Annual Review 2003, Regulations 2003
May 2004
Chapter 2 - Significant Issues
In 2003, the Subcommittee held 12 meetings and 1 informal
meeting. During those meetings it considered 157 statutory rules made
during 2003. Of those rules 33 were accompanied by regulatory impact statements.
Of the total 157 regulations made, 28 were actually considered by the
Subcommittee in early 2004. In addition the Subcommittee considered one
State Environment Protection Policy.
The Subcommittee did not make any reports to Parliament
during 2003. However of the statutory rules examined during 2003, the
Subcommittee had concerns with 27. In each instance it wrote to the responsible
Ministers seeking clarification. Generally, the Subcommittee received
satisfactory responses to the issues raised. The Subcommittee thanks the
Ministers for their responses.
The Subcommittee's experience this year was that any problems
it encountered in respect of the review of the regulations tended to fall
within a discrete number of areas. For ease of understanding, the Subcommittee
has classified the issues into particular categories. The categories however
remain fluid and of course may change from year to year. The categories
are as follow: -
(a) The statutory rule has been prepared in contravention
of any of the provisions of the Act or of the guidelines with respect
to the statutory rule and the contravention is of a substantial or material
nature
(b) Consultation
(c) Technical matters - Incomplete certificates
- Dates of publication in the Government Gazette and newspaper
(d) Sighting of material incorporated by reference
(e) Section 9(1)(a) - Is there any appreciable
economic or social burden on any sector of the public?
(f) Other matters - general clarification
(g) State Environment Protection Policy - Tabling
Requirements
(A) THE STATUTORY RULE HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONTRAVENTION OF ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR OF THE GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTORY
RULE AND THE CONTRAVENTION IS OF A SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL NATURE
Under section 21(1)(j) of the Act the Subcommittee examines
regulations to ensure that they have been properly prepared. It examines
them to see whether they have been prepared in contravention of any of
the provisions of the Act or of the guidelines with respect to the statutory
rule. It examines the regulations to see whether the contravention is
of a substantial or material nature. This was highlighted in SR 117 -Control
of Weapons (Amendment) Regulations 2003.
Example 1:
Subcommittee's letter[27]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee met informally on 4
December 2003 and considered the above Regulations. The Regulation Review
Subcommittee agreed to write to you regarding the above Regulations.
1. Failure to comply with Regulatory Impact Statement
(RIS) requirements in respect of search powers
S 10 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 sets out
the requirements in respect of a RIS. The relevant parts are set out.
The RIS must include: -
(c) a statement of other practicable means of achieving
those objectives, including other regulatory as well as non-regulatory
options;
(d) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed
statutory rule and of any other practicable means of achieving the
same objectives;
(e) the reasons why the other means are not appropriate;
Page 4 of the RIS states "Discussion of proposed regulations
for searches without warrant under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 and
the Firearms Act 1996. These provisions are not subject to a costs benefits
regulatory impact analysis as they do not impose a burden on the community,
but rather reduce it by restricting the power to conduct searches. The
Department of Justice, however, welcomes comment on them;"
The provisions in respect of search powers in the RIS
are confined to half a page. The RIS merely outlines the provisions
in respect of search powers. There is no cost/benefit analysis. There
is no statement which addresses other practicable means of obtaining
the objectives of the Regulations including other regulatory as well
as other non-regulatory options. It seems to the Subcommittee that in
respect of the search powers, the RIS in its current form fails to comply
with the requirements of S 10(c), (d) and (e) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994.
2. Clarification of advertisement dates
It is not clear from the material provided when the RIS
was advertised in the Government Gazette and in a newspaper. How long
was the consultation period? To ensure compliance with S 11 of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 the Subcommittee would appreciate clarification
of these matters.
3. Consideration of submissions made in response to the
RIS
Under S 11(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
the responsible Minister is required to consider all submissions and
comments received on a draft statutory rule where a RIS has been prepared.
S 11(3)(b) provides that the responsible Minister must: -
"ensure that a copy of all comments and submissions
is given to the Scrutiny Committee as soon as practicable after the
statutory rule is made."
The Subcommittee notes that the Regulations have changed
in form in that the parts which related to the change of status of swords
and cross bows from controlled weapons to prohibited weapons and the
prescription of inert or imitation explosives as controlled weapons
have been abandoned. The Subcommittee notes from correspondence from
the Department of Justice dated 21 October 2003 that the Department
received over 300 submissions in relation to the RIS and that the bulk
of these concerned the proposals in relation to swords, crossbows and
imitation and inert explosives. The Subcommittee received 15 submissions
which made comment on the proposed fee levels and search powers provisions.
The letter from the Department of Justice dated 21 October
2003 states that: -
"I trust that the provision of those 15 submissions
satisfies the requirement to provide copies of submissions made to
the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. If you have any further
concerns on this matter please contact Mr Chris Shea".
A request was made from the Subcommittee to the relevant
officer on 29 October 2003 to provide it with copies of all the submissions.
The Subcommittee's view is that notwithstanding the change in form of
the Regulations it is incumbent on it to scrutinise all the submissions
to ensure that valid criticisms have been addressed.
The Subcommittee notes that in this context, most Departments
provide a detailed analysis of the submissions and the Department's
considered response in a table form. Such work demonstrates transparently
to the Subcommittee that there has been compliance with s 11(3)(a) of
the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if you could forward
all the submissions to it, either in their original or copy form. The
Subcommittee would of course undertake to return original submissions
to the Department. If a table as described above has been prepared,
please forward a copy of it to the Subcommittee.
4. Undated Certificates
The Subcommittee notes that the s 6 Certificate of Consultation,
the s 10(4) Certificate of Compliance and the National Competition Policy
Certificate of Compliance under s 3.3 are all undated. The Subcommittee
would appreciate if this could be rectified.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your response.
Subcommittee's letter[28]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee met informally on 4
December 2003 and considered the above Regulations. The Regulation Review
Subcommittee agreed to write to you regarding the above Regulations.
1. Failure to comply with Regulatory Impact Statement
(RIS) requirements
S 10 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 sets out
the requirements in respect of a RIS. The relevant parts are set out.
The RIS must include: -
(a) a statement of the objectives of the proposed statutory
rule;
(c) a statement of other practicable means of achieving
those objectives, including other regulatory as well as non-regulatory
options;
(d) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed
statutory rule and of any other practicable means of achieving the
same objectives;
(e) the reasons why the other means are not appropriate;
These Regulations are accompanied by a RIS. However the
RIS cost/benefit analysis and indeed all but two pages of the RIS relate
to the Control of Weapons (Amendment) Regulations. More specifically,
page 50 of the RIS states "While these provisions have not been subjected
to the same cost benefits analysis in this Regulatory Impact Statement
as the provisions relating to fees and classification of weapons, the
Department of Justice welcomes public comment on these additional provisions
of the Regulations."
The RIS merely provides some explanation of the provisions.
There is no statement of objectives. There is no cost/benefit analysis.
There is no statement which addresses other practicable means of obtaining
the objectives of the Regulations including other regulatory as well
as other non-regulatory options. It seems to the Subcommittee that in
respect of the Regulations, the RIS in its current form fails to comply
with the requirements of S 10 (a)(c)(d) and (e) of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994
2. Clarification of advertisement dates
It is not clear from the material provided when the RIS
was advertised in the Government Gazette and in a newspaper. How long
was the consultation period? To ensure compliance with S 11 of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 the Subcommittee would appreciate clarification
of these matters.
3. Consideration of submissions made in response to the
RIS
Under S 11(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
the responsible Minister is required to consider all submissions and
comments received on a draft statutory rule where a RIS has been prepared.
S 11(3)(b) provides that the responsible Minister must: -
"ensure that a copy of all comments and submissions
is given to the Scrutiny Committee as soon as practicable after the
statutory rule is made."
The Subcommittee notes from correspondence from the Department
of Justice dated 21 October 2003 that the Department received over 300
submissions in relation to the RIS and that the bulk of these concerned
the proposals in relation to swords, crossbows and imitation and inert
explosives. The Subcommittee received 15 submissions which made comment
on the proposed fee levels and search powers provisions.
The letter from the Department of Justice dated 21 October
2003 states that: -
"I trust that the provision of those 15 submissions
satisfies the requirement to provide copies of submissions made to
the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. If you have any further
concerns on this matter please contact Mr Chris Shea".
A request was made from the Subcommittee to the relevant
officer on 29 October 2003 to provide it with copies of all the submissions.
The problems arise of course when one RIS is
used in respect of two different sets of regulations. Nevertheless,
the Subcommittee is of the view that it is incumbent on it to scrutinise
all the submissions to ensure that valid criticisms have been addressed.
The Subcommittee notes that in this context, most Departments provide
a detailed analysis of the submissions and the Department's considered
response in a table form. Such work demonstrates transparently to the
Subcommittee that there has been compliance s 11(3)(a) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if you could forward
all the submissions to it, either in their original or copy form. The
Subcommittee would of course undertake to return original submissions
to the Department. If a table as described above has been prepared,
please forward a copy of it to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee thanks
the Minister for the responses by the Department forwarded to it so
far.
4. National Competition Policy Certificate - Defective
The Regulations are accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance
under s 3.3 certifying that the Regulations do not restrict competition.
The Certificate of Compliance states that the Firearms (Search Powers)
Regulations 2003 "have been assessed in accordance with the guidelines
and do not restrict competition."
Attachment C of the Premier's Guidelines sets out the
particular form of words required in relation to a Certificate of Compliance
for competition policy. The Certificate must state that the statutory
rule: -
"has been assessed in accordance with the guidelines
and the results documented in the attachment to this certificate,
and the assessment shows that the proposed subordinate legislation
does not restrict competition."
There is no Competition Policy Analysis/Assessment attached
to the RIS or the accompanying material. The Certificate is signed by
the Minister but not dated. In summary, the Certificate of Compliance
is defective in three respects: -
1. The incorrect form of words is used;
2. There is no Competition Policy/Assessment of Analysis
attached to the Certificate;
3. The Certificate is undated.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if these matters
could be rectified.
5. Undated Certificates
The Subcommittee notes that the s 6 Certificate of Consultation
and the s 10(4) Certificate of Compliance are undated. The Subcommittee
would appreciate it if this could be rectified.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your response.
Minister's Response[29]
Thank you for your letters of 16 December regarding the
Control of Weapons (Search Powers) Regulations 2003 and Firearms (Search
Powers) Regulations 2003. These letters are not signed by you but appear
under your name.
Concerns about Regulatory Impact Statement
Your letter raises concerns that a cost benefits analysis
was not performed on the Firearms (Search Powers) Regulations in the
RIS. My Department advises me, however, that given the nature of these
Regulations, a cost-benefits analysis or consideration of alternative
means of achieving the goals of the Regulations was not considered necessary
or appropriate.
As was advised in the RIS, amendments to both the Control
of Weapons act 1990 and Firearms Act 1996 were made in 2003 in relation
to the power of police members (and in certain cases Authorised Officers
of the Department of Sustainability and the environment) to conduct
a search without warrant for a weapon or firearm in a public place.
Broadly, those amendments:
-
lowered the threshold at which a search is justified
(reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief); and
-
enhanced the safeguards against the potential overzealous
application or abuse of these increased powers.
Among such safeguards was the amendment of the regulation
making powers in both Acts to enable the prescription of:
-
the manner in which searches may be conducted; and
-
the details that must be recorded in a search record
that a searching police member (or Authorised Officer) must complete
as soon as practicable after conducting a search.
