Report 'a warning’

Press, 11 July 1980, Page 5

Report ' a warning’

PA Wellington The report of Parliament’s Statutes Revision Committee on regulations lowering the Kinleith wage agreement was a “warning shot fired across the bows of the Executive,” the Member of Parliament for Christchurch Central (Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Lab.), has said in Parliament.

Regulations are laws made by the Executive or Cabinet, under the auspices of acts of Parliament, but without being scrutinised by Parliament. Mr Palmer emphasised that such regulations be checked, either by constant scrutiny by the Statutes Revision Committee, of which 1-? is a member, or by a Parliamentart’’ committee set up especially for the task. The Remuneration (N.Z. Forest Products) Regulations, 1980, were referred to the committee in early March by five Opposition members. But three weeks later — while the committee was considering them—they were revoked and Kinleith wickers were paid the wage originally agreed upon by the union and Forest Products. The committee decided to continue its scrutiny

of the regulations as an educational and preventive exercise. The report, which was presented to Parliament yesterday, contained three main recommendations for the promulgation of any further pay regulations. They were: — That notice (desirably in writing) that the Government was contemplating ray regulations be given to parties likely to be affected; — That the Government indicate clearly the factors it would regard as important in determining whether to make regulations; and, — That these communications be made directly to the parties affected. Mr Palmer told Parliament that the committee 1 had found the actions of the Executive, or Cabinet, “wanting” in this case. “The report constitutes a warning shot fired across the bows of the Executive. If the Executive does not heed that warning and tries this sort of stunt again, it is likely to sustain serious damage amidships,” Mr Palmer said. Presenting the report to the House, the chairman of

- the committee (Mr B. E. Brill, - Nat., Kapiti) said that after the Kinleith regulations had - been revoked, the commit- - tee had looked particularly - at the possibility of setting - out guidelines for the future / use of pay regulations. It had not looked specifically at the complaints against the ! Kinleith regulations. It had . also tried to keep politics out f of its deliberations and had . not looked at the policy which prompted the making . of the regulations. t Mr Palmer, although t critical of the scope of some 3 Government regulations, said the Opposition supported the committee’s report. But he e wanted to see developed the ability of the committee, or . another expressly charged with the task, to scrutinise regulations. Protection against defective regulations was “not remotely adequate.” he said. a Mr M. J. Minogue (Nat., ? Hamilton West) said he ‘ hoped the committee’s rea port would be the start of a s means by which the Execus five’s ’ regulation-making s power could be effectively scrutinised. “There has been no such o effective scrutiny in the past,” if‘he said.