Bills

Industry Advocate Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2017.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:00): I will continue my remarks on this bill from yesterday. Obviously the strong interest I have in this bill centres around steel, but there is a whole raft of other aspects that are crucially important for the economic development of our state. The work done to date by the Industry Advocate and his office has made a very positive contribution when it comes to state procurement policy in South Australia.

I will carry on with my remarks about the steel industry. The South Australian government believes that the quality of locally produced steel and steelwork creates a competitive advantage for our steel suppliers and fabricators that should be capitalised on. Government projects that use significant amounts of steel include a 20 per cent industry participation weighting at tender that measures commitment to local jobs, investment and the supply chain opportunities. As I said yesterday, this participation policy represents a very important part of the approach to maximising, for South Australia-based companies, the economic opportunities that exist. This is especially important for the steel industry.

The success of this policy is already evident through projects like the Northern Connector road project won by Lendlease Engineering. The Northern Connector will use about 7,500 tonnes of reinforcing or structural steel from the Arrium steelworks in Whyalla in the $985 million construction project. It is probably also worth mentioning, when it comes to reinforcing, that the actual reinforcing itself is not produced in Whyalla. It is produced in the Eastern States, but the steelworks in Whyalla produce the billets that are then sent to the Eastern States to be turned into reinforcing.

Other key state-funded infrastructure projects that incorporate the use of steel from Australian standard-certified mills and fabricators include the Torrens to Torrens, O-Bahn City Access and the Darlington Upgrade projects. These have already given Arrium an estimated steel component benefit of approximately $68 million. Tony Dixon from the Australian Steel Institute notes, 'The introduction of this bill to parliament fully demonstrates the South Australian government's continued commitment to maximising opportunities for local industry.'

When we initially launched the policy surrounding steel back in Whyalla towards the end of 2015 I think it was, the peak body, the Australian Steel Institute, at the time indicated that this was the best policy in the nation. He was keen, as I was, for other states and the federal government to replicate the very progressive policy position we had taken in South Australia when it came to supporting the steel industry. Arrium management at the time also indicated that it was a fantastic policy, the best policy in the country, and a policy that would lead to a very tangible difference in the use of Australian steel when it came to taxpayer-funded projects in South Australia. They also hoped that we would see this policy replicated elsewhere in the country.

Recent revisions to the South Australian Industry Participation Policy have also seen a greater focus on opportunities for regional development from government procurement activities. One of the issues with regional businesses is that over time they have missed out on some of the state-based procurement work. Sometimes it is the issue of scale and sometimes it is the emphasis on efficiency and reducing cost that often leads to very big companies being able to deliver price savings, but this often comes at the expense of regional businesses. We need a far more nuanced approach to ensuring that regional businesses benefit from state government procurement policy.

Public procurement spending in regional areas provides important flow-on benefits to the rest of the community. This encourages regional businesses, directly and indirectly involved in supplying to government, to invest, improve and expand their operations. A recent example of that is the refurbishment of a number of Housing SA properties in Whyalla. That has been structured in a way to directly benefit local contractors and local employment. There have been a number of examples of that nature lately. It was great to see some of the STEM developments in our school system, with regional businesses winning those particular contracts.

We want to make sure that regional businesses get opportunities to win government contracts. Under the revised policy, for any contract valued above $33,000 in a region, government agencies will need to seek a quote from a business in that region. There is a new regional industry participation plan template for contracts valued at $1 million or greater that sees a larger proportion of the industry participation weighting attributed to businesses based in the region, helping those businesses achieve a higher industry participation score in tender evaluations. That is an important step forward that will help a number of businesses located in regional South Australia. I believe there is a lot more that we can be doing to assist regional businesses.

Jeremy Hawkes, managing director of Bowhill Engineering, a regional steel fabrication business, says:

The work we now have on large infrastructure project is a direct result of the State Government's Industry Participation Policy…and the role of the Industry Advocate...

Yesterday, I noted with interest some of the comments made by the member for Mitchell when he was speaking to the bill. I am pleased those opposite, in the main, support the bill. The member for Mitchell was emphasising the challenges faced by the South Australian economy when it comes to employment. Of course, it was all doom and gloom: a litany of negatives. There are some real challenges out there arising, if you like, out of the historical structure of the South Australian economy. But there are strategies in place to start to address some of those challenges. I am pleased with some of the strategies that are going to significantly benefit regional South Australia.

