Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

> Caution: there will be some ‘long’ reads on this thread; but, it is, at least initially, a necessary evil. In short, many have expressed grave concern that through Legislative Instruments CASA have been given a ‘carte blanche’ and may do pretty much as they please, without check or balance. The Angel Fight fiasco as an example. Well, it turns out there is some scrutiny provided though the SSCRO, furthermore, the committee can and actually does elicit a response from the minister.
The rule through ‘exemptions’ (lots and lots of); the reluctance to reform a regulation to incorporate exemption and the almost unbelievable list of amendments to the 61/141/142 shambles and other ‘parts’ of the CASR has dragged on almost as long as the ‘reform’ process – thirty years and counting. Perhaps there is some light at the end of the mine shaft. We shall see.
“On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019, etc.
Quite the title ain’t it -  “Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation”. We only stumbled over it through P2’s digging about for answers; so we took a look at the work and results of that committee’s work. Not too shabby at all, worth a thread here and further examination. For an intro and to whet the appetite- Post 840.  A start point.


(02-14-2020, 11:11 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  SSCSDL: 'Dear Chair Connie' -  Rolleyes 

I do believe that the 'Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation' has rapidly become my new FAV Senate committee... Wink 

Previous reference:

(01-30-2020, 09:00 PM)Kharon Wrote:  Exemptions – Friend or Enema?

As he often does – P2 has turned up a juicy bone and once again amazed us with his determined digging to get to real, honest facts. Modestly, he states  “Aw, just stumbled upon it”. Not 100% correct; he and I were both running down some ‘interesting’ anomalies. He just kept digging after I’d knocked off. It is well worth the time spent for any serious student of the near catastrophic mess our regulations have created; the clever ways CASA have milked the never ending ‘regulatory reform’ program; spent over a half a billion dollars and presented one of the most glorious piles of horse-pooh to the government. To make it worse, through the bi-partinsane top cover protection racket – all of the new law has been sanctioned without one single, solitary protest – or even a humble ‘please explain'. 

The whole thing is farcical – legally, operationally, financially and in contravention of world best practice for ‘safety’ (Whatever that may be). Let me introduce to you, (cue fanfare) –
- the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

P2’s excellent posts272 and 273 will take you on a new journey. Essential reading. P7 and I both read the long posts through – twice – P7 “Well, I’ll be buggered”. I’ll not spoil the journey for you by paraphrasing; and anyway, you lazy lot would let it pass by without a “Whoa’. So I shall assume (ass – u – me) you’ve all done the homework and ready to move to the next step on the ‘exemptions’ snakes and ladder game.

In primus; what is an exemption? Good question, bravo. There are three separate ways to view ‘an exemption’ – poetic licence allowed here:-

(i) A rule says: before making a pass under the Sydney Harbour Bridge a pilot must hold an Agricultural rating and have completed at least 50 hours of operations in that role. Furry Muff – however – the Ace-O-Base company have been contracted to do just that on New Years eve. Their pilots are all top notch military pilots with many hours of ‘low-level’ experience etc. Equivalent safety standard? Oh yes. Qualified Oh yes: Insured to the max – Oh yes. But, the proposed operation is ‘technically’ against the law as writ. No problemo. Exemption issued to that company.

(ii) Another company can match Ace-O-Base and want the same thing – to compete in the market. Enter the exemption dragon. You see the Crop dusting outfit has been shunted out and now the New boy’s want a piece of the action. Instant legal conflict?

(iii) As the safety case has been demonstrated and proven – the ‘exemption’ should, before the next round of head banging, have been brought into law. Herein lies the rub.

Exemptions are bloody handy things; a sensible ‘suggestion’ on a different approach to that writ in stone in the regulation may well turn out to be beneficial to all. However, once an ‘exemption’ has grown whiskers – without the sky falling in – then it should be made available to all; brought into law and ‘promulgated’ (hate that word). If not; why not?

Clearly – if a better way (cost and operationally) to do thing, with an equivalent ‘level of safety’ which reduces costs and opens up markets then – democratically – it should become the ‘new’ version of ‘the law’.

