Heritage (Delegation by Minister) Amendment Bill supported

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
18 November 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Spring Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Democrats support the second reading of this bill. As I understand it, the government is seeking to carry out delegations that have been occurring. There has been some question as to whether or not they are legal delegations, and the government is seeking to rectify that situation. As the government put to us, it is trying to maintain the status quo, or the understanding of what the status quo is. It appears to me that the delegation powers enable much broader delegation than that which currently takes place. I would invite the minister to indicate why, indeed, that has turned out to be the case. But, subject to a response on that, the Democrats are satisfied with the bill.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): I have spoken to the Hon. Terry Cameron and the Hon. Trevor Crothers, who have indicated that they did not wish to participate in the debate but that they support this bill. I am not sure in specific terms what the Hon. Mike Elliott is talking about in terms of the broadening of delegations. I have been told that the powers will be delegated from the minister to a person or body having expertise and day-to-day responsibility for administering heritage matters, and therefore a person or body that has considerable experience built up over time on these matters.

One would want to ensure that delegated powers were devolved to such a responsible person or body of persons otherwise the minister, notwithstanding the time consuming exercise in which she is now involved in development applications, would not wish to devolve such powers. Of course, it is wider, because this bill specifically addresses a concern about a lot of matters which the minister herself must address at the present time and which are time consuming and do not necessarily advance the time taken to deal with these development applications. I may not necessarily have adequately addressed the honourable member's concerns because, as I said at the outset, I find it difficult-

The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Delegations go well beyond just the heritage section to which she was not delegating. Theoretically, she could delegate, for instance, to local government.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: That is true, but it would be very unwise for any minister to delegate broadly, because it is in the minister's name and the minister is ultimately accountable, so one does handle these things with extreme care. When I became minister, I withdrew a whole lot of delegations in relation to planning until I understood initially what was happening and gained the confidence of the officers who would be representing me; I also gained more confidence in what was involved in the area, because I was not going to have people acting on my behalf without understanding my concerns or the way in which I would handle a situation. I am quite sure that any minister associated with heritage matters, knowing the sensitivities of these matters in the electorate, would act with equal caution, even though the delegation power is as broad as the honourable member states.

If the honourable member needs assurance, I also add that, in order that the exercise of this power is transparent, the amendment to the act will require the minister to keep a register of delegations available for inspection by members of the public; also, where a delegation is made to a person who is not an employee within the meaning of Public Service Management Act, that person must disclose in writing to the minister any personal or pecuniary interest they may have in any matter they are called upon to handle, and such disclosures must also be kept in the public register. I think those cautions that are provided in the act may also ease the concerns of the honourable member.