Therefore, that the manner in which searches were to
be conducted and the particulars to be included in search records, was
to be prescribed by regulation had already been determined by Parliament
through primary legislation. In the circumstances it was not considered
appropriate to perform a cost benefits analysis or examine alternatives
in the RIS. The decision on whether to not to prescribe these matters
through regulation had already been made by Parliament.
Indeed, the Subordinate Legislation Act does allow for
Regulations of a declaratory nature to be made without a Regulatory
impact Statement (and thus without the resulting public consultation
process). It would have been open to the Department to choose to seek
to make the Regulations without going through a public consultation
process. However, given the important nature of these Regulations (search
power provisions require achieving a balance between protecting vital
civil liberties and facilitating effective law enforcement), it was
considered important to invite and consider public comment on them through
an RIS process. The RIS clearly set out the nature of the Regulations
and invited public comment on them and facilitated a process whereby
the entire Victorian community could consider and comment on these proposals.
The Department advises me that it believes that the public consultation
which the Subordinate Legislation Act is designed to facilitate, was
adequately provided for in this case.
I would also draw your attention to the fact that the
Office of Regulatory Reform, prior to its release, assessed the RIS
and considered it adequate.
Clarification of advertisement date
The proposed Regulations were advertised in the Government
Gazette on 7 August 2003 and in The Age on 9 August 2003. The public
consultation period closed on 8 September 200.
Provision of non-connected submissions
My Department advises me that it believes that the requirement
to ensure:
that a copy of all comments and submissions is given
to the Scrutiny Committee as soon as practicable after the statutory
rule is made:
was satisfied by the provision of the 15 submissions which
made comment on the Regulations which were made. The 300 plus submissions
which concern the proposals relating to swords, crossbows and inert
and imitation explosives do not concern the statutory rule which was
made.
I am advised that, if no statutory rule were made, following
an RIS process, there would be no obligation to provide the submissions
to the committee. Therefore, if part of a proposed statutory rule were
excised from the rule eventually made (as was the case here), there
would appear to be no obligation to provide submissions related to the
excised part.
I am currently considering options for progressing the
objectives sought to be achieved by the excised part of the draft Regulations.
If the preferred option is Regulations, the Department will provide
copies of the relevant submissions to the Committee following the making
of the statutory rule.
National Competition Policy
Certificate Please find attached a revised copy of the
National Competition Policy certificate. I trust this revised certificate
addresses your concerns.
Date of Certificates
I can advise that the certificates have been dated to
reflect the fact that they were signed on 24 September 2003. Please
find attached further copies of these certificates for your information.
I trust this information is helpful.
Example 2:
These Regulations extended the operation of the Court Report
Fees Regulations 1992 to 21 January 2004. The Principal Regulations dealt
with court reporting and transcript services. On this occasion the Subcommittee
was concerned because the Regulations were excepted under section 8(1)(d)(iii)
instead of section 8(1)(b). The Regulations were in fact prepared with
the wrong certificates. The Subcommittee took the view that the Act and
the Premier's Guidelines make it clear that a regulation which extends
the life of a sunsetting regulation must be excepted from the RIS process
under s 8(1)(d)(iii). It must be accompanied by both s 8(1)(d)(iii) and
s 5(3) certificates. The Subcommittee approved the Regulations in this
instance. However it wrote to the Minister requesting that legislative
officers be reminded of the importance or excepting or exempting Regulations
from the RIS process under the appropriate sections of the Act.
Subcommittee's letter[30]
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examined the above Rules as it is required to do under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Subordinate Legislation (Court Reporting (Fees) Regulations
1992 - Extension of Operation) Regulations 2003 extend the operation
of the Court Report Fees Regulations 1992 (the Principal Regulations)
to 31 January 2004. The Principal Regulations deal with court reporting
and transcript services.
These Regulations were accompanied by a certificate of
exception under section 8(1)(b) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994,
excepting them from compliance with the Regulation Impact Statement
(RIS) process on the basis they relate solely to the procedure, practice
or costs of a court. While the Principal Regulations relate to the procedure,
practice or costs of a court, these regulations are designed to extend
the life of the Principal Regulations which sunsetted on 1 February
2003. The Regulations are also accompanied by a section 5(3) certificate
which requires the responsible Minister to certify that due to the 'special
circumstances' there is insufficient time to enable compliance with
the requirements of Part 2 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The section 5(3) certificate indicates that the 'special circumstances'
are that there is to be review of the policy and administrative basis
for the provision of court recording and transcription services.
The Subcommittee wishes to point out that these Regulations
should have been excepted under section 8(1)(d)(iii) instead of section
8(1)(b) as these Regulations only concern extending the operation of
the Principal Regulations. The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and
the Premier's Guidelines make clear that a regulation which extends
the life of a sunsetting regulation must be excepted from the RIS process
under section 8(1)(d)(iii) and must be accompanied by both section 8(1)(d)(iii)
and section 5(3) certificates.
On this occasion the Subcommittee has approved the Regulations
but wishes to remind legislative officers of the importance of excepting
or exempting Regulations from the RIS process under the appropriate
section or sections of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if these matters
could be brought to the attention of legislative officers in your department.
Response[31]
I refer to our telephone conversation of today regarding
the letter from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of 20
May 2003.
The letter related to the Subordinate Legislation (Court
Reporting (Fees) Regulations 1992 - Extension of Operation) Regulations
2003.
I confirm that the contents of this letter have been noted
and that the letter will be placed on the relevant file within Court
Services.
I understand that in these circumstances a formal reply
from the Attorney-General is not required.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Example 3:
The Subordinate Legislation (Police (Charges) Regulations
1992 - Extension of Operation) Regulations 2003 extended the operation
of the Police Charges Regulations 1992 to 31 January 2004. The Principal
Regulations provided for charges to be paid for services provided by the
police force particularly in relation to large events. Under s 5(4) of
the Act the Governor in Council may make a regulation extending the operation
of an existing regulation for a maximum period of 12 months provided the
Minister has certified that due to "special circumstances" there is insufficient
time to enable compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of the Act.
The Subcommittee was not satisfied in this instance that the reasons given
constituted "special circumstances". The Subcommittee ultimately approved
the Regulations but wrote to the Minister advising him of its view.
Subcommittee's letter[32]
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 (Polices (Charges) Regulations
1992 - Extension of Operation) Regulations 2003 extend the operation
of the Police Charges Regulations 1992 to 31 January 2004. The Principal
Regulations provide for charges to be paid for services provided by
the police force particularly in relation to large events.
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 completed 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[33]
Thank you for your letter of 20 May 2003 advising of the
Regulation Review Subcommittee's comments in relation to making of the
Subordinate Legislation (Police (Charges) Regulations 1992 - Extension
of Operation Regulations 2003 on 22 January 2003.
I have noted your advice and will ensure it is brought
to the attention of the relevant people with the Department of Justice.
Example 4:
These Regulations prescribed a new venue for the PERIN Court.
The Regulations were exempted from the RIS process under s 9(1)(a) of
the Act on the basis that they did not impose any appreciable social or
economic burden on a sector of the public. The Subcommittee took the view
that it was perhaps more appropriate to exempt the regulations from the
RIS process under s 9(1)(c) on the basis that they were fundamentally
declaratory. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister seeking his response.
Subcommittee's letter[34]
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examined the above Rules as it is required to do under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Magistrates' Court General (PERIN Court) Regulations
2003 prescribe a new venue for the PERIN Court, namely 436 Lonsdale
Street, Melbourne. The Regulations were exempted from the Regulation
Impact Statement (RIS) process under section 9(1)(a) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 on the basis that they do not impose any appreciable
social or economic burden on a sector of the public. As these Regulations
do no more than prescribe a new venue for the PERIN court the Subcommittee
wonders whether they should more appropriately have been exempted from
the RIS process under section 9(1)(c) on the basis that they are fundamentally
declaratory.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving your response.
Minister's Response[35]
I refer to your letter dated 20 May 2003 regarding the
regulations prescribing the new venue for the PERIN Court. I apologise
for the delay in responding to your letter.
The purpose of the Magistrates' Court General (PERIN Court)
Regulations 2003 was to prescribe a new venue for the PERIN Court at
436 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. In accordance with section 7 of the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 ("the Act"), a Regulatory Impact Statement
("RIS") must be prepared in respect of a proposed statutory rule. Paragraphs
9(1)(a) - (e) of the Act set out the circumstances in which the RIS
process is not required in respect of that proposed statutory rule.
On initial submission of the regulations, it appeared
that an exemption from the RIS process under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the
Act was appropriate, that is, that the statutory rule does not "impose
any appreciable social or economic burden on a sector of the public".
However, in view of the comments in your letter, I agree that the exemption
is more appropriately claimed under section 9(1)(c) of the Act as the
regulation does no more than declare the new venue of the PERIN Court.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
(B) CONSULTATION
Section 6 of the Act 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[36]
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.[37] The Premier's
Guidelines provide -[38]
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"[39]. This places the final 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 Subcommittee acknowledges that some sections
are unclear and ambiguous. This makes it difficult for department and
agency officers to determine in what circumstances consultation should
take place. There is, for example, an inconsistency between the Act and
the Premier's Guidelines as to whether consultation must[40]
or should[41] occur in accordance
with the Premier's Guidelines. It is the strong preference
of the Subcommittee that consultation take place with all those affected
by a particular regulation and that the current ambiguities be resolved.
The 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. The Subcommittee
has had to seek additional information concerning consultation. The Subcommittee
considers it is important for all consultation certificates to provide
details of all those consulted.
Section 11(3) of the Act 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 emphasis
the need for all comments and submissions to be considered before a regulation
is made. The Subcommittee considers that appropriate consultation is essential
for the effectiveness of the regulatory system.
Example 1
These Regulations sought to reduce the incidence of asbestos
related diseases through exposure to airborne fibres in occupational situations
in which a risk to health could arise from exposure to asbestos. They
imposed dual duties on occupiers and employers, introduced licensing requirements
for asbestos removalists, set out strict requirements for the removal
of asbestos and regulated work activities involving material containing
asbestos. The Subcommittee received a submission from Mr P S Clark. The
Subcommittee was concerned to ensure that all submissions were considered
and responses given. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister.
Subcommittee's letter[42]
At a meeting on 12 May 2003 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examined the above Rules as it is required to do under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations
2003 seek to reduce the incidence of asbestos related diseases through
exposure to airborne fibres in occupational situations in which a risk
to health could arise from exposure to asbestos. The Regulations impose
dual duties on occupiers and employers, introduce licensing requirements
for asbestos removalists, set out strict requirements for the removal
of asbestos and regulate work activities involving material containing
asbestos. The Subcommittee notes that the Regulations were accompanied
by a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) which assesses various alternatives
to the Regulations and provides a detailed assessment of the costs and
benefits of the Regulations.
The Subcommittee has received a submission from Mr. P.S.
Clark criticising the RIS which accompanied these Regulations. Mr. Clark
makes the following comments -
-
Questions whether the proposed regulations will reduce
asbestos-related fatalities by 2,272 and suggests that this figure
is the same as that estimated to result from the previous Regulations.
Mr. Clark also notes that given asbestos diseases have a slow onset
the Regulations will not have a substantial immediate impact.
-
Criticises the use of the Bureau of Transport Economics'
$1.5 million value-of-life estimate on the basis that there is a
significant age-at-death difference between road trauma fatalities
and slow onset deaths attributable to workplace asbestos exposures.
