Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:49): I thank honourable members for their wholehearted support for the second reading of the legislation. I think, for the reasons that have been outlined, it is important, if possible, for the legislation to go through today. I am advised there is no opposition to the bill, and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 160 passed.

Clause 161.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will speak very briefly. There is no amendment, but I indicate that the opposition will be opposing clause 161. It is not a very technical clause. At the moment, the appointment of assessors for SACAT is done through a cabinet process; that is, a submission needs to be lodged. The general process is that submission is then seen throughout government by other departments and chief executives. It is a collective decision taken by cabinet about who the assessors are. Then a recommendation is made to Executive Council, and the Governor signs off on the recommendations of assessors.

What this clause seeks to do is change that so it is just the Attorney-General who is the ultimate decision-maker about assessors. Regularly, we think these decisions are best made collectively. It gives all of government, as a general proposition, the chance to have a look, and if there are questions about the suitability of any particular assessor, or if there are more suitable assessors, it allows a much greater pool of people to make that judgement rather than just the Attorney-General.

For those reasons, we will be opposing clause 161 so that the current process, where the decisions are made by cabinet and signed off by the Governor, continues. We think that has the potential to lead to better decisions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes—well, it supports the clause, is the simplest way of putting it. My advice is that SACAT has raised this particular issue. They say there have been circumstances under the current arrangements where if there is an urgent need for the appointment of an assessor—they have either run out or people have been conflicted in various areas of assessment—the current process is cumbersome in that you have to go back through the cabinet process. That, in broad terms, is 10 days notice to get to cabinet, then cabinet consideration, then Executive Council, and then sign-off before someone is actually appointed.

SACAT, as I said, have had these problems in the past. They have raised the issue with the government and the Attorney-General. Certainly, it should not be characterised as an attempt by the Attorney-General to grab powers to herself, as it is at the moment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I think that might be the inference in relation to this in some way, that the view of the cabinet would overpower the individual view of the Attorney-General, as it goes in this particular case in relation to assessors. But let me read formally the advice I have been given.

Various acts being transferred to SACAT's jurisdiction will require the appointment of assessors to sit as members of SACAT on an as-needs basis to assist SACAT with subject matter expertise, most commonly for disciplinary review proceedings, and I am advised that might be in the area of health, builders, land agents, vets. So it is assessors with particular expertise. They are not judicial officers or anything like that, they are assessors with professional expertise in the particular area that requires assessment.

Each conferring act that requires the use of assessors requires that a panel of assessors be appointed. Furthermore, many acts that require the use of assessors in the District Court, Administrative and Disciplinary Division, which will be transferred to SACAT, currently provide that assessors are appointed by the minister responsible for that act. So we have a circumstance where for the District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division, which is going across to SACAT in this legislation, the Attorney-General or the minister responsible for the act already has the power to provide the assessors; it is not going through the cabinet process.

As I read this, we would be winding that particular circumstance back, that is, an existing arrangement which has evidently worked pretty well under Labor attorneys-general, I assume, with no-one rising up in uproar that attorney-general Rau or Atkinson or someone has abused the process. It has essentially worked pretty efficiently and we would be winding that process back.

For efficiency and to preserve the status quo, clause 161 of the bill provides that assessors be appointed by the minister or the Attorney-General on recommendation of the SACAT president. So there would be a recommendation from the SACAT president to the Attorney-General, rather than by the Governor on recommendation of the Attorney-General as is the current process, thereby removing the need to go through the cabinet process.

The government thinks this is just a sensible process. SACAT is supporting it. In part, it already exists under some of the jurisdictions which are being transferred. I can assure the committee it is not a power-hungry grab for power by the Attorney-General in relation to this issue. It just seems to be a sensible proposed change, and we would urge members to support the clause and not oppose the new provision.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Can I ask the Leader of the Government: on how many occasions has this problem occurred in the past, and what is the time lapse if we remove this clause?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can think of two issues here: one is that the Attorney-General already has the power to appoint assessors in some jurisdictions—the District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division. What is being proposed here already occurs with some proposals. If we move to the position the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, we will be winding that back. We will be requiring in those circumstances, where there has not been a complaint about the process, for them to go through the cabinet process.

The cabinet process, as former ministers will know, essentially is 10 days' notice, and prior to the 10 days' notice you obviously get the approval of your department, your Attorney-General (or whoever the minister happens to be), you lodge it with the Cabinet Office and you have 10 days before it is considered. Something as simple as this would generally go through on the first occasion—it would not be delayed, although technically it could be—and then it would go to Executive Council, either the following Thursday or the Thursday afterwards. It might be two to three weeks, or whatever it might have to be. It could be a little bit longer, but that would be the general average in terms of the sort of process. The issue already exists with some of the jurisdictions that have been transferred across. SACAT has obviously been comfortable with that.

As to the other part of the question of how many occasions, I cannot give you that answer as I do not know. SACAT is actually recommending this; this is not the Attorney-General trying to drive an unpopular process through the SACAT. There is the protection that the assessor would be on the recommendation of the SACAT president. So he currently (but he or she) would make the recommendation in terms of the assessor and the Attorney-General would process it. Essentially, that is what is being suggested. It already works in some of the areas and we and the SACAT president are suggesting that it should be extended. We think it is a sensible proposition and it is nothing more or less than what it appears on the surface.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' position in matters such as this is that we would normally support a more rigorous, rather than a less rigorous, process for appointment to important jobs, especially quasi-judicial jobs. However, now that the Leader of the Government has explained that this is a particular request of SACAT, and the material that he read out referred to situations of urgency and perhaps situations of conflicts of interest, it is certainly foreseeable in relation to some of these jurisdictions, where we have relatively small professions that will be regulated or disputes resolved by SACAT where practically everyone knows everyone else, it is quite easy to imagine that finding an appropriate independent person to be the assessor might be difficult.

I am aware that the cabinet process is slow, not just the time lines the minister outlined, but when you superimpose on that human frailty, people leaving things to the last minute—I am personally aware of situations where people have finished work on a Friday not knowing whether they still have their job on the Monday because somewhere along the line someone has failed to get the paperwork in time for the cabinet submission for Executive Council and everything that flows from that.

I think in the circumstances, whilst normally the Greens would vote for more scrutiny and more rigor, given that this has come from SACAT itself we are inclined to support clause 161 as it stands, so not support the removal of that clause, and we will be voting accordingly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will support retention of the clause.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the clause as it stands.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (162 to 203) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.