Tuesday, 13 August 2024

Committees

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Alert Digest No. 10

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:16): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I table Alert Digest No. 10 of 2024, including appendices, from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:16): I move:

That the Council take note of the SARC report.

In moving this I make the point that obviously as a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee I have a very good understanding of what is in the report, but what I am also going to talk about is what is not in the report. SARC has an important role in looking out for the rights of citizens – the rights of people – and ensuring that proper processes are followed. That applies to legislation, but it also applies to subordinate legislation.

The government has announced this week, and in the paper effectively today in the Age, that it is seeking to bring a bill to this chamber and to this Parliament and seeking to pass it this week. I would have thought that SARC would have had a significant role in that process, and I put on record the fact that SARC should look at bills, including urgent bills. It is not sufficient for a bill to be passed urgently through both chambers. It is a very rare circumstance, perhaps. As a general practice, bills should not be passed through both houses of the chamber in one week without SARC looking at the impact on rights and responsibilities and a whole range of different points. So I would say if the government is going to bring forward a bill this week, as it has foreshadowed in the Age, then the government should send that bill at an early point to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the committee should meet forthwith. I am going to talk to the chair of that committee and make the point that the committee should meet and look at this bill urgently this week.

We saw during the pandemic the failure of the government to ensure that SARC actually did look at the bills that were very impactful on people’s rights and privileges. The government failed to allow sufficient time and would not convene SARC meetings to look at bills that were being crunched through the chamber in three days. We at that time requested that SARC get off its tail and have a proper meeting and make sure that the human rights and other matters – the charter rights and the general assessments – were done for all bills, including ones that the government sought to make an urgent matter.

I am putting on record now that the government is planning to push a bill through this chamber and the other chamber this week and SARC has not been advised of this. SARC should meet, SARC should look at it and SARC should indicate whether it meets the normal guidelines and normal practices. If it does not, that is a matter that the chamber should be aware of, as it is being pushed to crunch this through in a very short period of time.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:19): I follow Mr Davis and would like to take a moment to discuss the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Alert Digest No. 10 that is before us today. Thank you for your comments. Can I just say that our committee has been meeting very, very frequently throughout the year and has discussed a number of bills that have been before us in only this last week. It goes without saying that this is an incredibly complex committee, taking on some very big legislative challenges when it comes to the bills before us and the scrutiny required under the charter. At this last meeting we had the benefit of some new insights and intelligence from some folks from the bar who came and joined us. I just want to send my thanks to them; I think his name was Joshua, from memory. He has given us a new line, a new way, of considering bills before us. Without saying anything too disparaging about those who came before, I will just say that Joshua has come to our committee with some new gusto and some new ideas, and I certainly welcome that.

There are four bills that were considered at quite considerable length in our debate this week. Thank you to committee members, including Rachel who is next to me. I am trying to recall if there are any other members from our place, although there are others from the other side –

A member: Ms Terpstra.

Sheena WATT: Ms Terpstra, that is right. She can always be trusted, although I understand she was an apology this week. But can I just say that we had one of our most in-depth debates around the bills before us, and I encourage members to read the report when they get a chance.

Motion agreed to.