There needs to be a very good reason to deny upgrading a law based on demonstrated equivalent safety. Tried, tested and proven sound.

Yet there, clear as crystal in P2’s efforts are the lengths CASA will go to in order to maintain the ‘law’ and not implement those very clever (safe) innovations which save time, trouble energy and - importantly – cost to the operator. Any reasonable man could be forgiven for asking why not?

Why not indeed? Would CASA play favourites? Surely not. Would CASA see an exemption as a control lever? Surely not. Wel then, what’s left? Does the volume of ‘exemption’ indicate a flawed rule set? Does the reluctance to consider amending a rule to incorporate a long standing exemption mean that pride, self delusion, lack of operational competence and the  overweening conceit of those who have NDI about the operations they manage prevent them saying – We ducked it up. Royally and have NDI how to fix it, but we’re too close to embarrassing a minister, so we couldn’t fix it – even if we knew how. Which – by-the-by – they don’t.

Kudos P2. Respect and bloody well done. There’s even another tick in Chester’s box, he did try – just not hard enough. No matter – On’ya Dazza. ‘A’ for effort; shame about the ‘advice’. At least he’s making McCoramck 5G’s look entirely useless for longer.

You do know of course why the outside toilet was brought inside; nothing to do with ‘dark of night’ and cold seats – ‘twas but dog pooh in the backyard. Nothing else.

Toot - toot.

Additional reference:

[Image: sbgc-727x1024.jpg]

Okay so that was where the tale of CASA EX101/19 – Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132] was at prior to the New Year. This progress was highlighted on page 5 of the SDL committee's 1st DLM (Delegated Legislation Monitors) for the year:

Quote:..Awaiting implementation of ministerial undertaking made on 07/11/2019 to amend the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in 2020...

And also under Appendix C - Undertakings for both the CASA EX101/19 and the CASA (DAMP) EX70/19 were recorded:

Quote:...The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development undertook to amend the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in 2020 in response to the committee's concerns...


...CASA EX70/19 — Implementation of Drug and Alcohol Management Plans (Non-DAMP Organisations) Instrument 2019 [F2019L01414]

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority undertook to amend the instrument in response to the committee's concerns...

This brings me back to the SDL committee notified disallowance motion for CASA EX101/19, where I refer to the Hansard from both the 12th and 13th of February:

Quote:[Image: image]
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:32): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019, and... 


Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (11:45): Pursuant to notice given yesterday, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw:

Business of the Senate notice of motion number 1 standing in my name for today, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132]; and..

From that it was obvious that something had changed? This led me back to the DLMs and in particular the 2nd DLM for 2020 where I found this under Appendix B - Concluded matters, subheading - Ministerial engagement (page 15): 

Quote:...Concluded following response from the minister on 03/02/2020.

The minister undertook to progress amendments the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 for completion in mid-2020.

'Protective' notice of motion to disallow was placed on 14/11/2019...

This of course led me to the 'Ministerial response' for 03/02/20: (reference pdf page 26 of 'Ministerial responses')

[Image: Connie-1.jpg]

Hmm..fascinating especially this bit...

"...These amendments will remove the requirement for the issuance of an exemption of this type in the future..."   Huh  Rolleyes

I then went back to the committee correspondence where I found this statement from the Chair:

Quote:Dear Minister,

CASA EX101/19 – Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132]
Thank you for your response of 31 January 2020 to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, in relation to the above instrument.

The committee considered your response at its private meeting on 12 February 2020. On the basis of your advice that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is progressing amendments to Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 with a view to completing the amendments by mid-2020, the committee has concluded its examination of the instrument. The committee has also resolved to withdraw the 'protective' notice of motion to disallow the instrument. The committee will continue to monitor the implementation of this undertaking.

In the interests of transparency, I note that this correspondence will be published on the committee's website and recorded in the Delegated Legislation Monitor.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation

P2 OBS & QON: the interests of transparency QONs for Mick Mack: Q1/ How many of the other 30 odd exemptions for Part 61, listed HERE , fall under the category of "this type in the future"? Q2/ How many of "this type in the future" exemptions (including under other CASR Parts) will be up for renewal in the following 6 months (mid-2020)? 

I wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of both the industry and the ScoMo Govt if perhaps the Minister was to encourage CASA to escalate that promised timetable? 


Finally I note that on the 2nd DLM (2 of 2020) the Chair has linked a 'Tabling statement' which IMO highlights the relevance of my posting on the Estimates thread... Wink

...Chapter 2 of the Monitor identifies instruments which the committee has resolved to draw to the attention of the Senate and relevant legislation committees under standing order 23(4), because they raise significant matters or matters otherwise of interest to the Senate. In practice, these may include instruments which contain significant policy matters or significant elements of a regulatory scheme, instruments which amend primary legislation, and instruments which have a significant impact on personal rights and liberties.

As a technical scrutiny committee, the committee does not express a view as to the policy merits or otherwise of these instruments. However, it has resolved to draw these instruments to the attention of the Senate in an attempt to promote greater scrutiny of the increasingly significant and complex matters contained in delegated legislation. It will, of course, remain a question for the Senate and the relevant legislation committees as to Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 02 6277 3066 |
whether they decide to further examine the instruments raised by this committee under standing order 23(4).

The committee has identified one such instrument in Chapter 2 of Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2020. The Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019 establish a mandatory Dairy Code of Conduct that sets out a regulatory scheme for enforceable minimum standards of conduct for business practices between dairy farmers and processors of milk. In doing so, the instrument appears to implement significant elements of a regulatory scheme, and addresses matters which have been subject to a number of significant external reviews. Accordingly, the committee has resolved to draw this instrument to the attention of the Senate and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee under standing order 23(4).

The committee has also resolved to add a third chapter to the Monitor, to identify all legislative instruments which, in combination with their enabling Acts, authorise the Commonwealth to spend public money. Chapter 3 of Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2020 contains 10 such instruments, which together specify expenditure in excess of $300 million. In the committee's view, the scrutiny of these instruments is an essential aspect of parliamentary scrutiny and control of Commonwealth expenditure.

The committee trusts that these additions to the Monitor, combined with the recent amendments to the committee's standing orders, will further promote parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation, in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the committee's 2019 inquiry...

Hmm...Dear Chair Susan cc Chair Connie...L&Ks The IOS.. Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Tongue

I have a bit of a leaning towards the USA's use of sunset clauses in bills whereby there is a
time limit on legislation, after which it must be legislated again. If it works out as not fit for purpose
its amended or simply let lapse.

I cast my memory back to the old reg 206, if you recall it was rather an absurd piece of legislation.
Enacted to protect the airline duopoly from competition, but used unmercifully to stifle legitimate businesses.
Many a business was crushed after seeing an opportunity that had nothing to do with RPT, making a business case,
investing money, then having it pulled out from under them because one of the two duopolist's saw a quid in it for themselves. Some really ridiculous claims were made. Remember Ansett demanded the first Lear jets into the country
had to be operated by their crew as they were transport category aircraft.
In those days DCA could deny an import licence for almost anything, and they did, at one stage prior to the sixties only British made aircraft were allowed, even for themselves, despite the Poms not producing anything much that was suitable.
The old reg 206 still exists in legislation today, no longer fit for purpose and completely redundant, but still available for CAsA to use as a weapon on anyone as pleases.

Legislation should be fit for purpose, unfortunately what CAsA has served up is not even close, nor does it achieve what was intended "Safety". So what was the point of it all?

Dick Smith is dead right when he said "Copy the Best", China has made itself a leading power by doing just that, The Kiwi's did just that for aviation which has become third biggest contributor to GDP.

There has been much in the media about the cost burden of red tape on the Australian economy, in the red tape Stakes CAsA would have to be a world leader.

In China the "party" rules by fear and intimidation, is it much different in Australia?

Is "democracy" dying in Australia?

We elect politicians to do the "peoples" bidding, but just how much power do they have?

In recent times we have seen what happens when a minister goes against their mandarins recommendations.
The leaks begin until eventually, politically, their tenure becomes unsustainable.If they just sit Mum and let the bureaucrats get on with it all remains calm, unless of course there is a major stuff up, but all good, the minister is the sacrificial lamb, their throat gets cut and the Mandarins continue with their derry do.

