Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

tor SCARR (—) (): I'd just like to associate myself with the chair's comments with respect to the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee. Firstly, with respect to Professor Edgar—starting on the good news story—Professor Edgar has provided outstanding support to the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee during this parliament and also the previous parliament, when I served on the committee. So I too would like to place on the record my thanks to Professor Edgar. He has been in the trenches with the committee and has really assisted us in defending those scrutiny principles, which, from my perspective, is all about protecting this institution and its importance in terms of our process. Thank you very much, Professor Edgar. Your service has been greatly appreciated.

I would also like to associate myself with Senator White's comments with respect to the Corporations Regulations. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for engaging with the committee and I think that should be noted. I compliment all those ministers and assistant ministers who have taken the time to meet with the committee. I think that's a very positive development. However, those scrutiny concerns remain in that we have a situation where the Corporations Regulations are not subject to sunsetting. I just do not think that's appropriate.

My next point is in relation to the Public Service Regulations 2023. These regulations are being remade after they were originally made in 1999, so there's been the effluxion of 24 years between the original making of those regulations and the remaking of those regulations. It is profoundly disappointing that there was a lack of consultation with all relevant stakeholders with respect to those regulations, and in particular with respect to consultation with the organisation representing the workers in that department, who I believe should have been consulted with regarding the remaking of those regulations.

From my perspective it is simply not good enough for the minister to say—speaking for the department, perhaps—that the regulations simply involved minor technical changes. That's not good enough. You actually need to go through consultation and provide an opportunity for all the stakeholders to consider regulations and come to their own view with respect to whether something is a minor change or a technical change. There are many examples of laws and regulations which are changed where the decision-maker or the policymaker says: 'These are just minor and technical changes,' but actually they're not. You don't have an opportunity to obtain the views of other stakeholders unless they're consulted. It was very disappointing in this case that the CPSU was not consulted with respect to these regulations. I find it difficult to understand why that would not have been the case. Whilst it's all well and good for the minister to acknowledge that in the future the CPSU will be consulted, it simply isn't good enough. They should have been consulted, that is my first point.

I also make the point that if you're remaking regulations after 24 years there is an opportunity to improve the regulations. But, again, that requires consultation. I would have thought the CPSU would have been one of the first stakeholders to be consulted. Again they were not consulted so the opportunity to improve the regulations was lost. That is profoundly disappointing. I hope that ministers across the board and departments across the board reflect on that and reflect on the expectations that the scrutiny committee has that relevant stakeholders are consulted, especially where regulations—delegated legislation—are being remade after a long period of time, as was the case in this respect.

In conclusion I associate myself with all of the other remarks that Senator White made.

Question agreed to.