiting access by pensioners
and health care card holders to their health information this
would be inconsistent with principles of justice and fairness
under section 21(1)(h) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your response.
Minister's Response[29]
SR 42 – Health Records Regulations
2002
Thank you for your letter of 16 April 2003
that identifies some of the ongoing concerns of the Regulation
Review Subcommittee in relation to the Health Records Regulations
2002 (the Regulations).
As you identified in your letter, in setting
these Regulations careful consideration was given to the competing
interests of both consumers and private sector organisations that
hold health records. In response to concerns about the ability
of pensioners and health care cardholders to access their information,
the Health Services Commissioner (the Commissioner) has produced
information for organisations and consumers about the rights to
access created under the Health Records Act. These highlight the
fact that organisations are not obliged to charge a fee for providing
access to health information and that if they do so the fee cannot
be more than that which is set out in the regulations. In addition,
as part of the ongoing education process provided by the Commissioner’s
office, doctors are informed that they have a discretion not to
charge a fee for access or transfer of health information, and
they always have the option not to do so in situations where the
patient is financial disadvantaged.
The Commissioner’s office has informed
the Department that it does not keep statistics on complaints
that relate specifically to pensioners and health care cardholders
accessing their health information. The office does receive general
enquiries from both consumers and health service providers about
the costs associated with providing access to health records or
having these records transferred to another health service provider.
I am advised that normally these are resolved through clarification
of fees prescribed by the regulations associated with these types
of requests.
It is interesting to note that, of the
telephone calls (approximately 60) received by the office this
year regarding fees, many have been from doctors complaining that
the fees are too low, or asking for advice on how much they can
charge.
I appreciate that the committee is concerned
to ensure that pensioners and health care cardholders can have
reasonable access to their health information. The concerns of
the Mental Health Legal Centre are important, and were taken into
account when the regulations were settled. However, I am advised
that the Health Issues Centre, which is the peak Victorian organisation
representing a wide range of consumers, acknowledged that the
Health Records Act is designed to allow some measure of cost recovery.
It accepted that the regulations did strike a balance between
cost recovery and ensuring that access is not prohibitive. The
Government accepted their advice that the maxima set out in the
(then) draft regulations should not be increased in the final
regulations. The views expressed by the Health Issues Centre also
reflected discussions within the Consumer Reference Group, which
advises the Health Services Commissioner regarding health records
issues. My Department will liaise with the Commissioner to monitor
the impact of the regulations on pensioners and health care cardholders.
As you note, in setting the maximum fees
under the regulations, the Government had to ensure that the competing
interests of consumers and private health care providers were
carefully balanced. At this stage there is no evidence that access
to health information for pensioners and health care cardholders
has been a significant issue since the Act came into operation
last year.
Hon. Bronwyn Pike MP
Minister for Health
Non Compliance with the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994
Under section 21(1)(j) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examines regulations to ensure that there is substantial compliance
with the requirements of the Act and the Premier’s Guidelines.
Example
SR 133 – Private Agents (Interim)
(Amendment) Regulations 2002 regulate the security industry.
These Regulations were exempted from the RIS process by the Premier
under section 9(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(Vic). Section 9(3) allows the Premier to exempt regulations from
the RIS process in cases of emergency or overriding public interest.
The Premier’s Guidelines make it clear that Premier’s
certificates should only be granted where there are ‘special
circumstances’ and not for administrative convenience. The
‘special circumstances’ in this case were that final
form regulations could not be completed because of the calling of
the election and without final form regulations the security industry
would have been left unregulated. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
was concerned because this was the fourth occasion on which final
form regulations governing the security industry were unable to
be completed.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote
to the Minister acknowledging that the need for the security industry
to continue to be regulated constitutes ‘special circumstances’
but pointing out that the extension of these Regulations on four
occasions defeated the purpose of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic) which requires regulations to sunset at the
end of 10 years. The Regulation Review Subcommittee also indicated
that it considered the use of Premier’s certificates on three
separate occasions and the granting of an extension under section
8(1)(d)(iii) on another occasion to be inconsistent with the intention
of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) and the Premier’s
Guidelines.
The Minister noted the Regulation Review
Subcommittee’s comments concerning the use of Premier’s
certificates and provided the Subcommittee with a detailed explanation
of the difficulties faced in producing final form regulations.
The Subcommittee was satisfied with the Minister’s
response. The Subcommittee remains of the view that Premier’s
certificates should only be used where there are ‘special
circumstances’.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 133 – Private Agents (Interim)
(Amendment) Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Private Agents (Interim) (Amendment)
Regulations 2002 regulate the security industry. These Regulations
were exempted from the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) process
by the Premier under section 9(3) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994. The Subcommittee notes that under section 9(3) of the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 the Premier can exempt regulations
from the RIS process in cases of emergency or overriding public
interest. The Premier's Guidelines indicate that Premier's certificates
are not to be issued merely for administrative convenience. In
addition the Premier's Guidelines point out that such an exemption
should only be given if the proposed regulation is to sunset in
12 months.
The Premier certified that the special
circumstances and overriding public interest for exempting these
Regulations from the RIS process was that final form regulations
could not be completed due to the calling of the election and
without final form regulations the security industry would be
left unregulated. The Subcommittee agrees that leaving the security
industry unregulated constitutes special circumstances. However
the Subcommittee is very concerned that this is the fourth time
final form Regulations were unable to be completed.
The Private Agents Regulations 1990 were
first extended for a period of 12 months by SR 79 – Subordinate
Legislation (Private Agents Regulations – Extension of Operation)
Regulations 2000 on the basis that additional time was needed
to complete a review of the Private Agents Act 1966. Sections
8(1)(d)(iii) and 5(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
were relied upon for granting this extension.
On 12 August 2001 the Private Agents Regulations
1990 expired and were replaced by SR 76 – the Private Agents
(Interim) Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Interim Regulations). The
2001 Interim Regulations were exempted from the RIS process under
section 9(3) so that the review of the Private Agents Act 1966
could be completed and to ensure that the private security industry
continued to be regulated. The 2001 Interim Regulations expired
on 30 June 2002.
The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister
concerning the 2001 Interim Regulations seeking an explanation
as to when the review of the Private Agents Act 1966 would be
completed. The Minister indicated that while precise timelines
could not be given it would be necessary to complete final Regulations
before the 2001 Interim Regulations expired in June 2002. The
Subcommittee notes that final form Regulations were not completed
prior to June 2002.
The 2001 Interim Regulations were replaced
by SR No. 52 — Private Agents (Interim) Regulations 2002
(the First 2002 Interim Regulations). The First 2002 Interim Regulations
were exempted from the RIS process by a certificate of exemption
issued by the Premier on the basis that the Private Agents Act
1966 was subject to extensive review and that final Regulations
could not be remade until the review of the Act was finalised.
The Subcommittee notes that the First 2002 Interim Regulations
expired on 30 December 2002 and final form Regulations had still
not been completed.
The First 2002 Interim Regulations were
replaced by the Private Agents (Interim) (Amendment) Regulations
2000). These are discussed above in paragraph 2 of this letter.
The Subcommittee notes that the final form regulations have now
been made – SR No. 27 – Private Agents Regulations
2003 and that these commenced on 2 April 2003. The commencement
of these Regulations on 2 April 2003 left the security industry
unregulated for a period of two days.
