Senator ELLISON (Schools, Vocational Education and Training) (4:57 PM) —I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS BILL 1996 [No. 2]

The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] comes to this Chamber after debate in the House where the Opposition abdicated its responsibilities to the House. The Opposition did not debate the issues or suggest solutions. Rather, they merely indicated that the bill was not acceptable without attempting to identify ways of achieving an acceptable bill.

This bill is a major reform of the processes for the making, publication, scrutiny and sunsetting of Commonwealth delegated legislation.

As part of its Law and Justice and New Deal for Small Business policies, the Government undertook to introduce a Legislative Instruments Bill, with limited exemptions and specific provision for five-year sunsetting of regulations.

This bill implements those policies. In addition, the bill performs a gatekeeper role in relation to legislative instruments, by preventing the unchecked proliferation of delegated legislation.

The previous Government had introduced the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994. That bill was considered by several Parliamentary Committees, including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and many suggestions for change were made. The bill was awaiting passage in the Senate when Parliament was prorogued prior to the 1996 election.

The extent of scrutiny to which the 1994 bill was subjected is indicative of the importance of this legislative reform.

The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 drew on that earlier work. In particular, this bill overcame the deficiencies of the 1994 bill by the introduction of a structured sunsetting regime, more structured consultation principles and processes that had been developed in the Council of Australian Governments, and the reduction of the exemptions from the operation of the bill. The bill represents the best achievable package of reforms. It represents a significant shift in control over delegated legislation back towards the Parliament, and increases Government accountability through improved access and consultation mechanisms.

This is the same bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 24 June 1996 and passed by that House on 11 September 1996 . The bill was introduced into the Senate on 8 October 1996 and, notwithstanding the strong general support of the Senate for the bill, finally passed on 25 September 1997 with 18 government and 35 other amendments. A large number of the non government amendments emasculated the stringent consultation principles and processes and removed the sunsetting regime.

On 17 November 1997 the House of Representatives considered the Senate amendments and returned the bill to the Senate. he House accepted the government amendments but rejected the other Senate amendments. The House accepted that many of the non government amendments were unnecessary and the major amendments made aspects of the bill unworkable. Further, the House also passed some additional government amendments.

On 5 December 1997, after the Senate had again considered the bill and amendments and insisted on its previous amendments, the House finally laid the bill aside.

The government is reintroducing this bill because it has a mandate to enact it and has a clear commitment to it . The government believes that the people of Australia have an expectation of a right of access to all legislation applying to them and that they have a right to participate in the development of all delegated legislation being made which will or might affect them.

The Government's Law and Justice Policy statement commits the government to ensuring that the consultation process under the bill would include the preparation of a regulatory impact statement which would clearly indicate the objectives of the proposed regulation, the alternatives for achieving those objectives, the costs and benefits of each alternative and the reason for the adoption of the measure advanced. This bill gives effect to that commitment and is welcomed by the business community and, no doubt , the broader community. The regulatory burden on business, and small business in particular, has been a major impediment to business efficiency and the creation of more jobs and should be significantly diminished as a result of this bill

The government will not accept amendment of the bill which would alter the principles of the bill or reduce the compliance requirements that rule-makers will need to follow. The Parliament expects no less accountability and information for legislation made pursuant to delegated powers than is available for primary legislation.

As I have said there is broad support for this legislation. What is disturbing in this matter is that both Houses have considered and passed each of the provisions of this bill and yet were unable to agree on passage of the bill as a whole. It is the classic case of playing politics to try and get concessions from government which restricts the government's capacity to control its important programs. This was evident in the delay in passage of the provisions relating to non-disallowance of certain migration instruments and the exemption from the regime of a limited range of public sector terms and conditions instruments.

The Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has sought to remove exemptions from disallowance for instruments made under national schemes of legislation and Proclamations under the Quarantine Act.

I met with the Chair on these matters on a number of occasions and explained why I could not accede to his proposals . I have also written to the Chair setting out the reasons for my position and those letters have been tabled in the Senate.

The views on national schemes of legislation are founded on the R& O Committee's Position Paper about Scrutiny of National Scheme Legislation which canvasses the desirability of Uniform Scrutiny Principles for national schemes. My Department made a substantial submission on an earlier Issues Paper on this subject drawing attention to a range of difficulties that needed to be considered. I understand that the Committee is currently considering a draft of its Report in the matter. To remove the exemption for national scheme legislation at this time would be premature without knowing the Committee's approach, the rationale for it and whether implementation of the Committee's Report is desirable, as it has major significance for both the Commonwealth and the states. Knowing the present uncertainty about final arrangements for a uniform scrutiny regime, clause 72 of the bill provides specifically for issues arising from national schemes of legislation to be considered in the course of the review of the operation of the legislative instruments legislation. That is the only appropriate way to approach the issue at this time.

The exemptions for quarantine proclamations are necessary because they are the only way to provide specific control mechanisms to prevent the entry and spread of disease and pests affecting humans, animals and plants in Australia.

Typically the detailed conditions under which importation of a particular commodity from a particular country or region may be allowed are set out in protocols developed by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service within the scope of the relevant quarantine proclamation. Each set of protocol conditions is developed on the basis of consideration of relevant scientific information and risk analysis.

