House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Advertising for Publicly Funded Employees Bill ADVERTISING FOR PUBLICLY FUNDED EMPLOYEES BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 April 2012.) The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:26): This is a bill to do with advertising for publicly-funded employee positions brought in by the member for Fisher. The bill captures not only public sector employees but also local council employees, but also any employee whose remuneration is wholly or partly funded by state government or local councils. The Public Service Association was unaware of the bill but has indicated, under our consultation, that it has no concerns with the bill. The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting: The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If the bill reaches the committee stage we will be seeking indications from the member for Fisher about what the Local Government Association's view is on this particular matter. If the bill reaches the committee stage there are a number of questions which will need to be answered by the member for Fisher. This bill requires any non-government organisation which has an employee whose remuneration is partly or wholly funded by state or local government to comply with the bill. If the NGO receives any small grant from state or local government it will be required to comply in all circumstances with the bill. It should be noted that, if an NGO commits an offence, the maximum penalty is $5,000 or there is an expiation fee of $315. It is unclear to the opposition whether the member for Fisher has had any consultation with any non-government organisation that is going to be captured by the bill. For instance, would this bill require the Stadium Management Authority to comply if the grants have been paid to the Stadium Management Authority? If the answer to that is yes, would both the SANFL and SACA be happy with that requirement? The reality is that this bill appears to mean that all future chief executives and senior appointments in the public sector will, at the very least, have to have a remuneration range advertised. While the bill does not define what remuneration is (which may be a problem in itself), it probably should, as there will be an argument as to whether certain benefits should be costed and included in the remuneration package—for example, phones, computers, internet, car parking, newspapers, magazines, Qantas club membership and the like. Do they all get packaged up into remuneration? Despite the Liberal Party's concerns regarding this particular matter, we are prepared to support it into the second reading stage only so that we can tease out with the member for Fisher some answers to those questions and then consider our position from there. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.