While the Subcommittee accepts that the
need for the security industry to continue to be regulated constitutes
special circumstances – the extension of these Regulations
on four occasions defeats the purpose of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 which requires Regulations to sunset at the end of 10
years. Sunsetting is an important part of the regulation-making
process because it enables regulations to be subject to regular
review. Part 12 of the Premier's Guidelines makes clear that it
is important for sufficient time to be allowed for a proper evaluation
and review of regulations. The use of section 8(1)(d)(iii) and
later Premier's certificates to enable the private security to
continue to be regulated while final form regulations were completed
has meant that the Private Agents Regulations 1990 have continued
in existence for approximately 12 1/2 years rather than 10 years
as required by the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. The Subcommittee
sees this as a serious issue and as undermining the sunsetting
process.
The Subcommittee considers the use of Premier's
certificates on three separate occasions to grant extensions to
these Regulations as being at odds with the spirit and intention
of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Premier's Guidelines.
The Premier's Guidelines make clear that Premier's certificates
should only be issued where there is an emergency or overriding
public interest and that they should not be issued merely for
administrative convenience. The Subcommittee wishes to remind
legislative officers of the importance of commencing reviews of
regulations well in advance of the expiry of regulations.
While the Subcommittee has approved the
Regulations on this occasion it will consider any future use of
Premier's certificates as outlined above to constitute a breach
of section 21(1)(j) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if
the above matters could be drawn to the attention of legislative
officers in your department.
Minister's Response[30]
SR 133 – Private Agents (Interim)
(Amendment) Regulations 2002
Thank you for your letter dated 20 May
2002 concerning the above Regulations.
I have noted the Committee’s view
that the extension of the operation of the existing Regulations
on four occasions is at odds with the spirit and intent of the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Premier’s Guidelines
issued under the Act.
As you observe in your letter, the reason
for the series of extensions was to allow for the continuation
of the existing licensing regime while the review of the Private
Agents Act 1966 was completed and any resultant reforms implemented.
That process has proved to be more protracted than is perhaps
desirable; however, the ambit and method of the future regulation
of the private security industry is an important issue and has
been the subject of extensive discussion within Government.
Each of the extensions was based on the
expectation that a new regulatory regime would be implemented
and, importantly in that context, avoiding the potential confusion
within the industry and community if two Regulatory Impact Statements
(RIS) were issued in rapid succession – the first on effectively
remaking the existing Regulations so as to preserve the status
quo on an interim basis and the second on any proposed new statutory
rule under a new legislative regime. In my view, far from being
simply a matter of administrative convenience as you imply, these
circumstances gave rise to an overriding public interest in issuing
the Premier’s Certificates.
On the view that a new regime appeared
unlikely to be agreed in time and the undesirability of a further
extension to the interim Regulations, the Department of Justice
had prepared a RIS as a necessary step in effectively re-making
the existing Regulations prior to the expiry of the Private Agents
(Interim) Regulations 2002 on 30 December 2002. However, the calling
of the State Election in late 2002 made it inappropriate to release
that RIS until a new Government was formed. As a consequence,
the Private Agents (Interim)(Amendment) Regulations 2002 were
made without an RIS under a Premier’s Certificate, which
had the effect of extending the operation of the existing Regulations
until 30 March 2003. I am grateful that your Sub-Committee has
acknowledged that leaving the security industry unregulated (had
the interim regulations simply been allowed to expire) constitutes
special circumstances warranting the issue of a Premier’s
Certificate.
The extension of the operation of the Regulations
until 30 March 2003 was regarded as the minimum period possible
for a new Government to formulate a view and, if necessary, undertake
the RIS process required under the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994. As you are aware, the Bracks’ Government was returned
to office with a resounding majority. This victory enabled the
Department of Justice to release the RIS and draft Regulations
that it had previously prepared for public comment. These Regulations
were identical to those that the Department had drafted prior
to the 2002 election (save for some amendments that were adopted
in response to submissions received on the RIS) and that would
have been made prior to 30 December 2002 had the election not
been called. As you have noted, the resultant regulations, the
Private Agents Regulations 2003 (SR No. 27/2003), came into operation
on 2 April 2003.
I note your advice that the Sub-Committee
considers that any future use of Premier’s Certificates
as occurred with the Private Agents Regulations will constitute
a breach of section 21(1)(j) of the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994.
I trust that my response has made clear
why the extensions to the operation of the Regulations were sought
and the unusual circumstances that necessitated the final extension.
Hon. André Haermeyer MP
Minister for Police and Emergency Services
Consultation
Section 6 of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic) sets out the requirements for consultation.
These requirements apply to regulations made with or without RISs.
Responsible Ministers must ensure that there is consultation “where
the guidelines[31]
require consultation” with any sector of the community on
which an appreciable economic or social burden may be imposed and
other Ministers whose area of responsibility may be affected.[32]
The Premier’s Guidelines provide –[33]
5.20 If the proposed statutory rule is likely to impose an appreciable
burden, cost or disadvantage on any sector of the public, consultation
should take place with that sector, eg business groups, community
groups, special interest groups. The consultation should include
discussion of the need for and method of the proposed regulation.
The Premier’s Guidelines indicate
that the “nature and degree of consultation that is appropriate
for any particular rule will vary with the nature of that rule”.[34]
This places ultimate responsibility on Ministers to ensure that
appropriate consultation takes place and includes all those affected
by a proposed regulation.
While the Premier’s Guidelines
provide assistance with the consultation process, the Regulation
Review Subcommittee acknowledges that some sections are unclear
and ambiguous, making it difficult for department and agency officers
to determine in what circumstances consultation should take place.
There is, for example, an inconsistency between the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) and the Premier’s Guidelines
as to whether consultation must[35]
or should[36]
occur in accordance with the Premier’s Guidelines.
It is the strong preference of the Regulation Review
Subcommittee that consultation take place with all those affected
by a particular regulation and that the current ambiguities be resolved.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee notes
that not all departments and agencies provide details
of who was consulted in consultation certificates for regulations
excepted and exempted from the RIS process. Consequently the Regulation
Review Subcommittee has had to seek additional information concerning
consultation on a number of occasions. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
considers that it is important for all consultation certificates
to provide details of all those consulted.
Example 1
Section 11(3) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic) imposes a duty on Ministers “to consider
all submissions and comments received on a draft statutory rule
where a RIS has been prepared”. The Premier’s Guidelines
also emphasise the need for all comments and submissions to be considered
before a regulation is made. The Subcommittee considers that community
wide consultation is essential for the effectiveness of the regulatory
system.
During the Inquiry into the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) the Committee received evidence
of some dissatisfaction with the community consultation process,
particularly the adequateness of consideration given to comments
made. The Committee considers that there will always be some dissatisfaction
with final form regulations however stronger support can be obtained
where the reasons for proceeding in a particular direction are more
clearly explained. The Committee recommended that departments and
agencies provide detailed reasoning in support of final regulations
and that this be made available on a centralised website dedicated
to all types of legislation. In the Government Response to the
Committee’s Report, it was agreed that departments and
agencies should provide broad reasons in support of final regulations
to all those who made submissions.
SR 62 – Domestic (Feral and Nuisance)
Animals (Amendment) Regulations 2002 set out the requirements
for perimeter fencing for dangerous dogs guarding commercial premises,
the accreditation requirements for qualified dog trainers and the
standards to be met by obedience assessment programs. Twelve submissions
raising a number of issues were received in response to the RIS.
A standard response, which did not address many of the issues raised,
was sent to all those who made submissions.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote
to the Minister emphasising the importance of responding to specific
comments. The Regulation Review Subcommittee considers that where
there is a more specific response to issues raised there will be
much greater support for the final regulations and greater public
confidence in the adequacy of the submission process.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 62 – Domestic (Feral and
Nuisance) Animals (Amendment) Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 16 April 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
These Regulations set out the requirements
for perimeter fencing for dangerous dogs guarding commercial premises,
the accreditation requirements for qualified dog trainers and
the standards to be met by obedience assessment programs.
