Roy Heather: Regulatory Standards Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Regulatory Standards Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19761] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in support of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Minister for Regulatory Reform gave an excellent speech about the history that led us to this point and what this bill will do. Listening to the Green member who has just spoken Russel Norman reminded me exactly why this sort of legislation is needed. He took the opportunity when speaking on this bill to have a whack at everything he dislikes. There was some environmental stuff in there. The ACT Party and Graham Scott who probably best understands public policy in this country got a swipe. Russel Norman started off by talking about one of the Green Party’s old favourites—the plain packaging of cigarettes—as if that will make any difference at all to the rate of smoking. 
The basic principles of lawmaking are very often overlooked. I often say that laws should be clear they should be enforceable and they should be routinely enforced. Plenty sadly are not which is why there is a need for this legislation. The first reading of this bill is a very proud moment for the ACT Party and the Minister has worked tirelessly to get the bill to this point. As part of our confidence and supply agreement with National the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce was put together. The drafting of this bill was the result of the work of that task force following on from the introduction of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill which was a member’s bill. 
It was interesting to hear the Labour Party contributions to debate on this bill. It seems that it is not opposed to having principles; it just does not want to do anything about promoting them. Lianne Dalziel talked a lot about her general agreement with the principles espoused in the bill which is very pleasing. She also talked about fairness though and she gave some reasons why this bill should not go to the select committee. She said it was because of fairness and because she did not want to waste Parliament’s time. When we come back to this House tomorrow it will be a members’ day which is the only opportunity that backbench MPs get to debate their issues. We will see who is most concerned about not wasting Parliament’s time then. We will see as we have seen on every members’ day since last December the filibustering that is going on to prevent one particular bill getting through Parliament. 
Charles Chauvel stood up and said he objected to a number of things. He too talked about the value of the principles but then he gave a long list of objections explaining why the bill should not proceed. It seemed to me sitting here and listening very carefully that they were mainly objections to Ministers doing exactly what should be expected of them. There is nothing wrong with expecting legislation to be fair and clear and there is nothing wrong with expecting legislation to be enforceable and routinely enforced. 
The bill itself sets clear standards that new rules and regulations will be measured against which is very important. The Minister talked about transparency and accountability which are easy words to rattle off but much harder principles to put in place. These standards spell out what good laws look like and what they should do. As lawmakers every one of us in this Chamber has the responsibility to ensure that that happens. For example laws and regulations should treat everyone equally they should be accessible and they should be easy to understand. They should not remove property rights without good reason or without compensation. They should not remove the right to appeal to the courts. 
Secondly the bill would require anyone proposing new laws or regulations to certify that their proposals met such standards. If laws do not meet those prescribed standards the person proposing the law—either a Minister or a member—would need to explain to Parliament why the law does not comply and why the legislation being proposed meets the public interest. Finally if someone believes that a new law does not meet the standards then that person will be able to go to court. The court can then issue a declaratory judgment. So there are checks and balances there is transparency and there is accountability—things that every member in this House at one time or another has stood up either here or on an election campaign stage and talked about. This bill is about putting in place those very things. 
For those who have objections to the bill I have some questions. These are questions that all people drafting a bill should have to ask themselves and are exactly what this law is putting in place. Why is this law or regulation needed? What will it achieve? What is likely to happen if the law is not put in place? What side effects might there be? Unintended consequences are something that we see all too often. Are there any alternatives and what makes this particular legislation the best option? We should ask whether anybody’s legal rights or property rights are being infringed whose they are whether they consent and most important in the issue of property rights whether they are being compensated for this loss. Does the regulation follow the principles of responsible regulatory management? And we should ask when the regulation will next be reviewed which this bill also allows for. 
When I was Minister of Consumer Affairs my major project was to look at consumer law and we ended up with the consumer law reform project. The project took seven of the 12 pieces of consumer law and is amalgamating them. When I looked at consumer law I saw two very good principles-based pieces of legislation: the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act. There were also a lot of other smaller laws that had been around for a very long time. The one that was the oldest was the Auctioneers Act which was put together in 1928 and still had provisions for people tethering a horse when they went to the stock markets. It has been a very long time I think since horses have been tethered by people taking their stock to market. That Act highlights in a very simple way the principle of the importance of reviewing legislation. 
I proudly stand here today and support the Minister for Regulatory Reform in this initiative to look very carefully at the lawmaking that happens in this House the way it is gone about the need for it and what exactly should happen. We will see as a result of this bill strengthened regulatory impact statements. I frequently asked to see those at select committees when I was in Opposition and was just as frequently told that the regulatory impact statement was not ready yet. For some laws we never saw any. The bill will put in place regular reviews as I have just outlined and that too is very important. It will result as the Minister said in better discipline transparency accountability around public expenditure and much higher quality regulation—something that each and every one of us in this House should bend over backwards to put in place. Thank you very much.