I highlight the $20 million copper strategy that has been developed by the state and, before the development of that copper strategy, the PACE program, which had already established some successes when it came to copper resources in South Australia. As a direct result of state government intervention and financial assistance with the exploration program, we helped uncover the largest undeveloped copper deposit in Australia.

It looks like that is now going to translate into real jobs in regional South Australia, potentially 400 jobs during construction at Carrapateena and 400 jobs at the mine site in an ongoing sense, not to mention the 100 jobs that will be developed at the copper concentrate plant. I believe that there is a real potential to build on those initiatives through the very sophisticated copper strategy that is being developed.

Another one of those mineral-based strategies is the magnetite strategy. We have a massive magnetite resource in this state, and there is a strong belief that over time China and other countries are going to increasingly shift to magnetite because it is a cleaner source, if you like, of iron ore, given that it is an exothermic mineral when processed, so it gives off energy and brings companies exploiting it down on the cost curve. They are a couple of strategies that I think are going to benefit South Australia and Australia in the long run.

I am always interested when those opposite start talking about renewables, and I should flag that I have had an active involvement in the renewable sector in one way or another going back to 1998. The member for Mitchell commented the other week that we should adopt the national target when it comes to renewables. Expressed as a percentage, that is 23.5 per cent, so to ask us to adopt the national target is a bizarre policy, given that we are up around 50 per cent.

I would like to go around regional communities with the member for Mitchell and explain which of the wind farms that are currently in place should close. He could come to Whyalla with me where we have the first utility-scale solar project on the way, which is employing local contractors, and he could come and explain to them why that project should come to an end because we exceed by far this national target. I could take him to Ottoway Engineering—

Time expired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that the live streaming is being tested today, so work out which side is your best angle for the camera and then make sure it is facing whichever camera you are closest to.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:12): I would like to make a few comments in support of the Industry Advocate Bill from my perspective as a member of parliament who represents Gawler and the northern suburbs. From my reading of the bill, this new legislation will provide the Industry Advocate with more power to recommend reforms to state government and ensure that commitments made by contractors through industry participation plans are acted upon.

In addition to recent policy reforms, the Industry Advocate has been given the power to investigate why competitive South Australian suppliers miss out on government contracts. So, it is quite clear that when this bill passes and becomes an act, it will enable the Industry Advocate to make sure that he can advocate for small business in South Australia.

The South Australian Industry Participation Policy has recently been revised to incorporate into a single comprehensive framework the strategic procurement policy regarding steel, regional development, Aboriginal participation, innovation and growth, investment attraction and economic participation in regions, so we are really focusing on ensuring that jobs remain in South Australia. The bill sets out the objectives of the South Australian Industry Participation Policy and confirms the South Australian government's commitment to the establishment and maintenance of the South Australian Industry Participation Policy. It also establishes the Industry Advocate as a statutory position with specific functions and powers to further the objectives of the policy.

The bill makes very clear this government's commitment to putting small business at the centre of all of our economic policy and outlines a whole range of functions for the Industry Advocate. One that I would like to draw upon in addition to the ones that are mentioned in the bill is to also encourage the adoption of industry participation principles by local government. I think that is a very important function because one of the complaints I receive from local small business in my area—and in fact it was reported in the local newspapers over the last 12 months—is that some small businesses that win state government contracts unfortunately do not even get invited to participate in the process for tenders for local contracts.

The small businesses I am talking about are not saying they should be given the contract automatically. What they are saying is that they would like to know when the council has contracts out and be invited to participate in the tender process. It is as simple as that, yet it does not happen. This policy, which is now a state government policy, encourages local government. It would be great to see local councils do what we are doing at a state level. That does not mean all local businesses will win that work, but at least it puts them in the running and, given their local knowledge, and given perhaps that they have a lower cost structure because they are local, they may be able to compete effectively for this business, which is very important.