Twelve submissions were received as part
of the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) process and a number
of concerns were raised by those who made submissions. For example
the Geelong City Council suggested that the requirements concerning
perimeter fencing should also apply to gates to ensure that gates
also meet minimum standards and the Australian Association of
Gentle Modern Dog Training expressed dissatisfaction with not
being consulted and concern over the requirement that organisations
conducting dog training need to obtain annual approval from the
Minister. The Subcommittee's Legal Adviser sought clarification
from the responsible policy officer in the Department concerning
these and other issues raised in submissions and the Subcommittee
is satisfied with the response received. However the Subcommittee
remains concerned that those organisations which made these comments
did not receive any feedback on the issues they raised.
The Subcommittee notes that all those who
made submissions received a standard response from the Department
and that this standard response did not address many of the concerns
raised in those submissions. The Subcommittee draws attention
to the requirement under section 11(3) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 that the responsible Minister must ensure that all comments
and submissions are considered before a regulation is made. Paragraph
5.42 of the Premier's Guidelines also discusses this requirement
and the need to adequately address valid criticisms.
The Subcommittee understands that some
people and organisations will always remain dissatisfied with
the final regulatory outcome. However the Subcommittee considers
that where an effort is made to explain the reasons for rejecting
particular suggestions there is more support for the final regulations
and for the public submission process. In its Report on the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
(the Committee) received evidence of some dissatisfaction with
the public consultation process in that some members of the public
believed that their comments were not seriously taken into account.
To improve public satisfaction with the consultation process the
Committee recommended that departments and agencies consider providing
detailed reasoning in support of final regulations. In its Response
to the Committee's Report, the Government agrees that departments
and agencies should provide reasons which broadly address issues
raised in submissions.
The Subcommittee wishes to draw your attention
to the importance of the public submission process and to the
need for public confidence in and satisfaction with that process.
The Subcommittee has approved the Regulations but wishes to emphasise
the importance of providing more specific feedback to individuals
and organisations on issues raised as part of the public submission
process.
Minister’s Response[37]
SR 62 – Domestic (Feral and
Nuisance) Animals (Amendment) Regulations 2002
I refer to your letter of 28 April 2003,
in which you provided comments by the Regulation review Subcommittee
on the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animal (Amendment) Regulations
2002.
I accept the Committee’s comments
on the quality of the Department of Primary Industries response
to public input on these regulations and will ensure that the
quality of departmental feedback to public comment is improved.
Hon Bob Cameron, MP
Minister for Agriculture
Example 2
SR 121 – Supreme Court (Chapter
I Amendment No. 22) Rules 2002 make changes to the scale of
costs and to the costs awarded where offers of compromise are involved.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee was concerned about the cost
impact on defendants who reject offers of compromise and wrote to
the Attorney-General seeking clarification of the consultation undertaken
prior to the enactment of these Rules.
The Attorney-General indicated that there
had been consultation with and support from the Victorian Bar Council
and the Law Institute and that Victorian law would now be consistent
with other jurisdictions. The Attorney-General indicated that the
changes to the costs awarded where offers of compromise are involved
were only made after careful consideration.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee thanks
the Attorney-General for assisting it to obtain a better understanding
of the above Rules and the changes made to them.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 121 – Supreme Court (Chapter
I Amendment No. 22) Rules 2002
At a meeting on 5 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Rules as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Supreme Court (Chapter I Amendment
No. 22) Rules 2002 makes changes to the scale of costs and to
the costs awarded where offers of compromise are involved. Rule
26.08 provides that where an offer of compromise is rejected by
the defendant and the plaintiff later obtains judgment on no less
favourable terms (unless the court orders otherwise) the plaintiff
shall be entitled to costs as follows–
(1) where the claim involves damages arising
out of death or bodily injury costs on an indemnity basis;
(2) for any other claim costs on a party-party
basis up to and including the day the offer was served and all
costs after that on an indemnity basis.
The Subcommittee notes that previously
in the above circumstances costs were awarded on a solicitor-client
basis rather than an indemnity basis. The Subcommittee understands
that solicitor-client costs include all those costs reasonably
incurred while costs on an indemnity basis include all costs.
The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to what consultation was
undertaken prior to changing the type of costs awarded and whether
prior to making these changes any consideration was given to the
cost impact on defendants who reject offers of compromise.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your response.
Minister's Response[38]
SR 121 – Supreme Court (Chapter
I Amendment No. 22) Rules 2002
Thank you for your letter dated 12 May
2003 inquiring about consultation before the making of the Supreme
Court (Chapter 1 Amendment No.22) Rules 2002, relating in particular
to the costs penalty in respect of offers of compromise.
I have made inquiries of the Supreme Court.
The Acting Chief Justice advises that the matter came before the
Supreme Court Rules Committee at its meeting on 30 October 2001,
shortly after making of the Supreme Court (Chapter I Amendment
No. 18) Rules 2001 (SR 111/2001). Rule 8 of these Rules amended
Rule 63.28 and inserted a new Rule 63.30 to make express provision
for the first time for costs on an indemnity basis.
I am advised that after the making of the
Chapter I Amendment No.18 Rules on 25 October 2001, the Chairman
of the Rules Committee wrote to the Bar Council and the Law Institute
to seek their views on the proposal to amend Order 26 by changing
the costs penalty from solicitor/client costs, to costs on an
indemnity basis. It also appears that the Law Institute’s
representative on the Rules Committee had drawn to his attention
the Rules of the Federal Court which provided for costs on an
indemnity basis as distinct from costs on a solicitor/client basis.
On 27 November 2001, the Committee was
told that the Law Institute had welcomed the opportunity to contribute
and had appointed a sub-committee to examine the proposal.
On 7 May 2002 the Bar’s representative
on the Committee indicated that, as he apprehended it, the proposal
had been approved by a sub-committee of the Bar Council. This
was subsequently confirmed on 20 August 2002.
On 3 September 2002, the Law Institute’s
representative reported that a Committee of the Law Institute
had also agreed to the proposal. The Law Institute’s representative
observed that the concept of offers of compromise had originated
in Victoria but that, in adopting the concept, other jurisdictions
had chosen to include costs on an indemnity basis. The current
proposal therefore would bring Victorian into line with other
jurisdictions.
Accordingly, at its meeting on 17 September
2002, the Rules Committee instructed its Secretary to prepare
the Supreme Court (Chapter I Amendment No.22) Rules 2002 to effect,
inter alia, the change to indemnity costs in relation to offers
of compromise. A draft rule was prepared and considered by the
Rules Committee on 1 October and 15 October 2002. The draft was
finally settled and approved on 12 November 2002.
I gave an exception certificate on 18 November
2002 and, as you are aware, the Rules were made by the Council
of Judges on 28 November 2002.
It would appear that the change from solicitor/client
costs to indemnity costs in respect of offers of compromise was
not made lightly. The Rules Committee consulted with both branches
of the profession at a formal level. Consultation extended over
a considerable period of time. I am confident that the matter
was considered by the profession from a range of perspectives,
including the cost impact on defendants.
I trust this answers your query.
Hon. Rob Hulls, MP
Attorney-General
Example 3
SR 114 – Road Safety (General)
(Responsible Driving) Regulations 2002 specify the particulars
to be contained in a licence suspension notice and increase fines
for speeding offences. SR 115 – Road Safety (Drivers)
(Demerit Points) Regulations 2002 amend the demerit points
for specified traffic offences. Both regulations were exempted from
the RIS process on the basis that they did not impose an appreciable
economic or social burden on any sector of the public.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee was concerned
that both Regulations may impose a burden on taxi drivers, chauffers
and other groups who spend long hours driving on roads. The Regulation
Review Subcommittee wrote to the Minister seeking clarification
as to the consideration given to the impact on and consultation
with these particular groups.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 114 – Road Safety (General)
(Responsible Driving) Regulations 2002
SR 115 – Road Safety (Drivers) (Demerit Points) Regulations
2002
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Road Safety (General)(Responsible Driving)
Regulations 2002 specify the particulars to be contained in a
licence suspension notice and increase fines for speeding offences.