-
Criticises the use of an 8 per cent discount rate
when a 6 per cent discount rate has been used in all similar RIS
documents.
-
The RIS does not provide evidence that the Regulations
would reduce the predicted number of asbestos-related workplace
fatalities below the levels predicted for the previous Regulations
and there does not appear to be any significant incremental benefit
associated with the proposed Regulations.
-
The RIS does not provide evidence of the major cost
impacts of Regulations 801(2)(k) and 803 on the Victorian mining,
minerals and exploration industry.
-
The cost per life saved estimates of between $323,000
and $478,000 should show an upper estimate of $795,000 - well above
the claim cost estimates quoted.
-
The RIS does not include the number of 'deemed asbestos'
sites requiring approved analysis under Regulation 803, instead
focussing on 'in-situ asbestos'.
-
The RIS does not consider the wide range of potential
alternatives available.
-
The RIS does not adequately analyse the costs and
benefits of the alternatives.
The Subcommittee seeks your response to the criticisms
raised by Mr. Clark.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving your response.
Minister's Response[43]
Thank you for your letter dated 20 May 2003, in which
you note that the Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations 12 May 2003. You also advise that the Subcommittee received
a direct submission, from Mr P. S. Clark, criticizing the Regulatory
Impact Statement (RIS), accompanying the Regulations. The Committee
has requested a response to Mr Clark's concerns.
I asked the Victorian WorkCover Authority for assistance
in addressing your concerns in this matter.
I am advised that Mr Clark made a submission in similar
terms to WorkSafe Victoria during the public comment period on the draft
regulations and RIS. As required by the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994, a copy of the document that summarized public comment on the RIS
and draft Regulations, and set out WorkSafe's responses was contained
in the material sent to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
(SARC) after the making of the Regulations. A copy of the independent
assessors Certificate of Adequacy on the RIS was also provided.
I am further advised that Mr Clark's previous comments
were considered, along with other public submissions, during the development
of the final Regulations. WorkSafe is satisfied that the RIS adequately
addresses the likely impact of the regulations. A detailed response
from WorkSafe to Mr Clark's criticisms to the Committee is enclosed
for your information. However, the relevant comments provided by the
VWA are as follows:
-
Mr Clark is correct to note that the Regulations will
have little immediate impact on asbestos related morbidity. However,
this is not considered a valid reason for ignoring the long term
benefit of making the new Regulations. Additionally, Mr Clark appears
to have misunderstood the fatality estimates contained in the RIS;
-
The RIS did not use any specific value-for-life estimates;
-
While recent RIS documents have varied between using
6 and 8% discount rates, WorkSafe does not believe, in this case,
that the cost estimates are sensitive to variations in the interest
rated used;
-
The new Regulations are designed to build on the
benefits accrued from the previous Regulations. If the Regulations
had been allowed to lapse then the benefits already gained would
have dissipated over time;
-
Analysis undertaken by WorkSafe and the Department
of Primary Industries indicate that regulations 801 and 803 are
unlikely to impact on the mining and quarrying industry in Victoria.
Regulation 803 may impact to a limited extent on the exploration
industry, but the impact is not expected to impose an appreciable
burden;
-
The RIS for the Asbestos Regulations was unusual
in that the estimated benefits were quite distant relative to the
estimated costs. In this case, while the RIS estimates costs over
the usual 10 year life span of regulations, the benefits are estimated
over 30 years to take into account the long latency period of asbestos
related diseases;
-
The RIS noted that between 10,000 and 20,000 employers
would fall within the trade categories where they may encounter
asbestos (including about 3,800 employers in the automotive and
brake industry). It was not possible to cost the deeming requirement
as it could not be known how many employers may be uncertain about
the presence of asbestos in any given situation;
-
The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires that
any alternative considered is capable of achieving the regulatory
objective; and
-
The RIS fully considered two alternatives: (i) removal
of all asbestos from workplaces; and (ii) licensing employers involved
in "removing" asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and products.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the matters
set out in Mr Clark's submission. I trust the information provided will
be of assistance to the Subcommittee. If further information is required
please contact Glenn Sargent, Acting Director, Strategy and Programs
Division, WorkSafe Victoria on 9641 1619.
Example 2:
These Regulations related to the prohibition of the sale
of various types of alcoholic beverages including "Moo Joose". The Subcommittee's
concern was the need for appropriate responses to all those who made submissions
in respect of the RIS. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister.
Subcommittee's letter[44]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations pursuant to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(the Act) at a meeting on 29 September 2993. The Subcommittee approved
the Regulations.
Section 11 of the Act sets out matters relevant to the
regulatory impact statement (RIS) process. In particular S 11(3)(a)
provides that the responsible Minister must: -
"(a) ensure that all comments and submissions are considered
before the statutory rule is made;"
Paragraph 5.42 of the Premier's Guidelines provide that:
-
"It should be remembered that Ministers have a duty
to consult in appropriate stages at the initial stages and at the
RIS stage. Under section 11(3) of the Act the responsible Minister
is required to consider all submissions and comments received on a
draft statutory rule where a RIS has been prepared. If the agency
does not adequately address valid criticisms and suggestions made,
this omission may be highlighted later by the Scrutiny of Acts and
Regulations Committee which, under section 11(3)(b) of the Act must
be provided with a copy of all comments and submissions received in
relation to the RIS."
The Subcommittee was provided with all submissions received.
Of the six submissions received, four were generally supportive. Two
submissions, namely those of Packaged Liquor Stores Association of Victoria
and Wicked Holdings Pty Ltd were not.
The general experience of the Subcommittee is that the
relevant agency responds or attempts to respond to criticisms made in
submissions to the RIS either by letter or an explanation accompanying
the RIS or occasionally amending the regulations. In this instance there
was no response to the submissions. Whilst the Subcommittee appreciates
that there may be some disagreement as to what constitutes a "valid
criticism" as per paragraph 5.42 of the Premier's Guidelines, it is
of the view that transparency in the process is important. The Subcommittee
is of the view that in this instance, there ought to have been some
response to the submissions, particularly those against the Regulations.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your reply.
Minister's Response[45]
I refer to your letter of 30 September 2003 regarding
the making of the Liquor Control Reform (Prohibited Class of Liquor)
Regulations.
Your subcommittee correctly identifies that the six (6)
submissions in response to the invitation for public comment on the
related Regulatory Impact Statement did not receive formal responses.
Whilst there may well have been an administrative oversight
in not acknowledging the submissions, full regard was had to all submissions
in my decision to proceed to make the regulations, with the relevant
public notice stating that the submissions were considered.
Thank you for bringing your subcommittee's views in this
matter to my attention.
Example 3:
These Regulations increased various commercial fishing industry
fees and levies. In respect of consultation, the Subcommittee's concern
in this instance was the inadvertent failure to advertise the RIS in the
Government Gazette. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister.
Subcommittee's letter[46]
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.
These Regulations increase various commercial fishing
industry fees and levies and are accompanied by a Regulation Impact
Statement (RIS) which deals only with the provisions increasing the
levy paid to Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV). The component of the levy
allocated to SIV has been increased by 30% while other components of
the levy have been increased by 3% and thus are excepted from the RIS
process under section 8(1)(a) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
The Subcommittee notes that the Regulations themselves
do not provide a breakdown of the various components of the levy and
this makes it difficult to understand this aspect of the regulations
and the impact of any changes. The Subcommittee's legal adviser sought
clarification from the relevant policy officer and was provided with
details of the various components. In addition it was indicated that
a review is currently underway aimed at streamlining the levy process
and making the various components of the levy clear both in the Regulations
and licences. The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to when this review
is expected to be completed.
Section 11 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires
a RIS to be advertised in a newspaper circulating throughout Victoria,
the Victorian Government Gazette and any special interest group journals.
The Subcommittee acknowledges receipt of a letter dated 11 March 2003
from Mr. Taylor, Director Governance and Executive Services indicating
that the Department had, by oversight, not advertised the RIS in the
Victorian Government Gazette. The Subcommittee notes that the department
has complied with all other requirements of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994. The Subcommittee wishes to thank Mr. Taylor for his honesty
in drawing this matter to its attention.
The Subcommittee notes that the RIS for these Regulations
was advertised in newspapers circulating throughout Victoria as well
as in regional newspapers. These newspapers included - The Age, Herald
Sun, Portland Observer, Warrnambool Standard, Geelong Advertiser, Phillip
Island and San Remo Advertiser and Lakes Entrance Post. The RIS was
also advertised in industry newsletters. The Subcommittee also notes
that SIV contacted Victorian Access Licence Holders and Operators and
held a series of meeting at major fishing ports. A total of nine written
public submissions were received and they all supported the Regulations.
The Subcommittee considers consultation and the public
submission process to be key aspects of the RIS process. In the Subcommittee's
view the failure to advertise a RIS in the Victorian Government Gazette
constitutes a breach of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. The advertising
requirements are designed to ensure that RIS are seen by a broad cross
section of the community and to enable interested parties to comment
on regulatory proposals. The Subcommittee considers that community wide
consultation is crucial to the effectiveness of the regulatory system.
The Subcommittee notes that in relation to these Regulations while the
Department has omitted to advertise the RIS in the Victorian Government
Gazette, the RIS has been advertised extensively in newspapers circulating
throughout Victoria, in regional newspapers and in special interest
group newsletters and that meetings have also been held with interested
parties. It would appear to the Subcommittee that all those interested
in and affected by the Regulations have had an opportunity to comment.
On this occasion the Subcommittee has approved the Regulations
but it seeks to emphasise the importance of complying with all aspects
of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. The Subcommittee would be pleased
if these matters could be drawn to the attention of legislative officers
in your department.
Minister's Response[47]
Thank you for your letter of the 20 May 2003 outlining
the approval by the Regulation review Subcommittee of the Fisheries
(Fees and Levies) Regulations 2003.
The Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industries,
known as Fisheries Victoria, has a strong commitment to the principles
of appropriate consultation in the development of legislation, and is
familiar with the procedures contained in the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994 ('the Subordinate Legislation Act'). Underpinning this regime,
Fisheries Victoria has a strong record of positive engagement with the
Regulatory Impact Statement ('RIS') process and appreciates the enhancement
to decision-making that the RIS process offers. However, in rare circumstances,
administrative errors may result in less than total compliance with
the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. This was the case
in the development of the Fisheries (Fees and Levies) Regulations 2003,
where notification of the development of the RIS to be published in
the Victorian Government Gazette as required in section 11(1)(a) of
the Subordinate Legislation Act, was not met due to an administrative
oversight. This omission, while not merely technical, has been found
by the Committee to have not been fatal to the subordinate legislation,
due to the substantive level of consultation which otherwise occurred.
The positive approach taken by the Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of Acts
and Regulations Committee in reaching this decision is appreciated.
The omission has been treated seriously by staff and the cause of the
omission, has been corrected by revised procedures. Staff of Fisheries
Victoria are appreciative of the need for full compliance with the requirements
of the Subordinate Legislation Act and I am confident that full compliance
can be expected in the future.
As you noted, a review of section 151 of the Fisheries
Act 1995 has been completed and will be tabled in both houses of Parliament
following approval by the Economic Development and Infrastructure Delivery
Committee of Cabinet in early July 2003. This review analyses the effectiveness
of the administration of fees and levies under the Fisheries Act 1995
and recommends legislative and regulatory changes that ensures that
the collection of fees and levies are more transparent to industry and
the public. Following the tabling of the review, an RIS will be prepared
to outline the necessary regulatory changes required to implement the
recommendations.