I will certainly be discussing this bill and this provision with councils in my area and asking them to make sure that they perhaps have a register of local businesses and invite them or make them aware when tenders are actually out there to be won. For constituents and particularly business constituents in my area, which is Gawler and the northern suburbs, this bill guarantees that the focus on jobs and investment will continue through projects like those flowing from the recently announced $1.1 billion in funding for hospitals throughout the metropolitan area, including the $52.5 million announcement for the upgrade of the Lyell McEwin Hospital. The Lyell McEwin Hospital will clearly create quite a few jobs and, hopefully, people in the northern areas will win that work.

It is not only the northern area: there are also places like Gawler that will benefit from this. I am mindful that it was recently announced that an agreement has been reached between the state government, the Town of Gawler and also the developers of the Gawler East Springwood development regarding the announcement of the $55 million Gawler East Link Road project. That road project will be subject to the state government's Industry Participation Policy, which means that a whole range of small construction companies in the Gawler and surrounding regions and the local northern areas will actually be able to compete for that work.

It is not only small companies that will be able to compete for that work, but also a whole range of people who are seeking employment because they are finding it hard to find employment will be given a chance to find some meaningful work as well. This policy benefits my community in two ways. Firstly, it enables small business to compete for the work and, secondly, it also helps people to get jobs in that area. Added to the massive Northern Connector project, as it moves into full swing, opportunities for small business and local jobs continue to grow in accordance with the Northern Connector Industry Participation Plan. That is the important part. Big projects will have their own plans to ensure they achieve the various objectives of the overall bill and our policy.

The Northern Connector road project commits the project to an average of 480 full-time jobs each year during the construction and at least 20 per cent of labour hours being filled by apprentices and trainees, Aboriginal workers and people facing barriers to employment. People living with a disability may be in that category as well, which I think is very important in giving everybody a fair go. The project is also committed to ensuring that 90 per cent of all on-site labour hours will be performed by South Australians and at least 50 per cent of those hours will be performed by residents from the northern suburbs and the Gawler area. This is a major job boost to the northern area.

A great example of these commitments in action is the traffic control contract awarded to SEM Traffic Control as part of the SEM Group of Companies. This will allow the business to maintain its current workforce and expand their traffic control division with 13 new employees and the purchase of an additional four fully-equipped traffic control vehicles. The general manager of SEM Group has been quoted as saying:

Due to being awarded the contract for traffic management with the Northern Connector project, SEM will continue to support local businesses with almost 100 per cent of the supply chain based in South Australia.

Mr Stephen Fines-Phillips, General Manager of SEM, said that this sort of policy benefits South Australians. Currently, all SEM subcontractors are local small to medium enterprises, and 100 per cent of all the signs purchased for the traffic control project at the Northern Connector were manufactured in South Australia.

SEM Group, which started as Salisbury Earthmovers, is a privately owned South Australian business established in 1976 by Harry and Janice Wauer as a small earthmoving business which has turned into a diverse civil engineering contractor specialising in South Australia-based construction projects. This highlights that if we have the appropriate state government and, importantly, federal government policies, we can use our projects and purchasing power to promote, support and grow small businesses and local businesses in our communities. Mr Colin Coulson, SEM Group Construction Manager, said:

Over the past few years, SEM have attended numerous Meet the Buyer events which are run by the Office of the Industry Advocate and I would highly recommend businesses to add these events to their calendar as it has enabled us not only to meet key state government staff for project management and procurement but also to meet new potential suppliers.

With those comments, I commend this bill to the parliament.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (12:21): Thank you, member for Kaurna, for giving me an opportunity before you close the debate. I thought it was too important a bill for me to pass over because to support the enshrinement of the Industry Advocate in legislation is extremely important and to have a Governor appointment to really cement the seriousness of it. The reason I say this is that over time I have had a number of chances to meet with Ian Nightingale, who is here in the gallery and I appreciate him being here. He is extremely supportive of business and small business and ensuring that they are heard and have their fair share of business in this state.

I have been really grateful to Mr Nightingale. He has been in my electorate a number of times. I am involved very closely with what was previously known as ERBA (Edwardstown Region Business Association) and is now Southern Business Connections. Its membership is made up of a number of small to medium-sized businesses. I think the membership has grown now over the last few years to be about 120 or 130 businesses. They are a very focused group of people who are there to ensure that the South Australian economy does indeed grow. They see the value of the Industry Advocate, and every time I meet with them they have nothing but praise for this particular individual, Mr Nightingale, and the position he holds.