The Road Safety (Drivers)(Demerit Points) Regulations 2002 amend
the demerit points for specified traffic offences. Both Regulations
were exempted from the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) process
under section 9(1)(a) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
as not imposing an appreciable economic and social burden on any
sector of the public.
Both Regulations were also accompanied
by section 6 consultation certificates. These certificates indicate
that prior to making these Regulations consultation was undertaken
with Victoria Police, the Department of Justice and VicRoads.
The section 6 certificates also indicate that the proposed regulations
do not impose an appreciable economic or social burden on any
sector of the public. The Subcommittee is concerned that both
these Regulations may impose a burden on taxi drivers, chauffers
and other groups who spend considerably more hours driving on
roads than most other road users.
The Subcommittee notes that paragraph 5.20
of the Premier's Guidelines provides that where a proposed regulation
"is likely to impose any appreciable burden, cost or disadvantage
on any sector of the public, consultation should take place with
that sector, eg business groups, community groups, special interest
groups".
The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to
whether any consideration was given to the impact of these Regulations
on taxi drivers, chauffers and other similar groups who spend
long hours driving on roads and whether any consultation took
place with these groups and organisations such as the RACV.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your response.
Minister's Response[39]
SR 114 – Road Safety (General)(Responsible
Driving) Regulations 2002
SR 115 – Road Safety (Drivers)(Demerit Points) Regulations
2002
Thank you for your letter of 20 May 2003,
in relation to the Road Safety (General)(Responsible Driving)
Regulations 2002 (SR 114) and the Road Safety (Drivers)(Demerit
Points) Regulations 2002 (SR 115).
You have indicated that the Subcommittee
is concerned that both Regulations may impose a burden on taxi
drivers and other groups of “professional” drivers
and that the Premier’s Guidelines may require consultation
with such groups.
You also ask whether consideration was
given to the impact of the Regulations on such groups and whether
any consultation took place with such groups and organisations
such as the RACV.
The answer to your question is that although
consideration was given to the matter, the conclusion reached
was that an increase in penalties for actions that were already
unlawful could not be said to impose an appreciable economic or
social burden on a sector of the public within the meaning of
the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The above conclusion took into account
independent legal advice obtained from the Victorian Government
Solicitor in 2000 and from Crown Counsel in 2001.
I am advised that economic and social burdens
include the burdens of complying with the law but not penalties
for offences. In reality, the burden in this area was imposed
when the conduct was proscribed by earlier laws which created
the offences.
A further aspect is that the penalty increases
only impact on people who commit offences in the future. Potential
offenders are not an identifiable sector of the public because
their identity cannot be ascertained until offences are committed.
It follows that consultation in accordance
with the Premier’s Guidelines was not required, having regard
to the terms of section 6(b) of the Act.
I appreciate that the concerns of the Subcommittee
may have been influenced by the fact that people who drive for
a living have a greater reason to fear an increase in penalties
for driving offences than people who drive only occasionally.
Putting it another way, there is potential for the increase in
penalties to have a greater influence on “professional drivers”
than on the rest of the community.
The question whether considerations of
that kind should lead to a more tolerant scale of demerit points
for “professional drivers” was considered by the Parliamentary
Road Safety Committee in its Inquiry into the Demerit Points Scheme
in 1994. Section 6.6 of the Committee’s Report contains
a discussion of the topic. It endorsed an earlier response by
the Parliamentary Crime Prevention Committee in 1993 to representations
by taxi drivers on the matter, which was in the following terms:
“…they should be held more
accountable with an expectation of a higher professional driving
skill than that of a normal driver. ...Regardless of the number
of hours on the roads, they should be able to drive without coming
to the notice of the police.”
The Report indicated that the RACV’s
submission to the Parliamentary Road Safety Committee argued against
differential treatment of professional drivers.
In the circumstances, I consider that consultation
with the groups referred to in you letter was not required.
Hon. Peter Batchelor, MP
Minister for Transport
Regulation Impact Statements
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) must
accompany all regulations that are made, unless the regulations
fall within an exception[40]
or exemption[41]
under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic). A RIS
is an assessment of the economic and social costs and benefits of
a proposed regulation. It is not supposed to be complex but “a
commonsense document which provides an honest assessment of the
foreseeable impact of a proposed regulation”.[42]
A RIS should carefully consider and evaluate the impact of a proposed
regulation on those affected and the competing interests involved.
It should also contain an evaluation of alternatives to a proposed
regulation and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives. A person
reading a RIS should be able to conclude that the proposed regulatory
change is justified and that the benefits of the particular regulation
outweigh the potential costs which may be imposed on the community.
In 2002 there were 23 regulations made with
RISs. The Regulation Review Subcommittee notes that there is still
considerable variation in the quality of RISs produced. This issue
is discussed in detail in the Committee’s Report on the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
Example 1
Section 10(1)(c) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic) requires a RIS to include a discussion of other
practicable means of achieving the objectives of the Regulations.
This is reinforced by Parts 2 and 3 of the Premier’s Guidelines.
The Committee received evidence during the Inquiry into the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 that the analysis of alternatives is generally
poor –
… it is apparent in most RIS that
the alternatives described have not been properly developed or
considered and that they were not seriously reviewed as a means
of achieving the identified objective.[43]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee considers
that the lack of consideration and analysis of alternatives coupled
with the poor analysis of problems to be overcome means that RIS
cannot properly contribute to the development of new and innovative
policy. The Regulation Review Subcommittee draws attention to the
need for legislation and policy officers involved in the RIS process
to take particular care when analysing alternatives.
SR 56 – Water (Groundwater) Regulations
2002 set out the fees for the grant and renewal of licences
for drilling and require persons who take water from a bore for
domestic or stock use to give the Minister written notice of the
amount taken. The RIS did not contain any discussion of regulatory
or non-regulatory options for achieving the objectives. The Regulation
Review Subcommittee wrote to the Minister indicating its concerns
and highlighting examples of possible alternatives which could have
been considered. It also sought advice as to whether there had been
any consultation with the Victorian Farmers Federation.
The Minister indicated that the Regulation
Review Subcommittee’s comments concerning the discussion of
regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives had been noted. The Minister
also confirmed that consultation had taken place with the Victorian
Farmers Federation and that they had agreed that the impact of the
Regulations on farmers was minimal.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee was satisfied
with the Minister’s response.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 56 – Water (Groundwater)
Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 16 April 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Water (Groundwater) Regulations 2002
replace the Water (Application Fees) Regulations 1991. The Regulations
set out the fees for the grant and renewal of licences for drilling
and they require persons who take water from a bore for domestic
or stock use to give the Minister written notice of the amount
taken. The Regulations were made with a Regulation Impact Statement
(RIS).
The Subcommittee notes that the RIS which
accompanied these Regulations does not contain any discussion
of alternative regulatory or non-regulatory options for achieving
the objectives of the Regulations. Section 10(1)(c) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 requires a RIS to include a discussion of
other practicable means of achieving the objectives. Parts 2 and
3 of the Premier's Guidelines reinforce this requirement. Paragraph
2.12 of the Premier's Guidelines provides –
Each alternative should receive consideration
by an agency before a final decision is made on how to deal
with a particular problem. Agencies should carefully consider
the advantages and disadvantages of each option before proceeding
to the next stage in development of policy.