Thank you for your assistance in ensuring that due regulatory
process is adhered to and for your Subcommittee's approval of the above
Regulations.
(C) TECHNICAL MATTERS - INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATES - DATES OF PUBLICATION
IN THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE AND NEWSPAPER
The Subcommittee is concerned to ensure technical compliance
with the Act. Pursuant to s 11(a) and (b) of the Act, the RIS must be
published in the Government Gazette and a daily newspaper circulating
generally throughout Victoria. All relevant certificates should accompany
the regulations and be signed and dated. Failure to do so will ensure
a letter from the Subcommittee requesting rectification of these matters.
Example 1:
Subcommittee's letter[48]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee held a meeting on 15
March 2004 to consider the above regulations.
(1) RIS not advertised in the Government Gazette
It appears from preliminary discussions with the relevant
legal officer in your Department that the Regulatory Impact Statement
was not advertised in the Government Gazette. It appears that this was
an oversight. The Regulation Review Subcommittee wishes to remind the
relevant officers in the Department of the particular requirements in
respect of publication set out in section 11 of the Subordinate Legislation
Act 1994.
(2) Certificates
The Certificate of Consultation is signed but undated.
The section 10(4) Certificate of Compliance is also undated. The Regulation
Review Subcommittee would appreciate rectification of these matters.
(3) Detailed responses to submissions made in respect
of the Regulatory Impact Statement
The Regulation Review Subcommittee notes there were approximately
45 submissions made in response to the Regulatory Impact Statement.
The Subcommittee wishes to commend the legal officer who prepared the
detailed responses sent to all those who sent in submissions. The responses
were extremely thorough and detailed.
The Regulation Review Subcommittee looks forward to your
response.
Minister's Response[49]
Thank you for your letter of 16 March 2004 in relation
to the above matter. Advice from the Department of Justice received
by me has confirmed that the failure to advertise the Regulatory Impact
Statement in the Government Gazette pursuant to section 11 of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 was an oversight. The Department regrets this error
and will use its best endeavours to ensure that it does not happen again.
I new enclose a copy of the signed and dated Certificate
of Consultation and Certificate of Compliance under section 10(4) of
the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
Example 2:
These Regulations increased the general fee for issuing
a land tax certificate and prescribed a lower fee for the issuing of an
application for a certificate. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister
in respect of two technical matters; namely the failure to provide certificates
and the provision of advertising information.
Subcommittee's letter[50]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations pursuant to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(the Act) at a meeting on 29 September 2003. The Subcommittee approved
the Regulations.
The Regulations amend the Land Tax Regulations 1998 to:
-
-
Increase the general fee for issuing a certificate
showing if there is any land tax due under the Land Tax Act 1958;
and
-
Prescribe a lower fee for issuing such a certificate
where the application is made in a specified manner.
The Subcommittee considered two matters.
(1) Certificates
The Regulations are accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum,
a S 10(4) Certificate of Compliance, a S 10(13) letter of independent
assessment from the Office of Regulation Reform and the Competition
Policy Analysis. The Regulations are not accompanied by a Competition
Policy Certificate as set out in Part 14 of the Premier's Guidelines.
There also appears to be no S 6 Certificate of Consultation.
The Subcommittee would appreciate it if you could forward
the appropriate certificates to it.
(2) Consultation
Pursuant to Ss 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Act the RIS must
be published in the Government Gazette and a daily newspaper circulating
generally throughout Victoria. The Explanatory Memorandum and accompanying
material does not make it clear when the requirements of Ss 11(1)(a)
and (b) were met. The Explanatory Memorandum advises that the RIS was
available for comment from 8 May until 5 June 2003. From a scrutiny
perspective the Subcommittee is concerned to ensure there has been compliance
with Ss 11(1)(a) and (b). The Subcommittee would appreciate your advice
as to: -
The Subcommittee is of the view that it is a simple matter
to include the relevant information in the Explanatory Memorandum. The
Subcommittee would appreciate it if the above matter could be drawn
to the attention of the legislative officers in your department. The
Subcommittee looks forward to your response to the matters raised.
Minister's Response[51]
I refer to your letter dated 30 September 2003 concerning
these Regulations. In that letter you have advised that the Regulation
Review Subcommittee has approved these Regulations but considered two
matters. A response to each of those matters follows.
1. Certificates
A Certificate of Consultation and a Competition Policy
Certificate are attached as requested.
2. Consultation
As you are aware, public consultation took place via the
Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) process. Notice of the RIS was published
in the Age newspaper and in the Government Gazette on 8 May 2003. Copies
of each advertisement are attached. The State Revenue Office has advised
that the date these notices are published will be included in the Explanatory
Memorandum accompanying any future Regulations.
I trust this information is sufficient and thank the Subcommittee
for its comments regarding these Regulations.
Example 3:
Subcommittee's letter[52]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations pursuant to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(the Act) at a meeting on 29 September 2003. The Subcommittee approved
the Regulations.
The Subcommittee notes that all four sets of Regulations
are the result of a joint review of the fee structure for the four associated
registration systems. One Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was used
in support of the Regulations. The Subcommittee notes that no submissions
were received in respect of the Regulations.
Pursuant to Ss 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Act the RIS must
be published in the Government Gazette and a daily newspaper circulating
generally throughout Victoria. All the Regulations were accompanied
by a Certificate of Consultation (S 6 of the Act) and a Certificate
of Compliance (S 10(4) of the Act). The Explanatory Memorandum and accompanying
material does not make it clear when the requirements of Ss 11(1)(a)
and (b) were met.
From a scrutiny perspective the Subcommittee is concerned
to ensure there has been compliance with Ss 11(1)(a) and (b). The Subcommittee
would appreciate your advice as to: -
The Subcommittee is of the view that it is a simple matter
to include the relevant information in the Explanatory Memorandum. The
Subcommittee would appreciate it if the above matter could be drawn
to the attention of the legislative officers in your department. The
Subcommittee looks forward to your response.
Minister's Response[53]
Thank you for your letter dated 30 September 2003.
The notices under sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) were
published in the Victoria Government Gazette G17 on 24 April 2003 at
page 836, and in the public notices in The Age on 24 April 2003.
In relation to your concerns that the Explanatory Memorandum
include information on compliance with the requirements in relation
to regulatory impact statements under the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994, I suggest that that matter be considered in the broader context
of the functions of the Explanatory Memorandum and the section 10 certificate.
The contact officer for this matter in the Department
is Ms Anne Cadogan who can be contacted on 9627 6378.
(D) SIGHTING OF MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Regulations often include a table of applied, adopted or
incorporated matter in accordance with the requirements of regulation
6 of the Subordinate Legislation Regulations 1994. Such a table lists
all the material applied, adopted or incorporated by reference in the
regulations. Often the Subcommittee is placed in the position where it
has to consider and or approve regulations without sighting the material
which is incorporated into them. Where the Subcommittee does not sight
the material it cannot form a view as to whether it conforms with the
requirements of the Act.
The Premier's Guidelines provide some assistance.[54]
7.3 Section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act
1984 prescribes the procedural requirements which must be fulfilled
whenever a statutory rule applies, adopts or incorporates material by
reference. Section 32(5) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act provides
that a failure to comply with the tabling requirements does not affect
the validity, operation or effect of a statutory rule but agencies should
nevertheless ensure compliance with the requirements of section 32 as
amended by the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994.
7.4 When considering whether to incorporate a particular
document in a statutory rule it should be remembered: " That the provisions
of the rule will only refer to the incorporated material and members
of the public affected by the rule must see the incorporated document
before they can understand the contents and effect of the rule; " That
the incorporated material may not be readily available at a reasonable
cost; " That the procedures set out in section 32 are designed to facilitate
Parliamentary oversight of incorporation of material and to ensure that
such material is publicly available so that members of the public affected
by the rule can have access to the rules with which they must comply.
7.5 It needs to be remembered that the incorporated material
may not be a single document. The problem is exacerbated by the drafting
style adopted by the Standards Association of Australia as these standards
are frequently not self contained but adopt the provisions of other
standards. This can create a chain of material incorporated by reference
leading to the possibility that the need to table a particular document
will be overlooked.
7.6 Consideration should also be given in drafting statutory
rules as to whether the reference to an Australian Standard should be
to a specific standard (eg AS 1234) or to a specific version of a standard
by reference to its date (eg AS 1234, 1997). The latter approach means
that if a later amended version of a standard is to be adopted it will
require the amendment of the statutory rule and the undertaking of the
RIS process. The former approach may result in significant changes to
the effect of the statutory rule with no automatic mechanism to review
the changes to the costs and benefits of the statutory rule.
7.8 In deciding whether to incorporate material by reference,
agencies need to take care to balance the drafting convenience with
ease of access to the incorporated material and understanding of it
by those affected by it or required to comply with it. Agencies should
reserve the use of incorporated detailed and extensive technical material
to regulations concerning industries familiar with and using material.
In such cases agencies should also consider whether performance standards
are the more appropriate means of regulation.
The issue of approving material incorporated by reference
and not sighted is an ongoing one for the Subcommittee from a general
scrutiny perspective.
Example 1:
These Regulations prescribed minimum standards of energy
efficiency and performance of registrable ballasts. They also provided
for the registration and labelling of the ballasts. The issue of the scrutiny
of material incorporated by reference rose squarely for the Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee raised the matter with the Minister.
Subcommittee's letter[55]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations pursuant to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(the Act) at a meeting on 29 September 2003. The Subcommittee approved
the Regulations.
The Regulations: -
-
Prescribe minimum standards of energy efficiency and
performance of registrable ballasts;
-
Provide for the registration and labelling of those
ballasts; and
-
Make miscellaneous amendments.
The Regulations are exempted from the requirement to prepare
a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) as they form part of a national
uniform legislation scheme.
The Regulations include a table of applied, adopted or
incorporated matter in accordance with the requirements of regulation
6 of the Subordinate Legislation Regulations 1994. It lists all the
material applied, adopted or incorporated by reference in the Regulations.
The Subcommittee notes that much of the material referred to appears
to relate to various standards for energy labelling and minimum energy
performance for registrable ballasts.
The Subcommittee has not sighted that material and so
cannot form a view as to whether it conforms with the requirements of
the Act. Presumably, as these Regulations form part of a National Scheme
of Legislation such material is appropriate. However, the issue of approving
material incorporated by reference and not sighted is ongoing for the
Subcommittee from a general scrutiny perspective. The Subcommittee seeks
your advice as to whether such material has been scrutinised at some
level, either by another parliament or another Scrutiny Committee. The
Subcommittee also notes in conclusion that the S 13 Certificate from
the Office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel approving the Regulations
specifically excludes the material incorporated by reference.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your response.
Minister's Response[56]
Thank you for letter of 30 September 2003, seeking my
advice regarding whether material applied, adopted or incorporated by
reference in the Electricity Safety (Equipment Efficiency)(Amendment)
Regulations 2003 (the Regulations), has been scrutinised at some level,
either by another parliament or another Scrutiny Committee.
As outlined in your letter, the Regulations provide that
registrable fluorescent lamp ballasts must comply with the performance
criteria and minimum energy performance standards set out in the Australian/New
Zealand Standards, "Performance of electricity lighting equipment -
Ballasts for fluorescent lamps," Parts 1 and 2 (AS/NZS 478.1:2001and
AS/NZS 4783.2:2002).
These minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for
fluorescent lamp ballasts have been introduced by the Victorian Government
as part of the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program
(NAEEEP). This program aims at developing a nationally consistent framework
to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions from household
appliances and equipment, and commercial and industrial equipment, through
mandatory MEPS and energy efficiency labelling.
The program is led by the Ministerial Council on Energy
and is managed by the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency
Committee (NAEEEC), chaired by the Commonwealth with representation
from electrical appliance regulators and energy agency officials in
all States and Territories and New Zealand.
NAEEC works closely with Standards Australia (the body
responsible for the development of Australian Standards) to develop
appropriate MEPS, including AS/NZS 4783.1:2001 and AS/NZS 4783.2:2002.
The primary role of Standards Australia (an independent,
non-government body) is to prepare technical and business standards
in relation to a broad range of topics. Generally, where the need for
a standard has been identified, the standard itself is developed by
a technical committee and published for public comment, before final
approval. I understand this process was followed in respect of the development
of AS/NZS 4783.1:2001 and AS/NZS 4783.2:2002.
In addition, before MEPS are adopted by State Governments,
NAEEEC is required to undertake a Regulatory impact Statement (RIS),
in accordance with COAG's "Principles and Guidelines for National Standard
Setting and Regulatory Action by Ministerial Councils and Standard Setting
Bodies" to demonstrate the net benefit of implementing new regulation.
A further consultation process is required on the RIS before final Ministerial
approval. Again, this RIS process was undertaken in respect of AS/NZS
4783.1:2001 and AS/NZS 4783.2:2002.
If the regulations are made this year in all jurisdictions,
the Australian community is expected to save almost $270 million by
2010 (net present value) through the greater efficiency standards required
of lighting ballasts. By 2010, the annual abatement of greenhouse gases
under the model is expected to be in the order of 0.35Mt.
If you have any questions, or require further information,
in relation to the bodies and processes described above, please contact
Neil Jenkins, Senior Policy Analyst, Energy & Security Division (9655
6592).
Example 2:
Subcommittee's letter[57]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of
Acts and Regulations Committee considered the above Regulations at a
meeting on 27 October 2003. The Subcommittee approved the rules.
Advertisement of the Regulatory Impact Statement
The Explanatory memorandum advises that the Regulatory
Impact Statement was advertised in accordance with s 11(2) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994. The Subcommittee would appreciate your advice
as to when it was advertised and when it was gazetted.
Scrutiny of Incorporated Material
Regulations 8(1)(h) and (i) incorporate by reference the
clearance requirements set out in Table 3.8 of the Australian/New Zealand
Wiring Rules ASNZS:2000 as published on 15 September 1999. The material
is set out in the Table of Applied, Adopted or Incorporated Matter at
the end of the Regulation.
The Subcommittee has not sighted that material and so
cannot form a view as to whether it conforms with the requirements of
the Act. However, the issue of approving material incorporated by reference
and not sighted is ongoing for the Subcommittee from a general scrutiny
perspective. The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to whether such material
has been scrutinised at some other level.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your response in due
course.
Minister's Response[58]
Thank you for your letter dated 29 October 2003 seeking
information relating to the above Regulations which have now been approved
by your Subcommittee. I apologise for the delay in responding.
With respect to your question on when the Regulatory Impact
Statement was advertised, I am able to advise you that the RIS was advertised
in the Gazette (G50 - pages 3231-3232) on 12 December 2002 and in the
Herald Sun on 13 December 2002.
With respect to your question on whether the Australian/New
Zealand Wiring Rules ASNZS:2000 have been scrutinized at some level,
in my letter to you on the Electricity Safety (Equipment Efficiency)
Amendment Regulations 2003, I provided information regarding the general
development of Australian/New Zealand standards.
In relation to Wiring Rules, the advice I have received
from the Office of the chief Electrical Inspector is that the incorporated
matter was scrutinized by Parliamentary Council in providing the section
13 certificate. The Wiring Rules were lodged with the Clerk of the Parliaments
on 11 August 2003 with other material incorporated in the Regulations
Tabling requirements were also complied with.
I hope that this information is of assistance.
(E) SECTION 9(1)(A) - IS THERE ANY APPRECIABLE ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL BURDEN
ON ANY SECTOR OF THE PUBLIC?
Many regulations are accompanied by a section 9(1)(a) certificate
of exemption which states that they do not impose an appreciable economic
or social burden on any sector of the public. Paragraph 5.31 of the Premier's
Guidelines set out the particular requirements in respect of the exemption
certificates.[59]
In this context it is important to remember that the Minister
not only has to provide the Scrutiny Committee with a certificate of
consultation under section 6(c), but is required to give reasons as
to why he or she is of the opinion that the proposed rule does not impose
an appreciable economic or social burden on a sector of the public under
section 9(2).
The Subcommittee takes the view that it is not sufficient
to simply assert that there is no appreciable economic or social burden
on a sector of the public in the exemption certificate. The Subcommittee
expects that detailed reasons will be given as to why
there is no appreciable economic or social burden on a sector of the public.
This matter was raised squarely in respect of the SR 157 Occupational
Health and Safety (Asbestos)(Amendment) Regulations 2003.
Example 1:
Subcommittee's letter[60]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee (the Subcommittee)
met to consider the above Regulations at a meeting on 16 February 2004.
The Subcommittee has deferred consideration of the Regulations.
Consultation
The Regulations are accompanied by s 6 Certificate of
Consultation which states that there has been consultation with industry
groups. The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to the particular consultation
which has taken place with groups in the industry. What was the level
of consultation and with whom?
Regulatory Impact Statement and s 9(1) Certificate
of Exemption
The Regulations are accompanied by a s 9(1)(a) Certificate
of Exemption which states that they would not impose an appreciable
economic or social burden on any sector of the public. However the Subcommittee
seeks your advice as to the particular reasons why it is considered
there is no appreciable burden or economic burden on a sector of the
public.
The Subcommittee appreciates that the Regulations were
developed through a tripartite process convened by the National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission. However the Subcommittee also seeks your
advice as to why it was considered that the regulatory impact statement
process was thought not to be appropriate in this instance.
Safety of Asbestos
The incorporation of the national list of exemptions will
allow limited uses of chrysotile asbestos to continue. The Subcommittee
seeks your advice as to whether the use of this asbestos is safe. It
also seeks further clarification of the operation of the exclusion from
the prohibitions for soils for which a visual inspection indicates that
asbestos containing material has been removed.
The Subcommittee would appreciate your response to the
above matters.
Minister's Response[61]
Thank you for your letter dated 16 February 2004, regarding
clarification of a number of matters relating to the Occupational Health
and Safety (Asbestos) (Amendment) Regulations 2003.
Specifically, you have requested details of the:
-
Consultation that was undertaken during development
of the Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) (Amendment) Regulations
2003;
-
Reasons why the Amendment Regulations were not considered
to confer an appreciable burden on any sector of the public and
why it was not considered necessary to prepare a regulatory impact
statement;
-
Means by which the safe use of certain items excluded
from the prohibitions will be ensured.
Consultation
A detailed history of the consultation undertaken in relation
to the development of the Amendment Regulations appears in Attachment
A.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In October 2003, WorkSafe sought advice from RIS expert,
Dr David Wilkinson, regarding whether incorporation of the National
List of Exemptions would impose an appreciable burden on any sector
of the community and the need to prepare an RIS. Dr Wilkinson's advice
states that "exemptions from a regulatory requirements, by their very
nature, cannot be construed as imposing an appreciable burden as defined"
in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994: Guidelines Under Section 26.
In other words, the Amendment Regulations provide for
exemptions from the prohibitions on asbestos and therefore permit the
continued use of specified asbestos-containing materials under certain
circumstances and thereby alleviate a portion of the burden imposed
by prohibition of their use.
Some changes were made to the draft amending proposal
following Dr Wilkinson's advice. New provisions relating to exclusions
from the prohibitions for: soil from which asbestos-containing material
has been removed; and recycled construction material that contain less
than a prescribed percentage of asbestos-containing material, were added
after receipt of his advice. However, given that these changes were
of a similar nature to the other provisions on which Dr Wilkinson had
previously commented, it was considered that Dr Wilkinson's advice adequately
covered the matter at hand. Following receipt of the Subcommittee's
letter, WorkSafe Victoria sought and obtained confirmation of this assessment
from Dr Wilkinson.
National List of Exemptions
The Subcommittee notes that the National List of Exemptions
(refer Schedule 1A, Amendment Regulations) will permit the limited use
of chrysotile asbestos-containing material to continue and seeks advice
as to whether the use of this material is safe.
A rigorous process was used by the National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission to determine whether any exemptions from
the prohibitions on the continued use of chrysotile asbestos-containing
materials would be necessary. The criteria was premised on there being
no technically available; and/or the use of an alternative item posed
greater risk to health and safety than would the use of the asbestos-containing
item.
NOHSC released a draft list of exemptions for a period
of public comment and sought input in relation to whether any additional
items should be exempt, according to the above criteria. Applications
for exemptions were considered by a tripartite working group and the
final list was approved by representatives from all Australian jurisdictions,
the ACCI and the ACTU.
It must be noted that there are only four exempt categories
of chrysotile asbestos-containing material and these expire on or before
1 January 2008. It is intended that the expiry date provides the impetus
to find technically feasible alternatives to the use of these materials.
In addition, intent to use an item on the National List
is subject to the requirement that WorkSafe is notified, thereby enabling
WorkSafe to undertake targeted enforcement activities. The use of exempt
items is also regulated under Part 8 of the Asbestos Regulations if
the task is likely to create airborne asbestos fibres in excess of one
half of the exposure standard (see regulation 801(2)(k)).
Safe use of asbestos-containing materials
The Subcommittee seeks further clarification of the operation
of the exclusion, from the prohibitions, for soils for which a visual
inspection indicates that asbestos-containing material has been removed.
The circumstances that most often attract this exemption
occur infrequently in the construction industry. Excavations of construction
sites occasionally uncover waste asbestos-containing materials that
have been buried to dispose of it or haphazard and incomplete asbestos
removal work has left asbestos-containing material in the soil. The
prohibitions in Part 3 of the Asbestos Regulations apply to materials
(including soil) that contain any amount of asbestos.
The practical effect of the exclusion is to deem soil
to be free of asbestos if a visual inspection (by a competent Person)
determines that no asbestos-containing material is present. This type
of visual assessment is consistent with custom and practice in the asbestos-removal
industry. Visual inspections are required, as per Part 7 of the Asbestos
Regulations, to obtain a clearance certificate at the end of removal
work where more than a specified quantity of asbestos-containing material
is to be removed.
This exclusion was supported by industry and unions in
consultations on the proposed Amendment Regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the matters
that you have raised. I trust that the information provided will be
of assistance to the Subcommittee.
Attachment A - History of
Consultation: Occupation Health and Safety (Asbestos) (Amendment) Regulations
2003
Background
-
Subsequent to the making of the Occupational Health
and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 (the Asbestos Regulations),
a National List of Exemptions from the prohibition on use of chrysotile
asbestos was finalised through a tripartite process, convened by
the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC).
-
The list of exemptions was initially based on the
list of derogations from the UK prohibition on use of chrysotile
asbestos and was reviewed, through the tripartite Chrysotile Implementation
Working Group (the CIWG), for relevance in Australia. WorkSafe is
represented on the CIWG.
-
The draft List of Exemptions was then released nationally
for a period of consultation, from 2 July till 13 September 2002.
