HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE: SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION ACT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the report of the Legislative Review Committee, into the Postponement of Regulations from Expiry under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978, be noted.

(Continued from 10 November 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:18): I rise to speak on the motion to note the report of the Legislative Review Committee into the Postponement of Regulations from Expiry under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978. On 14 October 2009, the Legislative Review Committee resolved to inquire into the volume of subordinate legislation being postponed from expiry under this act. The substantive work of this report was undertaken by the committee of the last parliament and the staff of the committee, and I acknowledge them both.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 provides that all regulations, that is, delegated legislation, is to expire 10 years after it comes into effect. This is to facilitate a set of regulations that remain relevant to the community, to business and to government. Under section 16C the expiry date is able to be postponed for a period exceeding two years at a time and not exceeding four years in aggregate. Regulations that are postponed from expiry under the act are referred to the Legislative Review Committee each year.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 does not require any justification for postponement of expiry. The four-year postponement amendment was only intended to be used in special circumstances. However, it is now in common use. In contrast, New South Wales has specific postponement guidelines, and they could be used as a guide in South Australia. Over the past eight years the number of regulations being postponed from expiry in South Australia has steadily increased. In 2002 a total of 48 regulations were postponed. By 2009 this had increased to 100 postponements and 88 in 2010. Many regulations have been postponed multiple times.

Although the statistics demonstrate that the proportion of regulations postponed from expiry has remained consistent, the number of regulations being postponed each year in South Australia has increased yearly. A comparison between a number of regulations considered for postponement in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria illustrates a significant difference in the volume of regulations postponed in each state.

Statistics from both New South Wales and Victoria indicate a decrease in the actual number of regulations considered by their respective scrutinising committees: the New South Wales Legislation Review Committee and the Victorian Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. For example, the report shows that under this government, from 2003 to 2009, the number of regulations considered for expiry more than doubled from 49 to 100.

Over the same period the number under consideration in Victoria fell by 38 per cent, from 18 to 11, in the period 2004 to 2009. In New South Wales it fell 48 per cent, from 58 to 30. Even compared with other Labor administrations this government is tired and is failing to properly manage public administration and legislation.

The Legislation Review Committee found that the number of regulations that are postponed in South Australia is excessive. A 10-year lifespan for regulations is appropriate, and the government needs to improve its performance in properly managing the review of subordinate legislation. The committee has made a number of recommendations:

1. That all regulations due for expiry after 10 years are reviewed and postponements are granted in exceptional circumstances.

2. That the principal act, the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978, be amended specifically to incorporate Recommendation 1.

3. Guidelines should be developed which outline in detail the circumstances in which postponement will be granted. This is in line with the original intention and justification of the act, and that is that extension for postponement should only be sought in exceptional circumstances.

I support the motion and commend the report to all members. After all, it is a report that serves to inform us as we undertake the sober responsibility to oversee the subordinate legislation of this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT