Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 11 November 1991
Page: 2822


Senator GILES —I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw the notices of motion standing in my name for two sitting days hence for the disallowance of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Dried Fruits Export Control) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1991 No. 199, and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Avocado) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1991 No. 207. I seek leave to make a short statement.

  Leave granted.


Senator GILES —On 9 October 1991 I reported to the Senate on the Committee's concerns with these instruments, which related to drafting deficiencies that may have nullified an intended right of AAT review of a discretion granted to a public official. The Minister has undertaken to amend the regulations to correct these deficiencies. As usual, I seek leave to incorporate the Committee's correspondence in Hansard.

  Leave granted.

  The correspondence read as follows

  16 August 1991

The Hon Simon Crean MP

Minister for Primary Industries and

Energy

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following instruments, considered by the Committee at its meeting of 15 August 1991:

1.Australian Horticultural Corporation (Dried Fruits Export Control) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No.199

2.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Avocado) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No.207.

There appear to be several drafting oversights in the Regulations.

In Statutory Rules 1991 No.199 there are:

(a)r.14(1)(b) refers to r.5(4), which does not exist; this probably should be r.10(c) or (d)

(b)r.14(1)(c) refers to r.8(2), which does not exist; this probably should be r.11(2)

(c)r.14(1)(d) refers to r.8(4), which does not exist; this probably should be r.11(4).

In Statutory Rules 1991 No.207, r.25(1)(b) refers to r.23(3)(a), which does not exist; this probably should be r.20(3)(a).

The Committee would appreciate your advice.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Giles

Chair

  29 October 1991

Senator Patricia Giles

Chair

Senate Standing Committee on Regulations

and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Giles

Thank you for your letter of 16 August 1991 drawing my attention to apparent drafting oversights in the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Dried Fruits Export Control) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No.199 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Avocado) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No.207. I regret the delay in responding.

My Department has investigated the drafting oversights raised in your letter and has confirmed the conclusions of the Senate Committee. The Attorney-General's Department has been consulted on the effect of the inconsistencies and has advised that there can be no doubt as to which provisions were intended to be referred to in the provisions in which the errors occurred. The operation of the Regulations is unlikely to be affected by the oversights.

Nevertheless, the Regulations will be amended to remove the inconsistencies at the first available opportunity.

Yours sincerely

Simon Crean

  7 November 1991

The Hon Simon Crean MP

Minister for Primary Industries and

Energy

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to your letter of 29 October 1991 on aspects raised by the Committee of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Dried Fruits Export Control) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No.199 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Avocado) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1991 No. 207. The Committee considered your letter at is meeting of 7 November 1991.

The Committee is grateful for your advice, which meets its concerns. Although the drafting oversights are unlikely to affect validity, your helpful undertaking to amend the regulations is appropriate. It is a breach of parliamentary propriety if legislation made under the direct authority of an Act of Parliament does not conform to the highest possible standards of drafting. In the present cases the Committee was particularly concerned that the defective provisions should be corrected, as they related to review rights granted in respect of decisions which could affect the right of an individual to earn a livelihood.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Giles

Chair