A total of 15 submissions were received (including from organisations
and individuals based in Victoria eg. Esso Australia Pty Ltd and
the AMWU) and these were reviewed by the CIWG prior to settling
a final National List of Exemptions. The List has been endorsed
by the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council.
-
An amendment to the Asbestos Regulations to accommodate
the National List was foreshadowed with stakeholders during development
of the Asbestos Regulations. This issue was also discussed in WorkSafe's
document; Summary of Public Comment on the proposed Occupation Health
and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 and accompanying Regulatory
Impact Statement, together with WorkSafe Victoria's Responses, which
was distributed to all individuals and organisations (approximately
40) who submitted comment on the draft Asbestos Regulations and/or
on the accompanying RIS.
-
The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) (Amendment)
Regulations 2003 (the Amendment Regulations) also provide for an
exclusion from the prohibitions for soils from which asbestos-containing
material (present as a contaminant) has been removed. A further
exclusion is provided for recycled construction materials that are
intended to be re-used.
Consultation in respect of the Amendment Regulations
-
WorkSafe commenced consultation in respect of the
Amendment Regulations in October 2003. Letters seeking comment on
the draft amending Regulation were sent to:
-
Written comment in relation to the draft Amendment
Regulations was received from the following 8 parties.
-
AMWU;
-
VTHC (copied to the AMWU, the ETU and the CFMEU);
-
EPA;
-
MBAV;
-
Civil Contractor's Federation;
-
Demolition Contractor's Association (through the
MBAV);
-
The Alex Fraser Group; and
-
FMP Pty Ltd.
-
Only the AMWU, VTHC and FMP Pty Ltd commented on the
amendment that will incorporate the National List of Exemptions.
Both the AMWU and VTHC supported the amendment, FMP Pty Ltd simply
sought assurance that the exemptions would be limited to the items
in the National List and that this did not extend to brake friction
materials.
-
Additionally, WorkSafe conducted discussions with
the above stakeholders during November and early December 2003.
During these discussions, the issue of recycled construction materials
contaminated with asbestos-containing materials and intended for
re-use emerged as a distinct issue.
-
In respect of recycled construction materials, the
Alex Fraser Group (Victoria's largest recycler of these materials)
advised WorkSafe that contamination, with asbestos, of materials
intended for re-use can be limited to concentrations of less than
0.001% w/w. This company has developed and implemented methodology
that achieves this standard.
-
However, despite a preference (expressed by the CFMEU
and VTHC) that the permissible percentage of contamination with
asbestos (in respect of recycled construction materials) be written
into the amending Regulation, the draft amendment enables the Authority
to determine the percentage contamination and the analytical method,
in the Government Gazette. This provided additional time for consultation
with the industry in order to gain an understanding of whether the
analytical method, developed by the Alex Fraser Group, could be
implemented by all members of the industry, thus ensuring that the
amendment did not create an effective monopoly.
-
In subsequent discussions with the CFMEU and VTHC,
these parties accepted the need for further consultation with industry
on the matters to be determined. The primary concern of all parties
being that the permissible percentage of contamination with asbestos
be as low as possible, whilst enabling the industry that recycles
construction materials to continue operating.
Attachment B - Health and
Safety Working Group
This group is chaired by the Chair of the Victorian WorkCover
Authority and is the primary means by which unions and employer organisations
scrutinise the Authority's policy agenda and operational activities.
Name |
Position |
Organisation |
Cathy Butcher |
OHS Officer |
Victorian Trades Hall Council |
David Gregory |
Group General Manager, Workplace Relations |
Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry |
Gayle Burmeister |
H & S Organiser |
National Union of Workers |
Dean Bingham |
OHS Field Officer |
Master Builders Association of Victoria |
Sue Kay |
Manager, OH & S |
Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce |
Pat Preston |
Manager, Environmental H & S |
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union |
Sarah Ross |
OHS Officer |
Australian Manufacturing Worker's Union |
Tracey Browne |
Principle Advisor |
Australian Industry Group |
Karen Batt |
Victorian Branch Secretary |
CPSU (SPSF Group) |
Attachment C - Manufacturing
Industry Task Force
The terms of reference of this group include reducing
workplace death and injury rates in the manufacturing industry.
Name |
Organisation |
Cathy Butcher |
Victorian Trades Hall Council |
Renata Musolino |
Victorian Trades Hall Council |
Garry Thompson |
Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry |
Gayle Burmeister |
National Union of Workers |
Clayton Larkin |
National Union of Workers |
Denise Campbell-Burns |
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
|
Sarah Ross |
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union |
Alex Buckle |
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union |
Tracey Browne |
Australian Industry Group |
Gwynneth Evans |
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union |
Allan Mulvena |
Electrical Trades Union of Australia/CEPU Electrical
Trades Division |
George Perkolarakis |
LHMU |
Mara Ray |
Printing Association of Australia |
(F) OTHER MATTERS - GENERAL CLARIFICATION
Often the Subcommittee considers the overall operation of
a regulation. It may consider just how the regulation works in practice.
The Subcommittee sometimes writes to a Minister seeking general clarification
of various matters.
Example 1:
These Regulations set out the maximum and minimum fees for
entry to the Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary and Werribee Zoo. The
Subcommittee wrote to the Minister seeking his advice in respect of a
number of matters.
Subcommittee's letter[62]
At a meeting on 26 May 2003 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examined the above Regulations as it is required to do under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Zoological Parks and Gardens Regulations 2003 set
maximum and minimum fees for entry to the Melbourne Zoo, Healesville
Sanctuary and Werribee Zoo. The Regulations also contain provisions
for the care and management of these zoological parks. Under the Regulations
responsibility for setting actual fees has been given to the Zoological
Board. The Board has also been given power to determine concessional
charges and the Regulations require these charges to be between 50%
and 100% of the maximum fee.
The RIS accompanying these Regulations indicates that
the new fee structure provides flexibility enabling the Board to charge
lower fees and to reflect market and seasonal considerations and, for
example, to offer discounts during traditionally quiet periods to encourage
additional visitors. The Subcommittee notes that there is no requirement
for the Board to offer these discounts and therefore seeks your advice
as to how these seasonal price variations will work in practice.
The RIS includes a table showing the percentage change
from the previous entry fees to the new minimum and maximum fees. The
Subcommittee notes that the percentage increase for most of these fees
is well above the current rate of 3% set by the Treasurer. The Subcommittee
understands that as these Regulations have been prepared with a RIS
there is no requirement to comply with the rate set by the Treasurer.
The Subcommittee notes that the percentage increase for some of the
fees is quite large and it wonders what impact this will have on visitor
numbers and accessibility by disadvantaged groups in the community.
The RIS does not clearly explain this impact. The Subcommittee therefore
seeks your advice as to the impact of this new fee structure on visitor
numbers and accessibility by disadvantaged groups in the community.
The Subcommittee also notes the change in the definition
of 'family' from two adults and up to four children to a group of four
persons including up to two adults. The RIS indicates that this change
has been made to accommodate families consisting of one adult and three
children and reflects the changing composition of families. There was
some criticism of this change to the definition of 'family' by those
who made submissions. In response the Department indicated that price
for a 'family' does represent a saving and additional children will
be charged at 50% of the full paying child. It appears to the Subcommittee
that the change to the definition of 'family' may disadvantage those
with large families and it therefore seeks your advice on the anticipated
impact on large families and whether the 50% discount for additional
children is a requirement of the Regulations or rests with the discretion
of the Board.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving your response.
Minister's Response[63]
Thank you for your letter dated 17 June 2003 regarding
the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) Regulation Review
Sub-Committee's examination of the Zoological Parks and Gardens Regulations
2003.
You have asked for further advice in relation to three
matters.
Seasonal pricing
You have asked how seasonal price variations will work
in practice, for example the offer of discounts during traditionally
quiet periods. It is the intention of the Marketing Director to look
at varying admission prices to encourage visitation at various times.
For example at peak times (public holidays and weekends) a higher price
could be considered and lower prices could apply in winter months to
encourage visitation.
Impact of fee structure on visitation and accessibility
by disadvantaged groups
You have noted the percentage increase from the previous
entry fees to the new maximum and minimum fees and have asked for further
advice on the impact of this new fee structure on visitor numbers and
accessibility by disadvantaged groups in the community.
As noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement, in generating
sufficient revenue to recover an appropriate proportion of essential
costs, the fee structure must balance any likely impact of a fee increase
on visitation. The regulatory prices are based on recovering appropriately
the costs of operating the three zoos (Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary
and Werribee Zoo). These are the maximum fees the Zoological Parks and
Gardens Board (the Board) can charge. However the Board will take into
account the market environment and its operating requirements in setting
prices. The actual entry fees set by the Board are set out below.
Category |
Regulated Maximum Price |
Price set by the Board |
Adult |
$22.00 |
$17.50 |
Child |
$11.00 |
$ 8.50 |
Family |
$50.00 |
$43.50 |
Student/Pensioner |
$17.00 |
$13.00 |
It is acknowledged that the prices could be considered
high especially in view of the current reduction and free entries to
the Museum of Victoria. However the Board is still providing free entry
to various groups such as carers of a disabled person, accompanying
adults (carrying with type and size of group) for school outings, and
reduced entry fees to children with a physical or intellectual disability,
full-time students and pensioners and Health Care Card holders. In addition,
the new Regulations authorise the Board to exempt persons from payment
of entry fees and to discount fees for particular classes of persons,
and will be working with the Department of Community services to identify
other disadvantaged groups for whom concessional prices would be appropriate.
Family prices
In relation to the change in definition of 'family', you
have sought further advice on the impact of the change on large families
and, in particular, whether the 50% discount for additional children
is a requirement of the Regulations or rests with the discretion of
the Board.
The definition of family as "two adults and up to four
children" was changed to a "group of four persons including up to two
adults". At the Werribee Zoo the definition of family has always been
"a group of four persons including up to two adults". The definition
of family is now consistent across the three zoo properties, and is
similar to the definition of family used by many other comparable recreational
attractions.
With the previous definition of family as two adults and
four children, the price charged for a family ticket was calculated
as 75% of the price of two adults and four children. However the Board's
records indicate that only 17% of families fell into this category,
while 50% were two adults and two children. If the price of the new
family ticket was calculated in the same way as for the previous definition
of family the price would be $51.75, rather than the $43.50 actually
set by the Board. It is considered that, while this would be a minor
benefit for families with four children, this larger group is a small
proportion of the total family groups, and the change in the composition
of the Family Ticket reflected a more equitable pricing for the average
family.
The Board has decided that the charge for an additional
child to a family ticket (up to a maximum of three additional children)
will be approximately 50 percent of the full paying child's entry fee
to accommodate the larger family groups. This is a substantial offset
for any impacts of the change in the definition of 'family' for the
entry to the Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens and the Healesville
Sanctuary. The approach taken in this regard is consistent with other
zoos and recreational establishments. The 50% discount for up to three
additional children is not specifically provided for in the Regulations
but the Regulations provide that the Board may determine concessional
charges for entry.
The Board's recurrent revenue is primarily admissions-based,
and is characterised by high fixed costs related to the care of animals.
I am confident that the new regulatory framework will provide the Board
with the flexibility to respond to visitation patterns and visitor needs,
and contribute to the achievement of zoo conservation, environmental
and other community objectives, and to visitor enjoyment.
Example 2:
These Regulations extended the period of exemption from
the overshadowing and overlooking provisions for six municipalities. In
this instance the Subcommittee was concerned that the s 9(1)(a) certificate
did not provide any clear reasons in support of the proposition that the
Regulations did not impose an appreciable burden on any sector of the
community. The Minister's response further explained the reason for the
exemption.
