The Seamless Economy Regulatory Project and Democracy Deficit Part 2

There are some signs that state parliaments may be commencing to assert their sovereignty over rule by COAG.

The Queensland Scrutiny of Legislation Committee considered the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Bill 2008, which established the framework to allow for the national scheme of registration for health professionals to commence.

It said:

It is the committee’s practice to draw to the attention of the Parliament any provisions of a bill which are to give effect to national scheme legislation. The committee, in common with the legislative scrutiny committees of the Parliaments of other Australian States and the Commonwealth, has identified concerns that elements of intergovernmental legislative schemes might undermine the institution of Parliament. The committees’ concerns relate to the potential for the executive to formulate, manage and possibly alter such schemes to the exclusion of legislatures. The committee has also warned against a perception of a reduced need for legislative scrutiny of an intergovernmental agreement proposed for ratification.

……

In The Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories, Professor Gerard Carney provides a summary of concerns regarding the legislative scrutiny of national scheme legislation:

A risk of many Commonwealth and State cooperative schemes is ‘executive federalism’; that is, the executive branches formulate and manage these schemes to the exclusion of the legislatures. While many schemes require legislative approval, the opportunity for adequate legislative scrutiny is often lacking, with considerable executive pressure to merely ratify the scheme without question.

Thereafter, in an extreme case, the power to amend the scheme may even rest entirely with a joint executive authority. Other instances of concern include,for example, where a government lacks the authority to respond to or the capacity to distance itself from the actions of a joint Commonwealth and State regulatory authority. Public scrutiny is also hampered when the details of such schemes are not made publicly available. For these reasons, a recurring criticism, at least since the Report of the Coombs Royal Commission in 1977, is the tendency of cooperative arrangements to undermine the principle of responsible government. A further concern is the availability of judicial review in respect of the decisions and actions of these joint authorities.

Certainly, political responsibility must still be taken by each government for both joining and remaining in the cooperative
scheme. Some blurring of accountability is an inevitable disadvantage of cooperation – a disadvantage usually outweighed by the advantages of entering this scheme. But greater scrutiny is possible by an enhanced and investigative
role for all Commonwealth, State and territory legislatures.

Drawing from some specific criticisms made by the Committee, the Queensland Opposition said this when debating the Bill:

From the outset, it is important to note that there is broad support for national registration for health practitioners. Again, I repeat that there is broad support for national registration for the health professions.

There is overwhelming consensus of the need for consistently high standards and portability of registration of health practitioners across Australia. However, the problem lies with the national law that will establish an unaccountable political institution that will not only control and influence what health practitioners are taught but also how to treat and help sick people while following orders from politicians and bureaucrats without reproach.

The bill before this House is a sugar-coated toxic blend of important and required reform for a national health practitioner registration scheme with an accreditation and training proposal that threatens Australia’s envied position as having one of the best and most comprehensive professional standards of training and practice for our medical practitioners.

There is a need for a greater capacity for public involvement in the development of the regulatory structure of the Seamless Economy evolves is required. This is dealt with in the final article of this series.