To have a position like this that can advocate on behalf of business is essential to not just the economic growth of our state but also to the social development of our state, because within this legislation is the expectation that there will be local South Australian content of materials in the building and construction industry, but also, really importantly, that there will be a percentage of local people.

There is the expectation that contractors will employ a certain percentage, if not all, of local employees. This really goes to the strength of this particular government to recognise the importance of this South Australian economy that is built on South Australian products and South Australian people, while recognising certainly that we need to have other players come in from interstate. We need to maintain this focus to ensure that our economy does indeed flourish and grow.

I think to have enshrined in legislation this particular position that will advocate on behalf of business for procurement of goods and services to connect to interstate government building and infrastructure projects is really important. It also supports those interested in in public-private partnerships and federally funded projects, where the state government has the responsibility to ensure those projects come to fruition. It is very important.

Phil Sutherland of the Civil Construction Federation is always very supportive of any type of functionality that the government puts forward that will support development in our state and the flourishing of particularly his industry. He and I often joke that we like being late for appointments when it is due to roadworks because that means we are building things and people are employed. He and I have had that experience quite a few times where we have been late meeting each other, but that is an absolute positive.

I also know Paul Williams from the Australian Subcontractors Association very well. He owns a business in St Marys in the new Elder. I have known him for some time now. He is very committed to ensuring that our state flourishes and grows. He goes above and beyond the borders of his own business to ensure that business is certainly represented in the contract, subcontract and sub-subcontract sections of our community.

In my role as Chair of the Public Works Committee, I highly value the role that the position the Industry Advocate plays and will continue to play post being enshrined in law. Without fail, with every project that comes before the Public Works Committee, there are questions from not just one but a number of committee members about local content and local people being employed and also about the wood, steel, and what have you, coming from a South Australian base. It is extremely important.

On the edge of my electorate, I see the north-south corridor and the Darlington upgrade as an extremely visionary piece of work being undertaken right now to make sure that we have a smooth-moving north-south corridor all along South Road. This goes past the Tonsley precinct, which is in the electorate of Elder. I certainly enjoy visiting the Tonsley precinct and, I must admit, I probably end up there once a fortnight to see what is happening in the area. I am told that there are now about 112 businesses in the area that employ about 1,000 people. That is more than when Mitsubishi was there. Mitsubishi, I understand, had about 800 employees, and this now has 1,000. This is extremely exciting for this inner southern area.

There is also the Flinders University building. A second tower will be under construction in the near future. We have the TAFE, which caters for those interested in trade. It is really essential, but it is also an extremely interesting campus to visit because you can see students learning their trades through the glass window facility, doing bricklaying and carpentry just to name a few.

The other important aspect in this particular part of southern Adelaide is the plan that Flinders University has to reinvigorate the area near the Flinders Private Hospital, with the building of the Flinders Link train line that extends from the Tonsley train line. This is extremely exciting because not only will we see in this proposed development further facilities for teaching but there will also be student accommodation, other accommodation and shops—venture capital capture that can occur around the train station located near the Flinders Private Hospital. These are extremely exciting times in the inner south. It is certainly timely to have the Industry Advocate role enshrined in legislation.

On this side of the house, we are building South Australia. We are not just physically building South Australia but, in the language we use, we build South Australia. We talk up what our businesses are doing, we talk up what our small to medium-sized businesses are doing. We applaud the fact that they take risks every day to expand their businesses, take on extra people in their businesses and use the Job Accelerator Grant that we have had in place for some time. We will be looking to the budget for extra support to businesses as well, as has been heralded in the paper today regarding the payroll tax. I certainly, for one, understand the implications of that.

It is really important that in our state we talk up business and we talk up what is happening in South Australia. I know, with all the businesspeople I speak to in my area and the forums I convene—I convene quite a number of these forums—that the business community comes back to me with ideas and says, 'Can you convene a particular forum on this particular issue?' That is where Mr Nightingale comes in to support as well. He will suggest people who will be relevant speakers for these particular groups.