Subcommittee's letter[64]
At a meeting on 21 July 2003 the Regulation Review Subcommittee
examined the above Regulations as it is required to do under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994.
The Building (Application of Siting Requirements) Regulations
2003 extend the period of exemption from the overshadowing and overlooking
provisions for six municipalities - Cardinia, Casey, Hume, Melton, Whittlesea
and Wyndham. The period of exemption has been extended for a further
six months from 1 July 2003 to 1 January 2004.
The section 9(1)(a) certificate states that the Regulations
do not impose an appreciable burden on any sector of the community but
does not provide any clear reasons in support. The Explanatory Memorandum
notes that the building industry has requested an extension to the exemption
period. However the Subcommittee remains uncertain as to why the extension
has been granted.
The Subcommittee draws attention to section 9(2) of the
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 which requires a certificate of exemption
to specify the reasons for granting an exemption from the RIS process.
Parts 5 and 6 of the Premier's Guidelines reinforce the need for an
explanation to be provided. Paragraph 6.10 of the Premier's Guidelines
provides -
If the conclusion is reached that there is no appreciable
burden imposed, there is no need to prepare an RIS but under section
9 of the Act the Minister must certify with reasons that this is the
case.
The Subcommittee therefore seeks clarification as to the
reasons for providing the extension. The Subcommittee also seeks details
on what consultation took place and in particular whether there was
any consultation with councils.
The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving your advice.
Minister's Response[65]
I refer to your recent letter seeking clarification of
the reasons for extending an exemption from the requirements for building
work to comply with the overshadowing and overlooking provisions of
the Building Regulations and asking what consultation was undertaken
with the relevant councils.
Part 4 (Siting) of the Building Regulations 1994 was amended
in August 2001 to incorporate the provisions of ResCode. At that time
the exemption from the requirement to comply with the overshadowing
and overlooking provisions in the six outer Melbourne municipalities
was included in recognition that it would take time for industry to
redesign and market project homes which would meet the ResCode provisions.
The exemption was included in the regulation in consideration
of the transitional issues facing housing consumers, the housing industry
and councils.
For consumers, the exemption was intended to reduce the
need for costly redesign of the homes they intended to build on their
land. For the industry, it provided a lead time to enable the building
industry to redesign their stock homes to comply with the provisions.
The affected councils agreed with the exemption. Their
view was that it would assist existing landowners intending to build
in the near future and would help reduce the number of applications
to council to consent to a variation of the new Building Regulations
so that existing home designs could be built.
The exemption was limited to the six outer Melbourne municipalities.
This was because they cover the urban growth areas where the majority
of new project homes are located. It was anticipated that standard project
homes would require the most adjustment to comply with the new site-specific
overlooking and overshadowing provisions.
The exemption formed part of the regulatory changes that
were the subject of an RIS in September-October 2001. The RIS did not
specifically address the exemption, as it was an exemption from increased
regulation.
Likewise the current extension to the exemption is effectively
a six-month stay in the application of the higher level of regulations
which has applied elsewhere in Victoria since 2001. It therefore cannot
be seen as increasing the regulatory burden on industry.
Early in 2003 the key bodies representing the housing
and development industries, the Housing Industry Association and the
Urban Development Institute of Australia, sought the extension of the
exemption for twelve months, to July 2004.
These industry bodies sought a twelve-month extension
on the basis that many outer urban land buyers are still in the process
of obtaining building permits for lots and housing designs created prior
to ResCode coming into force. Without the extension, these consumers
would be facing increased housing costs as a result of having to redraw
their current plans and achieve compliance.
The need for existing designs to comply would in turn
generate a significant increase in applications to the outer urban councils
to approve a variation to the Building Regulations to allow these already-designed
houses to be built.
Because of the anticipated cost to land consumers, councils
and builders of taking existing outer urban housing projects to full
ResCode compliance at this stage, the Government agreed to a six-month
extension of the exemption, until 31 December 2003.
The six outer urban councils were each consulted about
the proposed extension to the exemption before the above regulations
were made. There was general support for an extension of six months.
Save Our Suburbs (SOS) was also consulted, as SOS is
a key group representing the interests of residents. SOS indicated its
support in view of the ongoing work being undertaken to develop building
envelopes for use in outer urban areas to address ResCode objectives.
I trust that this addresses the issues raised by your
Committee. If you require further information, please contact my Ministerial
Advisor, Ms Rebecca Falkingham on 9637 8855.
Example 3:
SR 89 - Fair Trading (Safety Standard)(Bunk Beds)(Amendment)
Regulations 2003
These Regulations amended the Fair Trading (Safety Standard)(Bunk
Beds) Regulations 2002 to exempt certain classes of bunk beds from the
prescribed safety standard for bunk beds. The Subcommittee noticed the
width of the exemption. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister seeking
clarification of the operation of the Regulations. Subcommittee's letter[66]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above Regulations pursuant
to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (the Act) at a meeting
on 29 September 2003. The Subcommittee approved the Regulations. The Subcommittee
draws your attention to two issues. (1) Width of Exemption By way of background
the Subcommittee notes that the original Fair Trading (Safety Standard)(Bunk
Beds) Regulations 2002 form part of a national scheme to prescribe safety
standards in relation to bunk beds. The 2002 Regulations adopt and vary
the standard for bunk beds approved by Standards Australia. The prescribed
standards according to the explanation were not intended to catch bunk
beds in caravans. The above Regulations remove that doubt. The Regulations
amend the Fair Trading (Safety Standard)(Bunk Beds) Regulations 2002 to
exempt certain classes of bunk beds from the prescribed safety standard
for bunk beds. More particularly they exempt portable bunk beds designed
for camping and bunk beds that are built-in, fitments in caravans, camper
trailers, tent trailers, camper vans, motor homes, trains, ships, aircraft
and other types of conveyances. The Subcommittee noticed the width of
the exemption. It extends beyond bunk beds to built in fitments in caravans,
camper trailers, tent trailers, camper vans, motor homes, trains, ships,
aircraft and other types of conveyances. Are the other things exempted
governed by national standards? The Subcommittee seeks your explanation
as to how the exemption and regulations will work in practice. (2) Sighting
of material incorporated by reference The Subcommittee also noticed that
the Regulations incorporate by reference a table of applied or adopted
matter in accordance with regulation 6 of the Subordinate Legislation
Regulations 1994. That material relates to the Australian/New Zealand
Standards published by Standards Australia in 1994. The Subcommittee has
not sighted that material and so cannot form a view as to whether it conforms
with the requirements of the Act. Presumably, as these Regulations form
part of a National Scheme of Legislation such material is appropriate.
However, the issue of approving material incorporated by reference and
not sighted is ongoing for the Subcommittee from a general scrutiny perspective.
The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to whether such material has been
scrutinised at some level, either by another parliament or another Scrutiny
Committee. The Subcommittee notes that the S 13 Certificate from the Office
of Chief Parliamentary Counsel approving the Regulations also specifically
excludes the material incorporated by reference. The Subcommittee looks
forward to your response to the above matters.
Minister's Response[67] Thank
you for your letter of 30 September 2003. The Fair Trading (Safety Standard)(Bunk
Beds) Regulations 2002 were intended to apply to bunk beds in houses which
are stand alone items of furniture only and not to bunk beds in any of
the conveyances set out in the exemption, which are built into and part
of the conveyances. The 2003 Regulations do not apply to built in bunk
beds because they are not subject to the same level of risk as stand alone
bunk beds. For this reason, they are not covered by national safety standards.
I am advised that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee was sent
a copy of the incorporated standard together with the other required documentation
to assist the Committee in considering the above Regulations under cover
of a letter dated 8 August 2003 (copy attached). However, I enclose another
copy of the standard for your scrutiny. I am unable to advise whether
the incorporated material has been scrutinised by another parliament or
another scrutiny committee. I cannot comment on the content of the section
13 certificate issued by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.
If you wish to discuss the contents of the certificate, may I suggest
you contact the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I hope that
this information is of assistance.
Example 4:
These Regulations set out matters relating to the behaviour
of people in National Parks. The Subcommittee wrote to the Minister requesting
clarification of operation of the Regulations.
Subcommittee's letter[68]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of
Acts and Regulations Committee considered the above Regulations at a
meeting on 27 October 2003. The Subcommittee approved the Regulations.
Clause 17
Clause 17 governs the digging or removal of material
including the digging or removal of shell. The exceptions are set out
in sub-regulation (2)(c). Sub-regulation (2) provides that: -
(2) Subregulation (1)(a) does not apply to a person who-
(c) collects shells in a park that is not a marine national
park or a marine sanctuary if the person-
(i) collects the shells in an area that is set aside
by the Secretary as an area in which shells may be collected; and
(ii) acts in accordance with the determination of the
Secretary as an area in which shells may be collected.
The Subcommittee seeks your advice as to how the operation
works in practice. Does this have any impact on a child who collects
shells in a bucket? Is an area where the collection of shells is permissible
to be appropriately signed? Or is a sign to be erected only where the
collection of shells is not permissible?
If a family driving on the Great Ocean Road stops at
a beach to collect shells - is this allowed? How would a person know
what is permissible? The Subcommittee would appreciate clarification
of these matters.
Inadvertent omission to advertise in the Government
Gazette
The Subcommittee notes that the inadvertent omission to
advertise the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) in the Government Gazette.
The Subcommittee also notes that the RIS process itself was comprehensive
and robust.
The Subcommittee looks forward to your response in due
course.
Minister's Response[69]
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2003 in relation
to the National parks (Park) Regulations 2003.
I note that the Regulation Review Subcommittee of the
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee approved the regulations
at a meeting on 27 October 2003.
In response to your request for clarification of the
sub-regulation governing shell collecting I provide the following information:
-
The National Parks (Park) Regulations 2003 provide
that areas may be set aside in parks that are not marine national
parks to enable the collection of shells according to terms and
conditions. Non-commercial shell collection is a traditional beach
activity that has been enjoyed by many people including families
and children for generations. These regulations provide the public
with the ability to collect shells legally in areas that have been
especially set aside to allow this use.
-
Shell collecting areas in parks will need to be formalised
by a determination of the Secretary to the Department of Sustainability
and Environment. Regulation 50 of the National Parks (Park) Regulations
2003 enables the Secretary to specify conditions in relation to
a determination made under the Regulations.
-
The Regulation also indicates the circumstances under
which signs and notices much be erected to inform persons of a determination
and the conditions associated with a determination. It is expected
that so far as parks are concerned, any shell collecting areas would
be signposted. The focus for achieving compliance with the regulation
governing shell collection in parks is on information and education.
Note that many of the beaches adjacent to the Great Ocean Road are
in coastal reserves and not subject to these regulations.
Example 5:
Subcommittee's letter[70]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee examined the above
Regulations pursuant to S 21 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994
(the Act) at a meeting on 29 September 2003. The Subcommittee approved
the Regulations.
By way of background the Subcommittee notes that the
Firearms (Trafficking and Handgun Control) Act 2003 commenced operation
on 1 July 2003. It amends the Firearms Act 1986 to give effect to the
Australasian Police Minister's Council Firearms Trafficking Policy and
the Council of Australasian Government's Handgun Control Agreement.
The Regulations are made for a period of six months in accordance with
the exemption certificate signed by the Premier.