The Subcommittee considers that it is essential
that RIS comply with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994. The Subcommittee notes the comments in the RIS that
the Water Act 1989 requires notice to be given to the Minister
concerning the use of bore water and that there are therefore
no alternatives. However the Subcommittee considers that there
are feasible alternatives which could have been discussed concerning
the prescription of fees for the issue and renewal of driller's
licences. For example alternatives to a decrease in licence application
fees include increasing licence application fees or maintaining
them at the same level. Alternatives to increasing renewal fees
including decreasing renewal fees or maintaining them at the same
level. The Subcommittee has approved the Regulations but wishes
to indicate that in future it will expect all RIS to include a
discussion of alternative means of achieving objectives.
The RIS also contains details of those
organisations consulted prior to making these Regulations. The
RIS indicates that consultation occurred with the Goulburn-Murray
Rural Water Authority, the Wimmera Mallee Rural Water Authority,
the Gippsland & Southern Rural Water Authority and the Victorian
Branch of the Australian Drilling Industry Association. The Subcommittee
is concerned about the breadth of consultation undertaken for
these Regulations.
Section 6(b) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 requires the responsible Minister to ensure that consultation
take place with any sector of the public on which an appreciable
economic or social burden may be imposed by a proposed regulation.
Paragraph 5.20 of the Premier’s Guidelines provides –
If the proposed statutory rule is likely
to impose any appreciable burden, cost or disadvantage on any
sector of the public, consultation should take place with that
sector, eg business groups, community groups, special interest
groups.
The Subcommittee is concerned that the
consultation for these Regulations may have been too narrowly
focussed. The Subcommittee considers that many Victorian farmers
would use bore water and that it may therefore have been appropriate
for the Victorian Farmers Federation to have been consulted. The
Subcommittee seeks your advice as to why there was no consultation
with the Victorian Farmers Federation.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your response.
Minister's Response[44]
SR 56 – Water (Groundwater)
Regulations 2002
I refer to your letter dated 28 April 2003
seeking advice on the extent of consultation in establishing the
Water (Groundwater) Regulations 2002 and, in particular, seeking
advice as to why there was apparently no consultation with the
Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) on the regulations and their
impact.
Firstly, the committee’s views on
the need to consider alternatives to increasing the drillers’
licence fees have been noted. Alternatives were addressed in the
statement, although they may not have been sufficiently detailed
given the Government’s policy of full cost recovery for
this type of regulatory service.
Secondly, on the issue of consultation,
the Department of Sustainability and Environment has advised me
that a meeting was held with the VFF to discuss the draft regulations
and the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). In that meeting the
VFF noted that:
-
the requirement for persons who take
water from domestic and stock use to give the Minister written
notice of the amount taken was unchanged and there was no cost
to farmers;
-
the costs of administering the drillers’
licensing system are to be recovered from those who directly
undertake bore construction (drillers) and there are no direct
costs to farmers arising from the proposed regulations. The
VFF acknowledged that costs for drillers licensing will be passed
on to their individual customers but this was considered insignificant
(estimated at less than 30 cents per bore) compared to the costs
of drilling and constructing a bore ($5,000 to $150,000).
The VFF concurred that there was a negligible
impact of the proposed regulations on farmers and a consequence
decided that a formal response on the RIS was not warranted.
I regret that this informal response
and consultation with the VFF was not conveyed to the Scrutiny
of Acts and Regulations Committee.
Hon. John Thwaites, MP
Minister for Water
Example 2
The Premier’s Guidelines make
it clear that RIS should provide a commonsense assessment of the
impact of proposed regulations. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
considers that it is essential that any member of the public reading
a RIS be able to clearly understand the proposed regulatory changes,
the alternatives and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives.
Where RIS are complex, confusing or unclear the ability to participate
in the regulatory process is inhibited. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
considers that it is essential for good quality RIS to be prepared
so that the public can easily understand the reasons for change
and form a view as to whether the proposed changes are justified.
SR 99 – Mineral Resources Development
Regulations 2002 regulate various matters concerning mineral
resource development. The Regulation Review Subcommittee found the
RIS which accompanied these Regulations unnecessarily complex and
confusing making it difficult to understand the changes introduced
and the impact of those changes.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote
to the Minister highlighting its concerns. The Minister indicated
that all issues raised by the Regulation Review Subcommittee had
been drawn to the attention of appropriate officers within the department
and assured the Subcommittee that future RIS prepared by his department
will be clear and easy to understand so that members of the public
can “understand and comment on regulatory proposals”.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee was satisfied with the Minister’s
response.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 99 – Mineral Resources
Development Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 5 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Mineral Resources Development Regulations
2002 regulate various matters concerning mineral resource development.
They specify the royalty rates for brown coal, tailings from Crown
land and all other minerals excluding gold. They also set out
the information required and the fees to be paid for applications
for exploration licences, mining licences, miners' rights, tourist
fossicking authorities and tourist mine authorities. The Regulations
were made with a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).
The Subcommittee notes that the RIS which
accompanied these Regulations was unclear and unnecessarily difficult
to follow. By way of example the Subcommittee draws your attention
to the discussion on the royalty rates for brown coal.
On page 14 the RIS states –
No changes to existing royalty rates
(which have a historical basis) are proposed in the Regulations.
The main differences from the current regulations are that –
This suggests that the royalty rates for
brown coal have not been changed and have simply been moved from
licences to the Regulations.
Later the RIS discusses the costs and benefits
of the options considered prior to making the decision to proceed
with the Regulations. One option was the maintenance of the status
quo, that is the situation prior to the introduction of the above
Regulations. On page 23 the RIS states –
In this alternative there is the imposition
of unit-based gypsum royalties and ad valorem based royalties
on all other minerals except for gold.
This suggests that under the previous regulations
ad valorem based royalties were imposed on brown coal.
Another option considered was the above
Regulations which are based on partial cost recovery. On page
25 the RIS states –
In this alternative there is the imposition
of unit-based brown coal royalties and ad valorem based royalties
on all other minerals except for gold.
This indicates that the Regulations impose
unit-based royalties on brown coal and ad valorem royalties on
all other minerals. Reading the statements on page 23 and 25 together
the RIS appears to suggest that there has been a change in the
type of royalties imposed on brown coal, that is from ad valorem
to unit-based. This however contradicts the statement on page
14 which indicates that there has been no change in the royalty
rates imposed on brown coal.
The Subcommittee's legal adviser sought
clarification from the relevant policy officer as to whether the
royalty rates for brown coal had changed. It was later confirmed
that the royalty rates had not changed but simply been moved from
licences to the Regulations. It was also confirmed that the discussion
on page 23 of the RIS does not include the royalty rates for brown
coal because these rates were not contained in the previous Regulations
but in the licences; page 23 examines only what was contained
in the Regulations. The Subcommittee is concerned that this is
not explained in the RIS making it difficult to understand the
changes which have been introduced and the impact of those changes.
Paragraph 13.1 of the Premier's Guidelines
makes clear that an RIS is not supposed to be complex but "a
commonsense document which provides an honest assessment of the
foreseeable impact of a proposed regulation". Any member
of the public reading an RIS should be able to clearly understand
the proposed changes, the regulatory alternatives and the reasons
for the rejection of those alternatives. In its Report on the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 the Committee commented on the
poor quality of some of the RIS received. In particular the Committee
was concerned that some RIS are complex and confusing when they
should be simple and easily understood.