I know that businesses in this state want to hear us speak in a positive way. They want to hear us speak about South Australia reaching out towards interstate, towards the world. They do not want to hear the negativity that all is doom and gloom. In fact, they find that an absolute insult to what they are doing and how they are contributing to this state. Besides the physical building of our state, I think we can be proud of the dialogue that we use in building South Australia and supporting small to medium and large-sized businesses.

With those few words, I would like to say that I really absolutely, totally and thoroughly support the Industry Advocate being enshrined in law, and I look forward to the continuation of that position and the good work.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:31): I would like to thank all the members who have spoken during this debate for their contribution, particularly the members for Giles, Light and Elder, the Minister for Small Business, and the members for Mitchell, Bragg and Hammond. I appreciate the support of the opposition in supporting this bill through the chamber, although with some reservations, I think it is fair to say, from some of the speeches. I certainly support their support for this bill progressing.

We think on this side of the house that this is definitely a very important piece of legislation. We think that this is a very important position that has been brought in through the Industry Advocate over the last four years. It has made a real difference in terms of the way that we achieve support for businesses in South Australia through the record infrastructure program that we have had over the past few years and that we are projecting over the next few years as well. We want to see that work benefiting the people of South Australia, not only in the outcomes those projects will bring but also in the construction and other work delivered through those projects.

To do that needs what I see as the three different roles of the Industry Advocate, and the first is the pure advocacy role that the Industry Advocate plays in promoting businesses and connecting government and businesses, particularly in those infrastructure projects but also through the whole range of other services that government needs to contract with through the private sector. We see that through the work of the many Meet the Buyer events that happen not just in the city but around the state, in connecting those businesses and giving those businesses a way to connect in with government to bid for that work.

The second way you see it is through the actual tendering process for that work. We have what I and many have regarded as the best process in the country for assessing the local industry benefit of particular contracts. Fifteen per cent of major contracts in this state are determined upon what the benefit economically in South Australia is, and the Industry Advocate plays a very important role through that process.

Thirdly, I think the permanency, the additional powers and the independence of this bill will give the Industry Advocate an important role to play once a contract has been signed, once commitments have been made by suppliers (usually by the lead supplier), to deliver for the local workforce, to deliver for local subcontractors and to deliver for local architects and people right through the supply chain. The Industry Advocate then has the role of monitoring that contract in its delivery to make sure that the promises that have been made are actually being delivered. That is where the permanency, the independence and the power of this position will be really important because a temporary position cannot ensure that those functions can be carried out to the best of what we would hope.

I know there were some comments from the other side that perhaps this should be a temporary position that could be got rid of in the future. If you had a benefit in the future where government and business were in perfect harmony in all things, you would obviously still need this position there to provide monitoring and oversight of those contracts to make sure that we were getting what we were promised through those contracts being delivered. They are the key functions of the Industry Advocate.

I would like to go through some of the comments that have been raised during the second reading debate. Particularly, there were comments from the member for Mitchell in regard to what some of the stakeholders have been saying. We have gone through a range of consultation processes leading up to this bill, and we have been overwhelmed by the support we have received for the bill from the business community in South Australia and from industry leaders and industry organisations. A few of the organisations that were mentioned included the Ai Group and Business SA, and I am very happy to read, firstly, statements by the Ai Group from 7 April this year:

From Ai Group's perspective, we support the role and the work of the Industry Participation Advocate and the Industry Participation Policy. Feedback from our members is that the work of the Advocate has been instrumental in providing opportunities for members to showcase their capabilities.

Business SA was also quoted through its head, Nigel McBride, who stated:

Business SA was delighted to be a major lobbying force behind the creation of the Industry Advocate. We then continued to push for the Industry Advocate to have more 'teeth' and more resources, and I am pleased that the State Government has taken these steps. In these tough times, this initiative has the potential to be a real 'game changer' for many of our small to medium-size employers—and therefore, a game changer for our State's jobs and economy.

Those examples, which were mentioned by the other side, show how supportive the business community is in this state for this position and how supportive it is, as Nigel McBride said, for this position to have 'more teeth and more resources' in the future.

I would also like to address a few other issues that have been raised in the debate. It is the deputy leader's birthday today, which we should formally note—so happy birthday to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She mentioned that she intends to move some amendments, and the first is in relation to FOI provisions. Our approach to the drafting of the bill was very similar in a lot of regards to the powers and functions of the Small Business Commissioner.