Quarantine proclamations have never been subject to disallowance by the Parliament. This approach is being continued in the bill, on the basis that it is not appropriate to task the legislature to consider whether to disallow such highly technical instruments. Remedies on alleged procedural defects in the making of these instruments are available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Sunsetting of delegated legislation is an important component of the Government's policy on regulation review. It will ensure that business regulation is reduced to the minimum necessary for effective accountability and control and that remaining delegated legislation is regularly considered for appropriateness, currency, effectiveness and necessity.

The Administrative Review Council's report "Rule Making by Commonwealth Agencies" which led to this legislation recommended that all existing principal instruments of a legislative character and all instruments subject to the Legislative Instruments Act should be sunsetted. The House Committee in its report on the 1994 bill, which did not provide for sunsetting, recognised the resources issues associated with sunsetting and recommended that a sunsetting regime be introduced in relation to all existing and future legislative instruments as soon as possible . The House Committee's report on Clearer Commonwealth Law , and the Access to Justice Advisory Committee's report Access to Justice also supported the early introduction of a sunsetting program.

This bill gives effect to the Government's policy of ensuring that all new regulations are subject to a 5 year sunset clause. This is an important policy that the government can not, and will not, back away from. It is part of a range of policies that remove unnecessary burdens from the business community and benefits the whole community.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

COMMONWEALTH PLACES (MIRROR TAXES) BILL 1998

The mirror tax provisions will ensure that stamp duties, payroll taxes, financial institutions duties and debits taxes can be applied in respect of Commonwealth places within each state. As only the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to those places, the Commonwealth and the States have worked together to find a legislative solution which will allow the States to continue to collect these revenues.

Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

COMMONWEALTH PLACES WINDFALL TAX (COLLECTION) BILL 1998

The windfall tax provisions work in tandem with the mirror tax provisions to ensure that stamp duties, payroll taxes, financial institutions duties and debits tax paid before the mirror tax arrangements take effect are able to be legally retained by the States. This bill provides for the determination, collection and administration of the Commonwealth places windfall tax which applies to claims for refunds of amounts paid under State taxing laws before 6 October 1997.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

COMMONWEALTH PLACES WINDFALL TAX (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998

This bill imposes the Commonwealth places windfall tax at a rate of 100 per cent.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

COMMONWEALTH PLACES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998

This bill makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (the 1970 Act), the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. These amendments ensure that the provisions of the State tax laws which will be mirrored by the Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Act 1998 will have effect under the 1998 act rather than the 1970 act. The amendments also ensure that income tax will not apply to refunds of State taxes subject to the windfall tax and that no deduction will be available for payments of windfall tax.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

CHILD CARE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998

Following the passage of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 last year the Government received numerous representations about the likely administrative impact on parents and on services which would flow from its full implementation in April 1998. As a result I announced on 23 January that the Government has decided to defer the implementation of the changed payments arrangements aspects of the bill until a child care card or similar technology is available. This technology will allow us to introduce a system which is more efficient for all parties.

To implement this decision, this bill seeks to defer implementation of the Child Care Payments Act 1997, and to amend the Child Care Act 1972 and the Childcare Rebate Act 1993 to allow the implementation of the other decisions taken in the 1997 Budget and reflected in the Child Care Payments Act 1997.

The bill introduces a head of power to allow the work related circumstances of a family to be taken into account when determining the amount of Childcare Assistance payable. Using this power, a limit of 20 hour of Childcare Assistance per week will be introduced for children of non working families. This measure ensures Commonwealth funds are more efficiently targeted to the primary objective of the program, that is, work related care.

The limit will be applied following the same policy parameters would have been used under the Child Care Payments Act 1997. Work related care is defined by reference to the Childcare Rebate Act 1993 and includes care required by families where both parents are or the single parent is working, looking for work, studying or training. It includes families where one parent is working and the other, because of a disability is unable to have work-related commitments or care for their child or children.

The bill also provides for exemptions from the 20 hour limit. Families in receipt of Child Disability Allowance for any child will be able to access more that 20 hours of Childcare Assistance in respect of all their children in care. Children at risk of neglect or abuse will also be able to access as much Childcare Assistance as they need as will children of families in crisis and children who have two disabled parents.

Finally, exemptions will exist for operators where they are the sole provider of care in an area. Guidelines setting out these exemptions will be in the form of a disallowable instrument presented to the Parliament.

A disallowable instrument will be made available to the Parliament which sets out the full detail of how the 20 hour limit will be applied.

In many areas of Australia there are too many child care centres while families in other areas have little or no access. The Child Care Payments Act 1997 sought to rectify this situation by imposing an effective limit of 7000 new places per year over the next two years. With the deferral of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 it is necessary to amend the Child Care Act 1972 to provide for this limit. Guidelines setting out the requirements for approval of places will be presented to the Parliament in the form of a disallowable instrument.

The government has also indicated its strong commitment to measures which encourage parents to properly immunise their children. The Child Care Payments Act 1997 contained provisions which required that children be immunised to qualify for child care subsidies. This bill replicates the immunisation requirements contained in that act and ensures that there is no further delay in implementing this important health initiative. Appropriate exemptions will be made to ensure that children at risk of abuse of neglect are not subject to these re quirements. Guidelines for this purpose will be in the form of a disallowable instrument and will be presented to the Parliament.

Finally, the bill introduces for the first time confidentiality provisions into the Child Care Act 1972. These provisions follow very closely the provisions of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 and are necessary to ensure that families' information is secure.

Ordered that the second reading of these bills be adjourned until the first day of the winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

Ordered that the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] and the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.