STATUTES AMENDMENT (ADVISORY PANELS REPEAL) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2007. Page 1184.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:47): I indicate that I am the opposition's lead speaker and, I dare say, its only speaker on this particular issue. The Statutes Amendment (Advisory Panels Repeal) Bill is very simple in its intent. The opposition will oppose it for the following reasons.

For those who are not familiar with the bill, it seeks to abolish a number of advisory panels that are established under the act and the associated regulations to do with the building industry, the plumbing industry and the electrical industry. As the house might recall, I have a background in that industry of some 15 years prior to entering this place.

The bill seeks to repeal the mandatory requirement to have advisory panels. The reality is that the government wishes to replace it with a system whereby we are going to trust the minister and OCBA to talk to the industry when there are important matters at hand. Call me a cynic, but I think—and the opposition thinks—that this will be a poor system. The reason I think that it will be a poor system is that the proof is in the pudding under this minister. Go and speak to any of the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating.'

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, the proof of the pudding is with this minister. The reality is that under this minister's watch of the portfolio, the advisory panels have hardly met. The legislation and regulations do not stipulate that they have to meet bimonthly or monthly or at a stipulated time; they just have to be formed. When you speak to the various groups, they say that the advisory panel has met on a less frequent basis under this minister.

If the law requires a mandated panel, and then it hardly meets, you would have to ask yourself what chance there is of meeting when the panels become non-obligatory, when it is simply a case of, 'We will meet you when we have something to talk about.' The reality is that the building, plumbing and electrical industries are littered with people with complaints. I come from the industry and I know there are lots of complaints about the industry. There are also lots of great ideas from the industry about how to improve the industry, whether that be apprentice training, safety training or the codes under which they work. It does not matter, there are plenty of ideas. I see nothing wrong with having a mandated requirement that the minister must sit down and talk to the industry on a regular basis so that the communication can work both ways. It has not worked both ways currently because, in a formal sense, these panels rarely meet.

The minister and OCBA will say, 'When there is an important issue, we can just ring up and meet and talk to whoever in the industry,' and that is true. They can do that at any time. However, in my view, there must be something more formal than that so that the industry has a guarantee that OCBA will talk to these particular industry groups. The telling point here is that some of the groups involved in the panels did not even know that the panels were to be abolished until the opposition approached them. If your communication is that good in that the people on the panels do not even know they are being abolished and the system with which you are replacing them is 'trust us we will come to you when we need to', why would you trust that system if you are an industry group when they are abolishing advisory panels and have not even told you?

So, I do not hold the blind faith the minister or, indeed, OCBA does in relation to whether these panels should be compulsory or voluntary. I fought OCBA for six years on the Growdens issue. I know how some of the OCBA officers think. I think the panels need to be mandated so that the industry groups have a regular and guaranteed access to OCBA and the minister. If you are an industry group and you want to raise a series of negatives and tip a bucket on the government in a private meeting, if it is not a mandated meeting officers can shield the minister and the government from that meeting by simply not having it.

I think the building industry is too important. It has too many occupational health and safety issues, whether it be in the electrical, plumbing or general building industry. Training issues, skills shortage issues and a whole range of issues can be raised through these formal panels that may not be raised through the informal process. Who attends the formal panel is also mandated. There is not a selected meeting of like minds, whether that be in a positive or a negative sense. OCBA will not simply be saying, 'Well, we'll have you two in but not the other four.' There is actually a guaranteed invitation list to the meetings so that we know there is a truly representative spread of the industries through these advisory panels.

I know the previous opposition spokesman on consumer affairs considered amendments, but when one looks at the regulations virtually everything that was going to be considered in the amendments was already in the regulations, except for the compulsion to meet on a regular basis as in quarterly, bimonthly, six monthly or whatever. I have decided that the reality is that it is not worth moving an amendment for that one point. Ultimately, I think it is up to the minister to drive that and issue a request to OCBA that it meets on a set, regular basis.

The reality is this: what the government is saying is that the panels have not met very regularly over the last few years because there are less issues to discuss, and therefore—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Fewer issues.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In the seat of Croydon there are fewer issues; in the seat of Davenport there are less of them! The reality is that the industry is jam-packed full of issues that need to be dealt with by government on a consistent and regular basis. The reason that the panels have not met is because OCBA have not called the meetings. The very group that have not called the meetings are now going to be placed under the government's scheme in charge of calling future meetings. Well, let's all trust that. I'm sorry, I've been a licensed builder, I have been before OCBA as a builder, my brother is a plumber, I understand how the building industry works—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Why did you go before OCBA?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Someone complained about some work. I will tell you what happened. You might want to look at this, minister. We tendered on a house at Upper Sturt, and the lady wanted us to put in large concrete in-situ paving, without construction joints. We said, 'Well, if you put it in without construction joints it will crack,' and so we argued for two months, and she wasn't going to pay some money so we did it. And would you believe: about 18 months later it cracked. They went to OCBA and complained of faulty workmanship, and OCBA said, 'Ah, you silly builders, what you should have done is not done the work.' So we had to fix the work, and we did. So I have dealt with OCBA. They are very sensible officers. When you tell someone it is going to crack, and it cracks, it was almost a guarantee.