There was a comment that the Small Business Commissioner did not have a similar exemption, and the quote was that it was completely novel in this legislation. I have to say that that is not the case. In fact, we drafted our provision about freedom of information directly copying what was in the Freedom of Information (Exempt Agency) Regulations 2008 regarding the Small Business Commissioner. Regulation 9 states:

9—Exempt agency in respect of certain information—Small Business Commissioner

For the purposes of the definition of exempt agency in section 4(1) of the Act, the Small Business Commissioner is declared to be an exempt agency in respect of information other than—

(a) financial and administrative information relating to the operations of the Small Business Commissioner; and

(b) statistical information that does not identify any particular person or business.

That is exactly the same as the provision we have concluded in this piece of legislation for the Industry Advocate, and the reasoning is simple. Obviously, we want the actions, the operations and the administration of the Industry Advocate and his or her staff to be subject to freedom of information as other agencies would be, but there has to be an understanding that this agency—similar to that of the Small Business Commissioner—has a very clear role in dealing with sensitive commercial documents on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis, and a lot of the documents will be very sensitive.

We want businesses to be very open with the Industry Advocate about their documents and about their information. We fear that relying just on the exemption provisions currently in the FOI Act would lead to businesses being very fearful of sharing information with the Industry Advocate. In a similar way to what happened with the Small Business Commissioner, we think that section of the Industry Advocate's work should be exempt from the act.

In fact, I am informed that the Small Business Commissioner's FOI exemption came out of negotiations with the opposition through the Legislative Review Committee when they dealt with the exemption regulation when it was brought in. Through that process with the Small Business Commissioner, there were negotiations through the Legislative Review Committee. It ended up with the words we have there for that agency, and we have now adopted the same words here for this provision. The other example was that the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island did not have an exemption in the same way. Of course, they largely deal with the Public Service rather than with the private sector in the way we are talking about here.

A few other issues have been raised. In terms of the term of appointment, we have said it is up to five years, which is consistent with the Small Business Commissioner and other senior government executive appointments. Where the government wants a smaller, shorter appointment, that is something that the government and the cabinet would certainly be able to consider.

There was also a suggestion that the Industry Advocate would not be able to, and would not need to, give a report to the parliament, which is not the case. As an agency of the Crown, the Industry Advocate will be required, under the Public Sector Act 2009, to produce an annual report which will be tabled in this parliament. That is an accountability measure that the Industry Advocate would have to this parliament to inform the parliament of its operations and how it is achieving the objectives under the act.

There were also comments in relation to the State Procurement Board. I think there was some suggestion that perhaps we could roll the work of the State Procurement Board into the work of the Industry Advocate or vice versa. We are very wary of that suggestion. The State Procurement Board has a very broad role under the State Procurement Act 2004. It deals with a whole range of different procurement matters, particularly about the processes and probity issues that need to go into our procurement processes across government, whereas we see the Industry Advocate as a very particular role, looking at the industry component and the industry economic benefit for South Australia.

Because of its very particular and separate role, we do not think that the entire gamut of procurement issues should be bundled with that role. It is going to be much more effective if those roles operate separately under our Industry Participation Policy. Obviously, the two deal with each other, work together and manage issues where they might have intersection, but I think that putting them in together would undermine the role of the Industry Advocate.

There was also discussion about the powers that the Industry Advocate would have in terms of requesting information. In the bill, we have proposed powers for the Industry Advocate, which are similar but narrower than those held by the Small Business Commissioner, to be able to require information from participants in government contracts. These powers enable the Industry Advocate to effectively investigate suspected or reported noncompliance with Industry Participation Policy commitments.

This is not a broad, unfettered power to request any information the Industry Advocate might wish to obtain. Clause 13 of the bill clearly limits this power in a number of ways, including that the information sought is required by the advocate in order to perform his or her functions under the Industry Advocate act; that the information is from participants in government projects, including subcontractors or suppliers; and that the information or documents are in the person's possession.