The Subcommittee considers that it is crucial
that department and agency staff prepare good quality RIS so that
any person can understand the reasons for change and form a view
as to whether proposed regulations are justified. Paragraph 13.3
of the Premier's Guidelines reinforces this –
Agencies should remember that the purpose
of a RIS is to explain the need for the statutory rule and to
set out the costs and benefits which would follow from its adoption.
It must also explain the practicable alternatives which have
been considered and the reasons for their rejection. The RIS
should be intelligible to the general public and should allow
those with an interest in the proposed rule to comment on that
rule.
The Subcommittee considers that the RIS
which accompanied these Regulations was complex and confusing
and that consequently it was difficult to understand the changes
introduced and the impact of those changes. The Subcommittee would
appreciate it if the above matters could be drawn to the attention
of legislative officers in your department.
Minister's Response[45]
SR 99 – Mineral Resources
Development Regulations 2002
Thank you for your letter of 12 May 2003,
concerning the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Mineral
Resources Development Regulations 2002.
I have passed your comments to the Executive
Director of the Minerals and Petroleum Division of the Department
of Primary Industries and he has advised me that they have been
drawn to the attention of appropriate officers. He has also advised
that he will ensure that future RISs from his Division are clear
and easily understood.
I am therefore confident that future RISs
will achieve the standards required to ensure that the community
can readily understand and comment on regulatory proposals.
Hon. Theo Theophanous, MP,
Minister for Energy Industries and Resources
Fee Increases
Regulations increasing fees may be excepted
from the RIS process under section 8(1)(a) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) as long as the fee increases do
not exceed the rate approved by the Treasurer in relation to the
State Budget.[46]
Section 8(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic)
allows rounding off to the nearest whole dollar, with the consequence
that some fee increases may exceed the rate approved by the Treasurer.
During the Inquiry into the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
the Committee noted that the rounding off process did not appear
to be causing concern to anyone and the Committee therefore recommended
that this feature be retained.
However of some concern to the Committee
and to some of those who made submissions to the Inquiry into
the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 was the use of the ‘basket
approach’. The basket approach allows fee increases to be
viewed as a package, so that individual fees can exceed the rate
fixed by the Treasurer, provided the total package of fees does
not. The Committee’s concern was that this allowed individual
fees to fall outside the rate set by the Treasurer with the possibility
for some of these individual fees to have a significant impact on
some sections of the community. The Committee recommended that the
‘basket approach’ be prohibited and this recommendation
has been accepted by the Government in its Response to the Committee’s
Report.
In the Inquiry into the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 the Committee also pointed out the usefulness of providing
the Regulation Review Subcommittee with a table comparing new fees
with old fees making it easier for the Subcommittee to understand
the changes. In its Report on the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994 the Committee recommended that department and agency staff
be required to prepare a table comparing new and old fees including
an indication of the percentage increase or decrease for each fee
and to provide the Subcommittee with a copy of that comparative
table. The Government supported this recommendation in its Response
to the Committee’s Report.
The Subcommittee draws attention to SR
89 – Road Safety (Drivers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
as an example of regulations increasing fees using the basket approach.
These Regulations increased various driver licence and search extract
fees.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 89 – Road Safety (Drivers)(Amendment)
Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 28 April 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Road Safety (Drivers)(Amendment) Regulations
2003 exempt drivers of emergency vehicles from the requirements
to display P-Plates, allow interstate drivers to display interstate
P-Plates only and increase various driver licence and search and
extract fees. The Regulations were accompanied by a certificate
of exemption under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c). The Subcommittee
notes that the provisions increasing various fees were exempted
from the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) process under section
9(1)(a) as not imposing an appreciable economic and social burden
on any sector of the public. The Subcommittee also notes that
when viewed as a group the fee increases fall within the rate
of 3% set by the Treasurer. The Subcommittee considers that regulations
increasing fees at or below the rate set by the Treasurer should
be excepted from the RIS process under section 8(1)(a) rather
than section 9(1)(a). It is the Subcommittee's view that in addition
to exemptions granted under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) the provisions
in these Regulations concerning fee increases should have been
excepted under section 8(1)(a).
The Subcommittee would also like to comment
on the use of the basket approach. Under the current Treasurer's
Guidelines it is acceptable for individual fee increases to exceed
the Treasurer's approved rate provided that the total package
of fees falls within that rate. In its Report on the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
(the Committee) expressed concern about the use of the basket
approach as there is always the possibility that some fees which
exceed the Treasurer's rate may have a significant impact on those
required to pay them. The Committee recommended that the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 be amended to prohibit the use of the basket
approach. In its Response to the Committee's Report, the Government
agrees that this amendment is necessary to ensure that all fee
increases fall within the Treasurer's approved rate.
The Subcommittee also notes that some departments
and agencies provide it with a table comparing new fees with old
fees. The Subcommittee finds this extremely helpful in understanding
fee increases. In its Report on the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994 the Committee recommended that department and agency staff
be required to prepare a table comparing new and old fees including
an indication of the percentage increase or decrease for each
fee and provide the Subcommittee with a copy of that comparative
table. In its Response to the Committee's Report the Government
supported this recommendation.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if
the above matters could be drawn to the attention of legislative
officers in your department.
Department’s Response[47]
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
I refer to your letter of 5 May 2003 addressed
to the Minister for Transport outlining a number of issues of
concern to your subcommittee arising from the Road Safety (Drivers)
Amendment) Regulations 2003.
You also requested that the concerns identified
be raised with relevant officers within the department. This letter
is to advise you that the matters referred to in that letter have
been brought to the attention of officers within the Department.
I apologise for the delay in responding.
If you require any further information please contact Karen Macdonald,
Senior Adviser, Legal on 96556720.
Extension of Operation
The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(Vic) allows regulations which are due to expire to be extended
for a further 12 months where the Minister certifies that due to
‘special circumstances’ there is insufficient time to
undertake a RIS.[48]
The Premier’s Guidelines indicate that ‘special
circumstances’ exist where a review of the whole area is under
way but is incomplete or where national scheme legislation is being
negotiated. Regulations normally expire 10 years after they have
been made[49]
so this exception effectively extends the life of a regulation to
11 years instead of 10.
The Committee notes that there has not been
any decline in the number of regulations made under this exception
during the last 12 months, with 17 being made.[50]
Extensions of regulations should not be granted for mere administrative
convenience or poor management procedures. The Regulation Review
Subcommittee considers that ‘special circumstances’
include the development of national scheme legislation or national
competition policy reviews. The Regulation Review Subcommittee reminds
departments and agencies of the need to clearly explain ‘special
circumstances’ in section 5(3) certificates or in explanatory
memoranda. Paragraphs 12.4 and 12.5 of the Premier’s Guidelines
reinforce the need for details of the ‘special circumstances’
to be provided in section 5(3) certificates and explanatory memoranda.
During the Inquiry into the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 the Committee found that sometimes extensions
were sought for regulations which are minor in nature and which
could easily have been remade before the expiry of 10 years. The
Committee recommended that departments and agencies continue to
be able to seek a once only extension of up to 12 months. However
to make it more difficult to obtain extensions the Committee recommended
that departments and agencies be required to obtain approval from
the Premier. Both these recommendations were accepted by the Government
in its Response to the Committee’s Report.
Example
SR 120 – Subordinate Legislation
(Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 – Extension
of Operation) Regulations 2002 extend the operation of the
Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 (the
Principal Regulations). The Principal Regulations deal with the
management of the You Yangs Regional Park. The ‘special circumstances’
for granting the extension to these Regulations was the calling
of the election and the commencement of the caretaker period of
Government. The Regulation Review Subcommittee was not entirely
satisfied that these reasons constituted ‘special circumstances’
and it sought clarification from the Minister.