The reality is that I think there are a thousand issues in the building industry that need to be addressed. Why would you be saying to an industry group: 'We are not going to have a guaranteed meeting, because the meetings that we are meant to be having the department has not been calling, and because the department has not been calling them the system has not been working, and, because the system is working, the only meetings we are going to have in the future will be when the department calls them. Really? I'm sorry, doesn't work for me, doesn't work for the opposition.

There is not one industry group, not one of them, that supports what the government is doing. The only people that support what the government is doing is OCBA. Why? Because it lightens their load. It will lighten their load because the meetings will only be called when ultimately there is either a frontpage issue, like there was the other night, about Peter Batson Homes, or there is some media issue that needs to be dealt with. There is a truckload of issues in the building industry. Go to any building site and look at the truckload of issues that are being discussed by these particular advisory groups.

So, the opposition is not moving amendments. This particular bill is going to upset the building industry. That will drive them towards the opposition. The opposition is not going to stand in the way of this issue. We will certainly be opposing it. We will certainly be encouraging all members of the upper house to oppose what is a stupid move to get rid of—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You like committees and bureaucracy.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, not at all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: If you return the power these panels will proliferate.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, the panels are not going to increase, Attorney. The Attorney makes some silly interjections, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The panels will just continue on in their current form. But I will tell you what would happen, Attorney. They would have a minister that would actually ask the panels to meet on a regular basis.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I would attend some of these. As a builder I would like to go along, because I have got some views about how the industry—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are certainly not going as minister.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, you don't know. You never know what is around the corner, Attorney. You never know what is around the corner. So, the reality is—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is well behind you now. You were an Indian summer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You think so? Oh, we'll see.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Attorney, I am only 48. How old are you?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: 49.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Fair enough. I reckon you might finish before I do.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I started before you did.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, that's right; but I got there before you did. The reality is that there is no reason whatsoever to get rid of these compulsory panels. The industry is too important, and I believe that the minister is making a very grave mistake. The minister should be doing the exact opposite: the minister should be saying to OCBA, 'We're not wearing this: re'—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Invigorate.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is a good word, I will use that—'reinvigorate—particularly in the city of Croydon—all these committees so that the builders, plumbers and electricians, through their advisory groups, can raise appropriate issues to be dealt with by the minister's department.'

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:00): I have been in this place for some years, and I believe that the speech and the reasons just given by the member for Davenport are absolutely excellent. It is great that we have MPs with some expertise and commonsense. I wish to express how impressed I was with the member for Davenport's reasoning on the subject, because I have a fair knowledge of the building trade, having been a bush plumber and a bush electrician (when you were allowed). However, I understand the shonky practices that occur in the building industry, particularly today, when we have pre-formed steel fabrication, gyprock and external blueboard— materials which are very quick and very efficient to use but hide a million sins. Builders can get away with murder with inferior work.

Today is the time and the era when we do need effective advisory panels keeping a check on the building industry. At the moment, we know that the industry is extremely competitive and there is a strong push to keep the costs down so people can afford these houses. On the other hand, the houses must be safe and people must receive value for money.

I believe that the member for Davenport has put a very good case. I cannot work out the government's reasoning for doing this. Why would one hand the power to Sir Humphrey? For my birthday, I was given a full set of Yes Minister. I despair when I watch these episodes. Often I cannot laugh because it is so true. Here the government is—the classic case—handing the full power to Sir Humphrey. They will meet when they want and be in complete control.

I have been around for sometime—and I note the ex-mayor of Port Pirie sitting in the corner. We can recall, over the years, many instances of local government experiencing problems with shonky building work. I cannot believe that the government would do this at this point in time. I do not know the rationale. Maybe the minister will tell us in her speech why she is doing this. Yes, you can say that, from the outset, you are cutting bureaucracy. However, I believe the opposite is true.

I am horrified to learn from listening to the member for Davenport that the people sitting on these panels did not know they were to be rubbed out until they were contacted by the opposition. Not only is that deplorable, but that is jolly bad manners—just damn poor form. I presume people were paid for sitting on the panels, or, in some cases, probably volunteered to sit on these panels. I believe that it is not very professional for those people to hear from us that they were to be sacked.

I wish the government would listen to this—and I am not confident that it will change its mind. I believe that the case put by the member for Davenport today was very good, excellent—one of the best I have heard in this place. The opposition will certainly support the member for Davenport and we will certainly oppose this bill with a lot of vigour.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (16:04): This piece of legislation is, in fact, in response to some of recommendations that came from the Economic Development Board some time ago, because it was concerned about the proliferation of boards and committees across government.