Given the broad nature of the investigations the Industry Advocate may be required to undertake, the bill is deliberately silent as to the nature of information or documents that may be requested under this provision so as not to unreasonably restrict the Industry Advocate in his or her investigation. Of course, once the Industry Advocate is established under this new act, we would think that guidance would be provided on the sort of information the advocate may request in a compliance and enforcement policy that the advocate would develop in consultation with key stakeholders.

The amendments that would be proposed appear to imply that there is a risk that the advocate will attempt to retain information specifically for the purpose of providing a commercial advantage to government in its negotiations with businesses or for some sort of phishing exercise. We do not think that that is the case. We think that there are protections to prevent that sort of action from occurring, including under the obligations under the Code of Ethics for the South Australian Public Sector and the Public Sector Act 2009, not to mention the various provisions under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.

There is also an issue that has been suggested, in terms that appeals should made by businesses objecting to having information requests being made and that they should be able to go to SACAT. We are concerned that might seek to limit the ability of the Industry Advocate to quickly manage issues as they arise. We also note that there are similar powers in both the Small Business Commissioner Act 2011 as well as in the Fair Trading Act 1987, which contain even broader powers to request information and maximum penalties of up to $20,000. Both those acts do not have an appeal to SACAT contained within them.

I have dealt with some of the issues that have been raised during this debate and I look forward to the committee stage. As I said, we think this is very important legislation in terms of more South Australian jobs for South Australian companies but also for South Australian employees in industries like building and construction and a whole range of other industries that we have in South Australia. We think that the Industry Advocate over the past four years has done a fantastic job, and we look forward to having this role's powers, functions and independence strengthened through this act.

I would like to thank everybody who has worked on the legislation over the past few months, in particular Ian Nightingale, the Industry Advocate, as well as Nari Chandler, the executive director of public projects and participation in the Department of State Development, for their very hard work. I also thank Jodie Rimmer in DSD and Denise Loftus in the Industry Advocate's office. I thank the Treasurer for his support of this legislation, as well as the Minister for Small Business—both are the ministers who oversee this role. I also thank parliamentary counsel, in particular Shirley Armstrong, for their very excellent work on this legislation. I would also like to thank Gemma Paech in my office and Chris Russell in the Treasurer's office for their hard work on this. With those remarks, I endorse and commend the bill to the house. I look forward to its current consideration in committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I ask the assistant minister, in respect of the new Industry Advocate position, which minister will the Industry Advocate be reporting to? Will it be the Minister for Finance, the Treasurer, the Minister for State Development or someone else?

Mr PICTON: I thank the deputy leader for her question. In regard to the powers at the moment under the administrative arrangements of the government, it would be the Minister for Finance. Of course, as with most legislation, in the way it is drafted it is usually the minister. Then it is a matter for the government to determine its administrative arrangements as to which minister it allocates different pieces of legislation. For the purposes of the government at the moment, the powers would be in relation to the Minister for Finance.

Ms CHAPMAN: I asked this question during the briefing provided by Mr Nightingale and Ms Chandler, and some information has been provided to me today in response to that. As I understand it, the Chief Procurement Officer is currently reporting to the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Is that going to continue and, if so, how is that going to align with the reporting processes currently within the Procurement Board, the new statutory authority and the Chief Procurement Officer?

Mr PICTON: As I outlined in my summing up, we do have a procurement board. We think that the functions of that procurement board under its own legislation are distinct from those of the Industry Advocate. This year, the government appointed a new chief procurement officer. Their job is to work with the Procurement Board but also to report to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for those whole-of-government procurement issues, which are obviously much broader than just the Industry Advocate participation role, which is contained within this legislation.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the Industry Advocate recount to the Minister for Finance?

Mr PICTON: Yes, the Industry Advocate, as in your first question, reports to the Minister for Finance under the administrative directions of the government, which we expect would continue once this bill is enacted.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the time that it has operated, has the Office of the Industry Advocate provided a report to the Minister for Finance each financial year?

Mr PICTON: At the moment, obviously the Industry Advocate is not a statutory body. I understand that its report is included as part of the Department of State Development's report, whereas, establishing it as a separate statutory and official body under this legislation, it would report separately to the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, has the current report from the Industry Advocate over the three financial years that it has currently operated been provided to the Minister for State Development, and is it available?