The Minister advised that the review of the
Principal Regulations had been conducted efficiently and that the
papers for the new regulations had been signed by the previous Minister
on 2 November 2002. With the calling of the election on 4 November
the caretaker convention applied requiring the status quo to be
maintained until the formation of the new Government. The Minister
also indicated that he would pass on the Regulation Review Subcommittee’s
views concerning the use of extensions and the need for ‘special
circumstances’.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee is satisfied
with the Minister’s response and is pleased that its views
concerning the use of extensions and ‘special circumstances’
have been conveyed to department officers.
Subcommittee’s letter
SR 120 – Subordinate Legislation
(Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 – Extension
of Operation) Regulations 2002
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations as it is required
to do under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subordinate Legislation (Forests (You
Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 – Extension of Operation)
Regulations 2002 extend the operation of the Forests (You Yangs
Regional Park) Regulations 1992 (the Principal Regulations) to
30 November 2003. The Principal Regulations concern the management
of the You Yangs Regional Park.
Under section 5(4) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 the Governor-in-Council may make a regulation extending
the operation of an existing regulation for a maximum period of
12 months provided that the Minister has certified that due to
"special circumstances" there is insufficient time to
enable compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee notes that the Premier's
Guidelines make clear that extensions under section 5(4) should
be granted because of "special circumstances" and not
for administrative convenience. Paragraph 12.5 of the Premier's
Guidelines provides–
The Act does not provide any definition
of "special circumstances", however the type of circumstances
envisaged would be cases where a review of the operation of
the whole area of the regulations is proposed or being undertaken
or where a national scheme is being negotiated. Administrative
oversight should not be considered to be a "special circumstance".
The section 5(3) certificate which accompanied
these Regulations indicated that the regulatory impact statement
assessment process could not be undertaken due to the calling
of the election and the commencement of the caretaker period of
Government. The Subcommittee is not satisfied that that these
reasons constitute "special circumstances".
The Subcommittee considers that it is important
for departments and agencies to commence reviews of regulations
18 months to 2 years prior to the expiration of regulations. The
Premier's Guidelines make clear that it is the responsibility
of departments and agencies to maintain a list of the expiry dates
of regulations for which they are responsible. Paragraph 12.1
of the Premier's Guidelines provides –
It is the responsibility of the agency
to maintain accurate records of the sunset dates for all statutory
rules administered by the Ministers to whom the agency reports.
It is essential that an agency allow sufficient time for the
review of the continuing appropriateness of the regulations
and for the completion of the RIS process if they are to be
made in whole, part or in a modified form.
Departments and agencies are assisted with
keeping track of sunsetting regulations by the Office of Parliamentary
Counsel and by the Office of Regulation Reform. The Office of
Parliamentary Counsel sends out reminder letters 12 to 18 months
prior to the expiration of regulations and the Office of Regulation
Reform produces the Victorian Regulation Alert which provides
details of all regulations due to expire over the next 12 months.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if
the above matters could be drawn to the attention of legislative
officers in your department.
Minister's Response[51]
SR 120 – Subordinate Legislation
(Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 – Extension
of Operation) Regulations 2002
Thank you for your letter of 20 May 2003
in relation to the Subordinate Legislation (Forests (You Yangs
Regional Park) Regulations 1992 – Extension of Operations)
Regulations 1992.
I am advised that the review of the Forests
(You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992 was well programmed
and efficiently conducted. Departmental officers completed all
components of the regulatory review and prepared all necessary
papers more than one month in advance of the sunset date of 1
December 2002. The former Minister for Environment and Conservation
signed all papers in relation to the proposed new regulations
on 2 November 2002. The State election was announced on 4 November
and conducted on 30 November 2002.
The ‘caretaker convention’,
which applied between 5 November and the formation of the new
Government following the election, required that the status quo
be maintained. Therefore, the former Minister effectively had
no choice but to seek to extend the existing regulations as either
making the proposed new regulations or allowing the existing regulations
to sunset would involve a change to the status quo and therefore
a breach of the caretaker convention.
The Forests (You Yangs Regional Park) Regulations
2003 were subsequently made on 27 May 2003 (well in advance of
the final sunset date of the ‘extended’ Forests (You
Yangs Regional Park) Regulations 1992).
However, the concerns outlined in your
letter are noted and they will be communicated to relevant departmental
officers.
Hon. John Thwaites MP,
Minister for Environment
Certificates
The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(Vic) requires regulations to be prepared with various certificates.
Although the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) does
not prescribe the exact form that certificates must take, the Premier’s
Guidelines provide some guidance and examples. The Regulation Review
Subcommittee considers that it is important for certificates to
comply with the Premier’s Guidelines as certificates
provide crucial information about regulatory proposals.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee notes
that there was a general improvement in the standard of certificates
presented during 2002. The Subcommittee is pleased to see that all
departments and agencies are complying with the requirement to date
certificates and that all section 9 exemption certificates contained
reasons for granting the exemption. Some problems which did occur
included – failure to specify the precise section under which
a regulation is excepted or exempted and excepting or exempting
regulations under the incorrect section.
SR 89 – Road Safety (Drivers) (Amendment)
Regulations 2002 (discussed earlier in this Report at pp 37-38)
provide an example of the need for care to be taken when selecting
the most appropriate exception or exemption. These Regulations exempt
drivers of emergency vehicles from the requirements to display P-Plates,
allow interstate drivers to display interstate P-Plates only and
increase various driver licence and search and extract fees. The
Regulations were accompanied by certificate of exemption under section
9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c). The fee increases used the basket approach
and complied with the rate set by the Treasurer. The provisions
increasing fees were exempted under 9(1)(a) on the basis that they
did not impose any appreciable economic or social burden. The Regulation
Review Subcommittee considers that regulations increasing fees at
or below the rate set by the Treasurer should be excepted from the
RIS process under section 8(1)(a) rather than section 9(1)(a). The
Regulation Review Subcommittee wrote to the Minister expressing
this view.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee is also
concerned about the failure of departments and agencies to provide
it with all relevant documentation in a timely manner.
On a number of occasions Regulation Review Subcommittee staff have
needed to make inquiries to obtain copies of relevant documentation
and this is considered to be wasteful of the Subcommittee's time
and resources. In its Report on the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 the Committee recommended that all paperwork be forwarded
to the Regulation Review Subcommittee within 7 days of the enactment
of regulations. This recommendation has been accepted by the Government
in its Response to the Committee’s Report.
Environment Protection and Waste Management
Policies
State Environment Protection Policies and
Waste Management Policies must comply with the requirements of the
Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic). Section 18C of the
Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) requires a policy
impact assessment to include a statement of purposes, identification
of alternative policy options and an assessment of the costs and
benefits of each alternative option.
In 2002 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
was presented with one State Environment Protection Policy –
the Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land. The
Regulation Review Subcommittee was impressed with the standard of
the Policy presented.
The Policy provides a regulatory framework
for the prevention and management of contamination of land and includes
details of management strategies which may be used where a site
has become contaminated. While the Regulation Review Subcommittee
was satisfied that the Policy complied with the requirements of
the Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) it had some concerns
about the notification provisions. The Regulation Review Subcommittee
wrote to the Minister seeking advice as to why the Policy does not
impose a legal obligation on owners to inform potential purchasers
that a site has been contaminated.
The Minister responded to all the Regulation
Review Subcommittee’s concerns. The Minister also confirmed
that the possibility exists for vendors to be aware of contamination
and not to disclose it to prospective purchasers. The Minister indicated
that the appropriate means of addressing this situation is through
an amendment to the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic).