The Mandarins live inside the Cant'Berra bubble, a privileged quarantined world remote from reality, there they play their game of thrones, is it much different in China?

(02-18-2020, 08:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-15-2020, 09:56 PM)Kharon Wrote:  [Image: SBG-16220-1024x725.jpg]
Ref: Strict liability, strictly enforced. &

Prima facie; primarily facile, or Piss take?

“Accepted as correct until proved otherwise”. A perfect, nutshell description of the regulatory process. We, in Australia have paid for and sat (miserably) through many ‘Senate Inquiries’ into the antics of the ‘regulator’ – CASA, despairing of the questions asked. I’d even bet we hold a world record for the sheer volume of questions asked and answers given; (word count beyond human understanding) - non of which have made the slightest bit of difference as the wider aviation businesses, medium to light weight operations devolve into isolated cottage industries. Well all except for the huge, profitable ‘sausage factories’ that is; churning out ‘qualified’ clones of some scripted qualification regime which ensures all the boxes are ticked – nice and legal like. Which is fine until the airline HR model is hired and the cost of ‘training’ a clone to ‘do the job’ is passed on through exorbitant regional airfares. Why is this so? A question any reasonable man )yes, yes or woman( - Uhmm-  (human being) may ask. Phew.

Many believe it has to do with ‘the regulatory burden’. To a point, there is a case to answer on that score. The three decade endless ‘change’ has not, not by any measure, fiscal or operationally been a stellar success. Why is this so?

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_021820_012549_PM.jpg]

Well, we dragged P2 out of the deep basement shredder bins, brushed him off and retrieved his find; slightly mangled but nonetheless readable for all that. He toddles off to share his Choc Frog with his best mate (a rabbit he rescued – long story don’t ask) leaving us with the gubbins. 

“Senate standing order 23(4) also requires the committee to scrutinise each instrument to determine whether the attention of the Senate should be drawn to the instrument on the ground that it raises significant issues, or otherwise gives rise to issues that are likely to be of interest to the Senate”.

Agency engagement. 4.2 The committee is engaging with the relevant agencies via its secretariat to seek further information about potential scrutiny concerns raised by the instruments listed below.

> Terms of reference

> The committee's scrutiny principles are set out in Senate standing order 23(3) which requires the committee to scrutinise each instrument as to whether:

> (a) it is in accordance with its enabling Act and otherwise complies with all legislative requirements;

> (b) it appears to be supported by a constitutional head of legislative power and is otherwise constitutionally valid;

> © it makes rights, liberties, obligations or interests unduly dependent on insufficiently defined administrative powers;

> (d) those likely to be affected by the instrument were adequately consulted in relation to it;

> (e) its drafting is defective or unclear;

> (f) it, and any document it incorporates, may be freely accessed and used;

> (g) the accompanying explanatory material provides sufficient information to gain a clear understanding of the instrument;

> (h ) it trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties;

> (i) it unduly excludes, limits or fails to provide for independent review of decisions affecting rights, liberties, obligations or interests;

> (j) it contains matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment; and

> (k) it complies with any other ground relating to the technical scrutiny of delegated legislation that the committee considers appropriate.

Blind Freddy (G’day mate) can see the potential here for serious questions to be asked by  ‘the committee secretariat’. But it all turns to worms when :-“Seeking advice from the agency” is the response of choice. Then, it all gets to be a little ‘circular’. For example:-

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019 [F2019L01656]

Principle (g) adequacy of explanatory materials
Principle (h) privacy
Principle (k) parliamentary oversight
Seeking advice from the agency.


>Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Parts 103, 105 and 131) Regulations 2019 [F2019L01621]
Principle (i) availability of independent review
Principle (h) reversal of evidential burden of proof
Principle (h) privacy
Seeking advice from the agency.