Increase in fees
The Subcommittee notes that Regulation 5 of the Regulations
amends regulation 11 of the Firearms Regulations 1997 to increase the
fee payable for the issue of a duplicate licence from $15.00 to $16.00.
The annual rate approved by the Treasurer for the purposes of the Act
is 3.0%. The increase in the fee above is in the order of almost 9%.
Similarly, Regulation 6 of the Regulations amends regulation 13 of the
Firearms Regulations 1997 to increase the fee for a permit to acquire
a firearm from $8.00 to $9.00. This increase is in the order of over
10%. The Regulations do not therefore fall within the exceptions to
the RIS process under S 8 of the Act.
Whilst the Subcommittee realises that these Regulations
have been made with a Premier's Certificate for a limited period, it
considers them unusual. In the ordinary course of events Regulations
with such fees increases would be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact
Statement unless excepted under S 8 of the Act. The Subcommittee also
realises that final Regulations will be made during the second half
of 2003. However in one sense the fee increases set out in these Regulations
pre-empt the RIS process. The Subcommittee would appreciate your response.
Commencement
A related matter is that of the commencement provisions.
Pursuant to Regulation 3(1) the fee increases set out in Regulations
5 and 6 commenced operation on 1 July 2003. However the Subcommittee
notes that Regulations 14 and 15 appear to reverse the fee increase
to the original figures of $15.00 and $8.00 respectively. Pursuant to
Regulation 3(2), Regulations 14 and 15 are expressed to come into operation
on 30 December 2003. It would appear that the fee increase is therefore
for a limited period.
The Subcommittee would appreciate your advice and clarification
of the operation of the Regulations in respect of the matters outlined
above.
Minister's Response[71]
Thank you for your letter of 30 September 2003 regarding
the interim Firearms (Handgun Control) Regulations 2003 ("Interim Regulations")
made on 1 July 2003, I note that the Regulation Review Subcommittee
has approved these regulations.
I note also the matters raised in your letter in respect
of the Interim Regulations and respond as set out below.
Increase in fees
The increase in the fees for a permit to acquire a firearm
and for the issue of a duplicate licence made by regulations 6 & 5 of
the Interim Regulations respectively did exceed the annual rate approved
by the Treasurer for the purposes of section 8(1)(a) of the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1994 ("Act"). As you are aware, the Interim Regulations
were made exempt from the requirements of section 7 of the Act by the
issue of a Premier's Certificate under section 9(3) of the Act.
A 3% increase, which would have avoided the necessity
for the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Statement, was considered
appropriate but, in the case of each fee increased, the actual amount
payable was 'rounded up' to the nearest dollar in the interests of ease
of administration and practicality. This resulted in a number of fees,
such as those to which you refer in your letter, increasing by more
than 3%.
In respect of your comment that the Interim Regulations
are 'unusual', I offer the following by way of background:
-
The National Handgun Control Agreement ("NHCA") entered
into by the Commonwealth and all States and Territories through
the Australasian Police Ministers' Conference and the Council of
Australian Governments in November 2002 required that all jurisdictions
implement by legislation the measures agreed upon in the NHCA. These
measures were intended to restrict the availability and use of certain
types of handguns in the aftermath of the shootings at Monash University
in October 2002;
-
As you are aware, the Firearms (Trafficking and Handgun
Control) Act 2003 ("Handgun Control Act") implemented the NHCA in
Victoria by amending the Firearms Act 1996 ("Firearms Act"). The
Handgun Control Act received royal Assent on 20 May 2003. Parts
of that Act commenced on 1 July 2003. The remaining sections commenced
on 1 January 2004;
-
A central component of the NHCA was the carrying
out of a handgun buyback in all jurisdictions in respect of those
handguns prohibited by the amendments to the Firearms Act made by
the Handgun Control Act;
-
The new regulatory regime introduced by the Handgun
Control Act and the administration of the handgun buyback could
not function in practice without supporting regulations. These regulations
were necessary to prescribe, among other things:
Approved handgun target shooting matches; and Fees for the issue and renewal of licences, permits and approvals;
-
In this context, it was essential to introduce interim
regulations prescribing those matters requiring to be prescribed
under the Firearms Act, as amended by the Handgun Control Act, without
delay. There was insufficient time to prepare and release a Regulatory
Impact Statement in respect of those regulations before the nationally
agreed commencement of the handgun buyback on 1 July 2003. For this
reason, the Interim regulations, as you are aware, were made on
an interim basis only, commencing on 1 July 2003 and expiring on
31 December 2003;
-
'final' regulations in respect of those matters requiring
to be prescribed under the Firearms Act, in the form of the Firearms
(Handguns) Regulations 2003 ("Final Regulations") were made on 16
December 2003. These regulations were subject to a Regulatory Impact
Statement in accordance with section 7 of the Act;
-
As stated in the Regulatory Impact Statement relating
to the Final Regulations, the new regulatory regime now in place
in respect of handguns will result in increased administrative costs
to the Government. The partial cost recovery structure of the existing
fee system has been maintained. New fees have been set on a full
cost recovery basis, in line with Government policy, and the partial
cost recovery model in respect of existing fees has been maintained.
Again, as is stated in the Regulatory Impact Statement on the Final
Regulations, the direct costs of administering the new firearms
licensing and registration system, based on the proposed fee structure,
will be $9.4 million. The projected revenue from existing and new
fees is $6.2 million;
-
The interim increases in the pre-1 July 2003 fees,
such as those referred to in your letter, are the result of the
implementation of the Government's policy, announced in the 2003-04
budget, for the ongoing indexation of fees and charges set by regulation
and one-off increases to fees and fines that have not increased
for a number of years;
-
Increasing fees in the Interim Regulations was also
intended to ensure that firearms owners were not able to seek to
avoid the fee increases introduced by the Final Regulations prior
to their introduction.
Commencement
Your analysis of the commencement provisions of the Interim
Regulations in respect of the fee increases is correct. Regulations
14 & 15 of the Interim regulations were intended to reverse the fee
increases made by regulations 5 & 6. As a consequence, the fee increases
set in the Interim Regulations did not "pre-empt the RIS process", as
suggested in your letter but, rather (and as the title of the regulations
suggest), made 'interim' arrangements for fees and other matters relating
to the amendments to the Firearms Act pending the outcome of the RIS
process.
As stated above, the Final Regulations were made on 16
December 2003. Regulation 6 of these regulations increases the fee for
the issue of a duplicate licence from $16 to $18, whilst regulation
7 preserves the existing fee of $9 for a permit to acquire a firearm
in respect of longarms, whilst introducing a new fee of $35 for a permit
to acquire a handgun.
(G) STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION POLICY - TABLING REQUIREMENTS
This year the Subcommittee considered only one State Environment
Protection Policy. The Subcommittee's jurisdiction to scrutinize State
Environment Protection Policies only arises once it has been tabled in
both Houses of Parliament. This year the Subcommittee's concern was not
in respect of the State Environment Protection Policy itself but rather,
whether it was tabled. The Subcommittee wrote to the Chairman of the Environment
Protection Authority. The Chairman's response indicated an oversight in
the Procedures Office meant that the State Environment Protection Policy
had not been tabled. This was rectified.
Example:
Subcommittee's letter[72]
The Regulation Review Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of
Acts and Regulations Committee held a meeting on 27 October 2003.
The Subcommittee understands that enquiries are being
made as to when the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)
was tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
The Subcommittee would be grateful for your advice as
to when those events occurred.
EPA Victoria's Response[73]
Thank you for your letter of 29 October regarding the
State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria).
As you are aware, EPA Victoria wrote to the Clerk of
the Parliaments in August 2003 requesting that the abovementioned policy
be laid before both Houses on or before the sixth sitting day after
June 4, 2003. Unfortunately an oversight in the Procedures Office meant
that the Policy was not tabled as requested.
The Manager of the Procedures Office has addressed the
situation and I can now advise the Committee that the State environment
protection policy (Waters of Victoria) was tabled in the Lower House
on Tuesday 28 October, 2003, and the Upper House on Thursday 6 November,
2003.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
more assistance.
Footnotes |
[27] |
Letter dated 16 December 2003 to the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[28] |
Letter dated 16 December 2003 to the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[29] |
Letter dated 15 March 2004 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services. |
[30] |
Letter dated 20 May 2003 to the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Attorney-General from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[31] |
E-mail dated 23 December 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Senior Legal Officer, Court Services. |
[32] |
Letter dated 20 May 2003 to the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[33] |
Letter dated 20 August 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services. |
[34] |
Letter dated 20 May 2003 to the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Attorney-General from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[35] |
Letter dated 23 July 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Attorney-General. |
[36] |
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December 1997. |
[37] |
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic), s. 6. |
[38] |
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December 1997, paragraph 5.20. |
[39] |
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December 1997, paragraph 5.17. |
[40] |
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic), s. 6. |
[41] |
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Premier’s Guidelines, December 1997, paragraph 5.20. |
[42] |
Letter dated 20 May 2003 to the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Minister for WorkCover from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[43] |
Letter dated 21 July 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Minister for WorkCover. |
[44] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister for Consumer Affairs from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[45] |
Letter dated 18 November 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister Consumer Affairs. |
[46] |
Letter dated 20 May 2003 to the Hon. Bob Cameron, MP, Minister for Agriculture from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[47] |
Letter dated 19 June 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Bob Cameron, MP, Minister for Agriculture. |
[48] |
Letter dated 16 March 2004 to the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[49] |
Letter dated 13 April 2004 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services. |
[50] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. John Brumby, MP, Treasurer from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[51] |
Letter dated 27 October 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Brumby, MP, Treasurer. |
[52] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister for Consumer Affairs from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[53] |
Letter dated 3 November 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister for Consumer Affairs. |
[54] |
The Premier’s Guidelines – Part 7, p 24. |
[55] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. Theo Theophanus, MP, Minister for Energy Industries from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[56] |
Letter dated 30 December 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MP, Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. |
[57] |
Letter dated 29 October 2003 to the Hon. Theo Theophanus, MP, Minister for Energy Industries from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[58] |
Letter dated 15 February 2004 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MP, Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. |
[59] |
Paragraph 5.31,Premier’s Guidelines |
[60] |
Letter dated 16 February 2004 to the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Minister for WorkCover from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[61] |
Letter dated 11 May 2004 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP, Minister for WorkCover. |
[62] |
Letter dated 17 June 2003 to the Hon. John Thwaites, MP, Minister for Environment from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[63] |
Letter dated 18 September 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Thwaites, MP, Minister for Environment. |
[64] |
Letter dated 11 August 2003 to the Hon. Mary Delahunty, MP, Minister for Planning from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[65] |
Letter dated 14 October 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Mary Delahunty, MP, Minister for Planning. |
[66] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister for Consumer Affairs from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[67] |
Letter dated 11 November 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Lenders, MP, Minister for Consumer Affairs. |
[68] |
Letter dated 29 October 2003 to the Hon. John Thwaites, MP, Minister for Environment from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[69] |
Letter dated 31 December 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. John Thwaites, MP, Minister for Environment. |
[70] |
Letter dated 30 September 2003 to the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[71] |
Letter dated 23 January 2004 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from the Hon. Andre Haermeyer, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services. |
[72] |
Letter dated 29 October 2003 to Mr Mick Bourke, Chairman, EPA Victoria from the Regulation Review Subcommittee. |
[73] |
Letter dated 27 November 2003 to the Regulation Review Subcommittee from Mr Mick Bourke, Chairman, EPA Victoria. |
Scrutiny
of Acts and Regulations Committee
©
Parliament of Victoria |