Post sponsored by

Source: New Zealand Parliament

The Regulations Review Committee have opened for submissions on an inquiry into parliamentary scrutiny of comfirmable instruments. The committee has produced a report about the confirmation process in order to inform submissions on its inquiry. You can read the report here.

Terms of reference

The terms of reference for the inquiry are:

  • Is the current process of parliamentary scrutiny of confirmable instruments effective?
  • Are any changes required to parliamentary or government process to make the parliamentary scrutiny of confirmable instruments more effective?

Questions for investigation

To help the committee focus its inquiry, the committee is seeking submissions which respond to the following questions or any other matter raised in its report.

  • Does the current process of parliamentary scrutiny of confirmable instruments provide effective scrutiny?
    • What problems, if any, do you identify with the current process?
    • Do you have any comment on the problems identified in the briefing report?
  • Is the additional layer of scrutiny provided through the confirmation process currently being applied to appropriate instruments?
    • Do you agree that the confirmation process should not be used for decisions to make secondary legislation that involve little or no discretion?
    • Would it be useful to have more guidance on the types of circumstances in which the confirmation process is appropriate?
    • Are there instruments currently outside the process that should be included in it?
  • How should the Regulations Review Committee (RRC) improve the process by which it scrutinises confirmable instruments?
    • Should the RRC ask administering agencies to complete a standard list of specific questions in relation to each confirmable instrument?
    • Should all confirmable instruments, or certain confirmable instruments, be referred to relevant subject-matter select committees, rather than being examined solely by the RRC?
    • Do you have any other suggestion for how the RRC can receive advice to effectively inform its scrutiny of confirmable instruments?
  • Would there be advantages in the RRC beginning its scrutiny of certain confirmable instruments after they are made but before the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill is referred to it?

Tell the Regulations Review Committee what you think

Make a submission by 11.59pm on Friday, 3 April 2020