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_021820_100245_AM.jpg]

Principle (h) - reversal of evidential burden of proof. Consider the ridiculous proposition posed. In all ‘criminal’ cases (real ones) as defined, the burden of proof falls where? Mens Rea and all that – denied, without a whimper from the protectors of democracy? WTD. Then, they refer it back to the agency ‘for advice’. Gods spare me…

Principals’ (i) through (h) as they relate to CASA enforcement demand immediate attention and close scrutiny – followed by immediate bipartinsane repeal. Unconstitutional? – Just a bit. Should the Senate ever want to resolve and save the time and money an Inquiry costs – perhaps they could just consider the outrage they’d feel at being guilty – without hope of defence for a misdemeanour? Even a clerical error or anything else CASA choose to whip up into a case against; – presented in the AAT – without the rules of evidence the police must rely on to prosecute? Not bloody funny. And yet here we are again – “seeking advice from the agency”. “Did you rob the bank?” – “Oh no M’lud was two other fellah’s”.  “Fair enough – off you go then”.

Question without notice Madam Chair – What exactly do you expect in response to your question – “to the Agency”. I suggest you refer to the 9,000 odd answers provided by ‘the agency’ for a quick answer. It’s like watching a duckling Ping-Pong match. The committee Pings it to the agency – they Pong it back. No one even considering the travesty inflicted on the ‘rule of law’ – which by the way - Parliament enshrined in our democracy. Want to know why the aviation industry is hacked off and scared to speak out? See the explanation – above.

Chair – So Doctor Aleck, do you think it is reasonable to give Bloggs a criminal record, which will affect his future career for making an arithmetical error on the technical log?

Lost Marbles – “Oh yes Madam chair” – “Safety is our prime concern”.  “He may pay the fine and forget the matter entirely; but we will keep the offence on record and will use it as ‘background’ to prove him not able to be rehabilitated and to pad our ‘catch rate’ of these offenders, committing heinous crimes against my tricky one way rules.”

Aye, just when you thought here was a beacon of hope, you discover the Senate oversight of our civil liberties, under homemade law rely on the ‘advice’ of those who penned the law; now under Senate ‘scrutiny’. Brilliant; stellar, world class – how ducking spectacular.

[Image: images-4.jpg]

No matter. The grandfather clock saga (serious stuff now). We have a cutting list (finally). These billets must be hand cut, according to my letter. I measured up with a 1900 vintage cabinet makers wooden ruler. Just for fun, TOM used the latest ‘laser’ measuring gizmo to compare. Beers were bet; I have half a fridge full now. 98% accuracy (half a thou) on 87% of measurements; no discernible difference in the remaining 13%. Not too shabby I’d say. Grandpapa's ruler had the right of it – carpenters are sundials – cabinet makers are Rolex.

But, do enjoy the workings of the Senate and your tax dollar while I slip through the orchard into a cool evening; no option, the dogs only wake up once the temperature drops “Out! – take me out” they bark. So I oblige ‘em – pretending it’s a lot of bother and trouble; but they know who woke ‘em from slumber. ‘Twas me and the biscuit tin. Shhhh!   


P2 comment: Sorry "K" just thought you'd like to know what I have discovered in my latest foray through the APH cyber dustbins... Rolleyes 

To begin here is a link - HERE & or PDF version - for the committee report and recommendations that came out of their 2019 Senate Inquiry into 'Parliamentary Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation'.

Extract from the report:    

Chair and Deputy Chair's foreword

A fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy is that the law should be made by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. However, despite this, around half the law of the Commonwealth is delegated legislation; that is, law made by or on behalf of the executive government. Too little is known about the role delegated legislation plays in the Australian legal landscape. Parliament routinely delegates its law making powers to ministers, agency heads and senior public servants. While it is often necessary for Parliament to delegate these powers, as it doesn't always have the time or expertise to deal with the technical details underpinning the law, it is essential that Parliament scrutinise such legislation to guard against the inappropriate exercise of executive power.

The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (the committee) has performed this role on behalf of the Parliament for almost 90 years. It is one of the oldest standing committees in the Australian Parliament and has spawned numerous similar parliamentary scrutiny committees across Australia and internationally. The committee has always adopted a non-partisan commitment to principles of technical scrutiny, setting aside party politics and policy considerations to focus on issues of general principle affecting the rights of people and Parliament.