The then commissioner for consumer affairs made an assessment. These particular boards were established back in 1995 to help develop appropriate licensing criteria at that time and policies and procedures around legislation and there appear to be fewer issues in relation to those specific issues. However, this is not an indication that the government does not want consultation with the industries: it does. It is just a simple matter of fact that they do not need to be meeting bi-monthly. We are committed to consulting with industry stakeholders and will continue to do so through a whole range of measures on specific issues. There is no point in very busy people in industry meeting when they have no issues to discuss.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I have an open door policy. No-one has been refused a meeting with me since I have been Minister for Consumer Affairs. No industry-based organisation has been refused a meeting with me. They meet with me and my staff and regularly meet with the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. That is not an issue. This is just basically following up on some recommendations from the Economic Development Board and business leaders here in South Australia, and the government will proceed with the legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a couple of general questions—only three, I think, from memory. This is a very short bill, of course. All it does is delete two provisions, ultimately, in a couple of acts so there is not a lot of detail to ask questions on. The minister raises the issue that the abolition of these panels is the recommendation of the Economic Development Board. Can the minister confirm that the Economic Development Board did not specifically recommend the abolition of these three panels but, rather, recommended a reduction in government boards more generally and it was the government's decision to delete these panels?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: That is correct.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the minister explain why all of the industry associations involved in these panels were not notified that the panels were going to be abolished before the government announced it?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: My advice is that, in fact, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs—the former commissioner, not the current acting commissioner—prior to my becoming minister in fact contacted all the members of those advisory boards and advised them on what action was going to be taken.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My question related to all of the industry associations, and the answer just given, as I understood it, referred to all members of the panels. Can the minister confirm that all members of the panels and all industry associations affected by this bill were contacted prior to the government's announcing that they were going to be abolished and advised of that course of action? Is that what the minister is advising the house?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: As I said, it was before I was minister. My advice is that is what the commissioner for consumer affairs did. If that is not correct, we will get that advice and bring it back to the member. I am advised that they were all contacted in writing.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My last question is: will the minister table the letter sent out by the commissioner and the list of people it was sent to?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I will provide the member with copies.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On the understanding that will be before this is voted on in the other place, so that I can consider it?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: On the understanding that this is advice I have received and, as I said, it was before I was minister. But it was my understanding from my discussions with the former commissioner that that had taken place.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My understanding of the abolition of these panels is that the meetings between OCBA and the industry associations will occur now only when OCBA agrees and involve only those people OCBA agrees to.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Some time ago I asked the commissioner to prepare a schedule of meeting dates with those industry associations and, as I understand it, that has been done.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But there is nothing to stop them being cancelled, and you did not answer the question about who controls and who attends. Can OCBA just invite only the people they want? Where is the obligation on OCBA to invite the same members of the panels? Is it not true that now it is purely at OCBA's discretion ultimately?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: As I understand is the case with all advisory panels. Because they can meet, they do not have to meet.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You consistently do not answer the part about who decides who attends. Who decides who attends these laissez-faire meetings now?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The Office of Consumer and Business Affairs is very good at consulting with organisations, and I cannot imagine a situation where they would deliberately exclude a relevant industry organisation when an issue directly impacted it. I would be very disappointed and very annoyed if it did.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (16:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:14): I thank the officers for their input to the bill and the briefing of the previous shadow. I will make this point to the house: the minister has just told the house that she has asked OCBA to set up regular meetings with the industry groups about these panels. One could interpret that as meaning that the panels are going to continue in an informal manner. If the panels are going to continue in an informal manner, the only reason the government is doing this is so that it can go out and say that it has got rid of three panels. If the minister is to be believed, she has asked OCBA to set up regular meetings with these panels or industry groups, and everyone who needs to be involved will be involved, so that will involve everyone who is currently on the panels. Essentially, all the minister is saying is, 'Let's get three titles so that when the government goes to the election, it can say we got rid of these three panels.' But the reality is that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You'll be calling for the panels to be got rid of.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They will be continuing in an informal manner. I am showing the falseness of the argument, Attorney. I want to maintain the panels. I think the industry is important enough.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Your leader has been calling for a cut in government committees and commissions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Did he specify these three?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reality is that is what has happened with this bill. The minister has confirmed to the house, dates have been requested for meetings with the industry groups that are involved in those industries. Everyone is going to be included so, at least, the same panel groups are going to be represented. It is purely about a headline. I will be lobbying in the upper house to reinstate, because the costings obviously are going to be there. OCBA, according to you, is still going to be doing the work. Let's formalise it and keep it there so that the industry has a guaranteed voice.

Bill read a third time and passed.