The Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and its Committee on Regulations and Ordinances have correctly pointed out the dangers of ministerial councils overriding the function of Parliament. There are about 30 ministerial councils made up of state, territory and federal (and sometimes New Zealand) ministers responsible for particular areas. They frequently make very detailed agreements about uniform laws on their subject matters. Often they involve political compromises and are difficult to achieve. Moreover they provide convenience for businesses and residents who only to have to know and abide by one set of laws.
But whatever the merits of uniformity, the matters have to be legislated, which means being passed by state, territory and federal parliaments. Legislatures often take different views on things to the executive arms of government, even when the executive party has a majority control of parliament.
Ministers often believe they can be trusted with wide regulation-making power and that the bureaucracy can be relied upon to administer laws fairly without the need for safeguards built into the legislation. The consequence is that when agreements go from ministerial councils to parliaments, many MPs are placed in a dilemma: should they allow the desire for uniformity, which is difficult to achieve and has benefits of convenience and business efficiency, to override legislative standards on fairness and potential abuse of ministerial power? The ministers will need to engage their legislatures more to achieve both the merits of uniformity and reasonable restraint on abuse of power.