The Committee considers that it is very important
for purchasers to be confident that the property they purchase is
free from contamination. The Committee has written to the Minister
responsible for the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) –
the Hon. John Lenders, Minister for Consumer Affairs drawing the
matter to his attention and seeking a strengthening of the notification
provisions.
Subcommittee’s letter
State Environment Protection Policy
(Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) June 2002
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation
Review Subcommittee examined the above State Environment Protection
Policy as it is required to do under the Environment Protection
Act 1970.
The State Environment Protection Policy
(Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) (the Policy)
provides a regulatory framework for the prevention and management
of contamination of land. The Policy identifies six types of land
use and a number of beneficial uses. For each land use the Policy
indicates which beneficial uses apply. The Policy includes an
attainment program and identifies the responsibilities of all
parties to protect the land quality. Those involved in the transportation,
use or storage of chemical substances or waste must ensure that
no contamination of land results from those activities. Where
the Environment Protection Authority (the EPA) believes that land
is polluted it may require the land at the site to be assessed.
These assessments are designed to identify the type and extent
of contamination.
The Policy also sets out management strategies
to be used where the site has become contaminated. These strategies
must be consistent with the Environment Protection Act 1970 and
prevent further contamination. Where a site is undergoing clean
up to protect beneficial uses a site specific risk assessment
is necessary to determine the depth of clean up. The EPA may also
require owners or occupiers to undertake an environmental audit.
The Subcommittee notes that this is an important Policy which
puts in place a good regulatory structure to prevent and manage
land contamination.
However the Subcommittee is concerned about
the notification provisions contained in clause 27. Where the
EPA has issued any notice to clean up pollution or requested an
environmental audit, clause 27 of the Policy requires the occupier
to give details of the condition of the site to any person who
proposes to become the occupier. The Subcommittee notes that these
requirements appear only to apply if the notice to clean up pollution
or the statement of environmental audit is current. The Subcommittee
also notes that these requirements apply only to occupiers, which
having regard to the definition of "occupier" in the
Environment Protection Act 1970, does not necessarily include
owners. The Subcommittee is concerned that the Policy does not
place any legal obligation on owners to inform potential purchasers
that a site has been contaminated and that consequently purchasers
may purchase land and be unaware of the condition of that land
and in particular that the land was previously contaminated. The
Subcommittee seeks your advice as to why the Policy does not impose
a legal obligation on owners to inform potential purchasers that
a site has been contaminated.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving
your advice.
Minister's Response[52]
State Environment Protection Policy
(Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land)
Thank you for your letter of 20 May 2003
in which you sought advice on the notification and information
provisions of the State environment protection policy (Prevention
and Management of Contamination of Land) June 2002. Specifically,
you sought advice as to why the Policy does not impose a legal
obligation on owners to inform potential purchasers that a site
has been contaminated. The key points are:
-
should Notices issued pursuant to the
Environment Protection Act 1970, and Statements of Environmental
Audit that are not current be notified to prospective occupiers;
and
-
should an owner of a site have the same
obligations as an occupier in respect of notifying prospective
occupiers of contamination.
In respect of the first point when EPA
Victoria is satisfied that the requirements of a Clean Up notice
issued pursuant to s62A of the Environment Protection Act 1970
have been complied with, it will be revoked and no longer in force.
At this point, EPA will have been satisfied that the condition
of site no longer represents an unacceptable risk to the environment
or to the owners and other occupiers. In such a case, no purpose
would be served, and it would appear to be an unreasonable burden
on the occupier (and subsequent occupiers in perpetuity), to apply
notification requirements.
Frequently, EPA requires that clean up
be demonstrated through the completion of an audit which results
in the issue of a Statement of Environmental Audit indicating
there is some limitation on the use of the land. Similarly planning
controls often require an audit leading to the issue of a Statement.
A Statement of Environmental Audit, once issued, is current and
can only be superseded by the outcomes of a further audit. The
further audit can result in a subsequent Statement of Environmental
Audit which must be provided to prospective occupiers or a Certificate
of Environmental Audit which indicates that there is no impediment
to the use of the site. In the case of the latter as there is
no restriction on the use of the land the view taken, as with
Clean Up Notices, is that no purpose would be served by applying
notification requirements.
In respect of the second concern I am advised
by EPA that, as defined in the Environment Protection Act 1970,
“occupier” includes the “owner” of the
site. The definition of “occupier” is broader than
“owner” to include those who may be leasing or renting
a property, for example, and who have relevant information or
are subject to legal obligations. Clean Up Notices are served
on those causing the problem and in many cases this will be an
“occupier” other than an “owner”.
I am also advised that in addition to contamination
that is known to EPA through audits and Notices there is the possibility
that vendors are aware of contamination and do not disclose it
to prospective purchasers. The appropriate means to address this
situation would be through an amendment to the Sale of Land Act
1962 requiring such disclosures. If the subcommittee is of the
view that strengthening of notification provisions is warranted
this approach could be further investigated.
The main purpose of the Policy is to ensure
that landowners, other land occupiers and the people of Victoria
generally, are protected from the residual impacts of past uses
of land. I am satisfied that approaches described in the Policy
meet that aim.
Hon. John Thwaites,
Minister for Environment
Footnotes |
| [27] |
Letter dated
21 October 2002 to the Hon. Jenny Mikakos MLC, Chair of the
Subcommittee during the 54th Parliament, from the Hon. John
Thwaites, MP, Minister for Health. |
| [28] |
The procedures in these
Regulations may not be used to access health records held
by the Victorian public sector. The Freedom of Information
Act applies to requests for access to health information
where it is held in the public sector. |
| [29] |
Letter dated 16 May
2002 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. Bronwyn Pike MP, Minister for Health. |
| [30] |
Letter dated 4 June
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. André Haermeyer, Minister for Police
and Emergency Services. |
| [31] |
Department of Premier
and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December
1997. |
| [32] |
Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic), s. 6. |
| [33] |
Department of Premier
and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December
1997, paragraph 5.20. |
| [34] |
Department of Premier
and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December
1997, paragraph 5.17. |
| [35] |
Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic), s. 6. |
| [36] |
Department of Premier
and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December
1997, paragraph 5.20. |
| [37] |
Letter dated 1 October
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. Bob Cameron, Minister for Agriculture. |
| [38] |
Letter dated 29 June
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. Rob Hulls, Attorney-General. |
| [39] |
Letter dated 16 July
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. Peter Batchelor, MLA, Minister for Transport. |
| [40] |
Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic), s. 8. |
| [41] |
ibid., s. 9. |
[42] |
Department of Premier
& Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, paragraph
13.1. |
[43] |
Mr. R. Deighton-Smith,
The Quality of the Regulatory Impact Assessment Process
in Victoria, February 2001, p. 33. |
[44] |
Letter dated 7 July 2003
to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee from
the Hon. John Thwaites, MLA, Minister for Water. |
[45] |
Letter dated 18 June
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MLA, Minister for Energy Industries
and Resources. |
[46] |
Department of Treasury
and Finance, Guidelines for Setting Fees and Charges Imposed
by Departments and Budget Sector Agencies, Melbourne.
|
[47] |
Letter dated 20 October
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from Mr Lawrie Tooher, Executive and Legal, Department of
Infrastructure. |
[48] |
Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic), s. 8(1)(d)(iii). |
[49] |
Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 (Vic), s. 5(1). |
[50] |
In 1999 there were 14,
in 2000 there were 19 and in 2001 there were 17 regulations
made under section 8(1)(d)(iii). |
[51] |
Letter dated 29 July
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the John Thwaites MP, Minister for Environment. |
[52] |
Letter dated 17 July
2003 to Mr. Peter Lockwood, MLA, Chair of the Subcommittee
from the Hon. John Thwaites, Minister for the Environment. |
|