WA Relationship between Acts & Regs

[FMD78]

Gday,
Apologies if this has been answered elsewshere, I did have a look at past posts but wasn't able to specifically find the answer.
If someone is terminated from a public sector position (not really relevant to my question), the Public Sector management Act 1994 is the main legislation relating to PS employees but a Solicitor later states that the discliplinery action taken did not relate to the PSMA 1994 but rather sited a certain Regulation and it was discliplinery action taken under those regulations that applied, I don't understand this. My understanding was an applicable Act would always override any subsiduary legislation so how can it be that a Solicitor states the regulations applied, not the Act and therefore an appeal is not valid due to incorrect jurisdiction? I hope this makes sense and appreciate any feedback.
Cheers

 

[Scruff]

Acts provide the legal framework - the "dos and don'ts" of the law. They start out as a bill which must pass both houses of parliament before receiving royal assent and enacted.

A Regulation is basically an extension of an Act that deals mostly with administrative matters. They don't start out as bills or pass through parliament, but are instead a "delegated law" which is usually administered by the relevant Minister.

Most Acts have an associated Regulation, so you will often see "Blah Blah Act" and " Blah Blah Regulation". The Act will state in it's provisions what matters may be dealt with by the Regulation and will confer power onto the Minister (or someone else) to administer that Regulation.

The system allows for the law to be updated regularly in order to stay relevant and keep with the times (Regulations), rather than require constant "Amendment Bills" to have to pass through both houses of parliament (Acts).

So Acts don't override Regulations. Each provision in a Regulation will usually have a corresponding provision in the Act that delegates certain powers to the Regulation.

With the example you provided, it sounds like you have one Act, but action was taken under the Regulations of another Act, which is where the jurisdiction issue comes from, as different Acts may operate under different jurisdictions. ie; the first Act might come under the jurisdiction of a Tribunal, while the second Act and thus it's Regulation, comes under the jurisdiction of a different Tribunal or a Court.

 

[Rod]

So Acts don't override Regulations.

They do. BUT regs are written to further the purposes of the Act (provide more detail Parliament can't be bothered with, and probably shouldn't anyway).

so how can it be that a Solicitor states the regulations applied, not the Act

Without seeing the paperwork I can't be certain, but is certainly possible more than one Act, and therefore more than one set of regs can be in play.

 

[FMD78]

Thanks very much for the replies fellas.

It is just confusing. I understand siting certain legislation and Scruff your first reply does make sense. I'm just a little lost when there is an Act in place that allows for the right of appeal etc but then a solicitor references different legislation, being Regulations, as the legislation under which the disciplinary action was taken (which does in fact allow for certain disciplinary actions but no reference whatsoever to right of appeal and that was never my argument) but there exists an Act that does clearly stipulate the right of appeal however the Solicitor references action taken under the Regulations and further states therefore the related Act is irrelevant and not applicable. That is where my confusion lies.
Again, appreciate your replies 👍

 

[Rod]

Without the detail we can't say how different Acts and Regs apply in your case. Recommend you get legal advice.