While the committee has been one of the Commonwealth Parliament's most active and important committees, after almost 90 years of operation it is important to inquire into the committee's continuing effectiveness and future direction. The significant work of the committee can be undermined by a lack of understanding of the role Parliament plays in exercising control over delegated legislation and the essential role the committee plays. When the committee draws its concerns about delegated legislation to the Senate's attention it is high time that all parliamentarians and the government of the day listen to those concerns and take action to resolve them.

Part II of this report makes a number of recommendations to improve the committee's existing scrutiny practices – including updating its terms of reference, bringing its powers in line with other standing committees and updating and expanding the principles by which it scrutinises delegated legislation. Currently around three-quarters of the committee's comments fall under one of its scrutiny principles – whether delegated legislation 'is in accordance with the statute'. This general description does not indicate the vast range of matters the committee considers. Additional principles should be adopted to clarify the scope of the committee's existing scrutiny functions and to provide clearer guidance as to its role. Additionally, the committee's current approach to reporting to the Senate may not be the most effective way of highlighting its scrutiny concerns. The report therefore sets out a number of actions the committee will take to improve its work practices and highlight its important work.

Part III of the report considers the adequacy of the existing framework for parliamentary control and scrutiny of delegated legislation. Unlike many other parliaments, the Australian Parliament has considerable control over delegated legislation (through its power to veto, or disallow, legislative instruments made by the executive). Yet, in practice, it is difficult for parliamentarians to keep abreast of the hundreds of instruments tabled each year, and all too often significant matters of policy are left to be determined by delegated legislation (despite the warnings of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills). While the committee draws its technical scrutiny concerns about delegated legislation to the Senate's attention, there is no consistent scrutiny of its policy implications. Therefore, where delegated legislation gives rise to significant issues, policy committees should be notified and consider whether to conduct an inquiry into its policy merits.

In addition, parliamentary control over delegated legislation is undermined when delegated legislation is exempted from disallowance or sunsetting. It is particularly concerning when this exemption is itself provided for in delegated legislation. There should be strict limits on when delegated legislation can be exempted from disallowance or sunsetting, to ensure adequate parliamentary control. In addition, the law should be publicly available and understood before it comes into force. As a general rule, delegated legislation should commence 28 days after registration (rather than the day after registration), to allow people affected by the law to foresee the legal consequences of their actions.

As parliamentarians, we owe it to the Australian people to act independently, and to remove from the statute book delegated legislation which does not respect individual rights and liberties or the right of Parliament to control the content of the law. The committee will continue to maintain its non-partisan commitment to scrutinising delegated legislation on behalf of the Parliament. It is up to all parliamentarians and the government to ensure that significant matters are not left to be determined by delegated legislation, and to listen and act on the concerns raised by the committee.

You will note that under Part III the committee will now notify policy committees (ie Legislative committees) and/or the Senate when the SDL committee has significant concerns about certain pieces of delegated legislation/instruments. 

The first example of this was listed under 'Matters of Interest to the Senate' and in the latest DLM 2of 2020 and somewhat ironically involves the Senate RRAT Legislative Committee. The explanatory correspondence to the Chair Senator Susan McDonald can be read on page 1 HERE.

Under Part II of the report the committee has resolved to increase and improve the principles/terms of reference (see SBG above) for proper more effective scrutiny of delegated legislation. This is underpinned by newly minted reference guidelines for Ministerial departments and government agencies to refer to when responding to the committees identified concerns with a piece of delegated legislation.

This brings me back to the "K", understandably pessimistic, concern that the SDL committee is 'Seeking advice from the agency'??  Rolleyes  

In fact I have it from the Horse's mouth (ie the committee Secretariat) that the agency concerned (ie CASA) will be obliged to respond to the committee with a 'please explain' why it is necessary for there to be 'strict liability' provisions imposed on those particular CASR Parts (Parts 103, 105 and 131) and also the committee's concerns with the delegated legislation..

