Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Amendment (2014 Measures No 2) Regulation 2014 [F2014L00857]-New and continuing matters [2014] AUSStaCSDLM 154 (27 August 2014)

• Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Amendment (2014 Measures No. 2) Regulation 2014 [F2014L00857]

Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements-Intercountry Adoption) Amendment (2014 Measures No. 2) Regulation 2014 [F2014L00857]

Purpose	Amends the Family Law (Bilateral Arrangements—Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 to clarify that adoptions of children from Taiwan, Ethiopia and South Korea that took place prior to those overseas jurisdictions being prescribed under the Principal Regulation are automatically recognised under Australian laws
Last day to disallow	4 September 2014
Authorising legislation	Family Law Act 1975
Department	Attorney-General's

Issue:

Insufficient description regarding consultation

Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken in relation to a proposed instrument, particularly where that instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18, however, provides that in some circumstances such consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The ES which must accompany an instrument is required to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken (section 26). With reference to these requirements, the committee notes that the ES for the instrument states:

The Office of Best Practice Regulation was consulted about the Regulation and advised that a Regulatory Impact Statement is not necessary as the amendments were likely to have no or low regulatory impacts on business and individuals or on the economy.

While the committee does not usually interpret section 26 as requiring a highly detailed description of consultation undertaken, its usual approach is to consider an overly bare or general description, such as in this case, as not being sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The committee therefore requests further information from the Attorney-General; and requests that the ES be updated in accordance with the requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.