...unduly excluding, limiting or failing to provide for independent review of decisions affecting rights, liberties, obligations or interests... this is what Dr Jonathon (I've lost my marbles) Aleck will actually have to respond to when addressing the committee's concerns

Reference -

Quote:Guidelines on technical scrutiny principles

The committee examines the technical qualities of all instruments subject to disallowance, disapproval or affirmative resolution by the Senate, and assesses whether they comply with the committee's non-partisan scrutiny principles. The committee's scrutiny principles are set out in Senate standing order 23(3). These guidelines provide information on the committee's approach to applying its scrutiny principles, including:

MTF? - Yes much...P2  Tongue

(02-28-2020, 08:30 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Sic'em'Rex sounds the regional aviation drum for Estimates -  Rolleyes

Sen Patrick adjournment speech, from 27/02/20 Senate Hansard:


[Image: image]

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:52): The federal coalition government have introduced regulations into the parliament that will require security screening at regional airports. They've offered to pay for the equipment but not for the much more significant cost of the ongoing employment of security guards and, indeed, maintenance. I'm quite happy for there to be security screening at regional airports. If that's what Home Affairs says is required then that is what is required, but it must be the government that pay the cost. National security is a national responsibility, not a local council responsibility. It is the local councils that own the airports and will be charged this cost, and they, of course, will have to pass it on to passengers.

The former Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development did a case study on Whyalla—I'll just point out that Whyalla is serviced by both Rex Regional Express and Qantas—and found that the new requirement will increase a per person flight by $53 or $69. If the screening is only carried out on the Qantas passengers, the cost will be an extra $69. Now, clearly, if it costs an extra $69 to fly Qantas, fewer people are going to accept that option and, in fact, Qantas will end up pulling out of that route. If it's carried out on both Rex and Qantas passengers, the cost will be $53. This will just reduce people's willingness to fly. They'll go back on the roads.

In this instance, it'll reduce loadings on the aircraft and it will reduce the viability of the routes and again will result in flights being cut. So the two best options are that flights are cut or routes are cut completely. The government have botched this up. They've failed to do proper due diligence from the beginning and they're only now discovering what devastating impacts this proposal will have on regional communities. Whyalla and Port Lincoln will be seriously affected by this bungle. However, it is the thin end of the wedge—Kangaroo Island and Mount Gambier will likely be next.

When bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble first dreamed up this policy, they thought the annual operating costs of the equipment would be somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000. They were wrong. We now know that the numbers are something around $1.2 to $2 million. How do we know that? Because the RRAT committee conducted an inquiry and caught on to the idea that this was going to happen and asked a lot of questions. Amazingly, again, the government had done no analysis on the effect. I can tell you that regional air travel is the lifeblood of these regional cities. It's how people get to education services. It's how they get to medical services. It's how medical locums get into a local community. It's how we support agriculture, business and tourism. And it just allows families to travel to see one another. It is their lifeblood. If you start taking away flights, it will have an impact on communities. In the analysis, the department actually claim that the increased costs might not be passed directly on to ticket pricing. That just shows how hopelessly out of touch the government is. I can assure you that the costs will get passed on.

I have moved to disallow this regulation. The Senate will get to vote on this on 12 May this year. It's not just Whyalla that will be affected, and it is not just Port Lincoln. The department conducted case studies into other airports—Rockhampton, Geraldton, Wagga, Longreach and, indeed, Kangaroo Island, which is not even on the list. They're looking at that, and I'm now trying to get some more information on that. When this disallowance motion is voted on, it will be a real test for coalition senators who often claim to represent regional Australia. So I'm going to give them the opportunity to buck the system and vote with me on the disallowance.

Plus from the SDL committee 'Disallowance Alert 2020' I note that Sen Patrick's DM is listed at item 2:

Quote:Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019 [F2019L01656]

Senator Patrick on 04/02/2020

To move that on the next day of sitting that the instrument be disallowed. Motion postponed on 05/02/2020 to 12/05/2020.
To be resolved.
However from the latest DLM (ref: 3 of 2020 )  it would appear that the SDL committee has already ticked and flicked this particular instrument: (ref - page 14 under para 5.3)

"..Concluded following response from the agency on 17/02/2020.."

This probably means that Sen Patrick will have an uphill battle trying to get his DM over the line??

MTF...P2  Tongue

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)