Mr PICTON: As I said, the Industry Advocate's report has been included within the department's report to the parliament. I am advised that originally when the Industry Advocate started it was in DPC; it is now in the DSD, so it is included in both of those reports, which are of course publicly available. I will be happy to send a copy to the deputy leader. But there is no separate reporting or official report that body does to the minister outside of those annual reports by the department at this stage.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify that. There is clearly a report because, as you say, it then goes into the annual report of the Department of State Development. To be clear, it is not the finance minister's report but the Department of State Development's report. It happens to be the same minister at the moment, but that may change at any time. Currently, a report is presented to the chief executive of state development. It is incorporated. It may only be a sentence in the annual report. Is the report that is currently being prepared each year for the information to be provided to the minister available and, if so, can they be provided?

Mr PICTON: If I am getting the question correct, essentially you want to know whether the section that the Industry Advocate gives to the department for their broader report is available. As I understand it, that is published as part of their department's report and therefore is publicly available.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are at cross-purposes. We get an annual report from departments. I get one from the Attorney-General's office every year. They now have a little sentence in relation to a lot of the subdivisions in it. This is a subdivision of the state development department. It may be that the Minister for State Development sees other aspects in respect of its operations in more need of reporting in its annual report to the parliament. That is a matter for them. But there is clearly data and information provided from the division to the chief executive and then, presumably, the minister.

The chief executive actually prepares the report and then the minister has certain obligations to table it in the parliament. The data and operations and reporting that are made from the Industry Advocate division, if I can call it that, to the chief executive are documented. I am asking, because only a small part of it ends up in the annual report, whether those annual reports by the Industry Advocate are available; if they are not, I will FOI them. I am just asking whether or not you want to actually produce them.

Mr PICTON: I am advised that it is not a matter, as the deputy leader suggested, that a big Industry Advocate report is given to the chief executive of the department that then gets slimmed down. What I am advised is that what is provided goes into the report, but there is obviously a lot more information and data that the Industry Advocate has that are not included in those reports. I think one of the good things of this legislation is that parliament will be provided with a lot more information on the work of the Industry Advocate in the future than is currently the case, where this is just an officer set up within the government who could be got rid of tomorrow by the government if it wanted to.

As a separate statutory officer, the Industry Advocate will provide a lot more information to the parliament than is currently the case. If there is particular information and data that the deputy leader would like about the work of the Industry Advocate, I think it is fair to say that the current holder of the Industry Advocate position, Mr Ian Nightingale, is more than happy to share the work that he does and the data and successes that they have had. I am sure that he will be very happy to provide as much information as you would like on the work of that office at the moment. In the future, that information will be provided to parliament through an annual report under the Public Sector Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to clarify that as well because the Commissioner for Victims' Rights in South Australia used to give an annual report. By statute, that officer has to give an annual report to the parliament. It is now incorporated in abbreviated form in the Attorney-General's Department. That is why I am looking for a mention in this bill for the new Industry Advocate to be obliged to provide that report, usually to a minister, and then the minister within a certain number of days to table it here in the parliament. That is not included in here.

I am looking now at clause 15—Reports to Minister. I am happy to ask these further questions on clause 15, if you would like, but that does not mention an annual reporting obligation to parliament. You say that once it is a statutory body, there is public sector legislation which will require them to give an annual report. What I am saying to you is that we already have the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. I know about that one because for about five years he did not provide his annual report, as required by the statute. I complained about it, and ultimately he provided a consolidated one via the Attorney-General to the parliament.

I want it to be clear. Usually when we have this body, as we have with the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island, there is an obligation to provide an annual report. In fact, in her case, she is actually able to come directly to the parliament with anything she wants to complain about. In this new model for your Industry Advocate, he or she has to report to the minister any current problems and must report to the minister any failure, but there is nothing in here about the obligation to provide a report of the activities of this new entity to the parliament.

Mr PICTON: I am advised that this body will have to provide an annual report under the Public Sector Act, and that is the advice we got through the drafting process through parliamentary counsel. I am happy to check in terms of the victims' commissioner and why that is different as to why they have not been providing an annual report. I am happy to look into that and check that further. It is not something that I have any information on, but I can say that it is the government's intention that this body has to report to parliament. We discussed it, we discussed it with parliamentary counsel, and the advice we got is that because it is in the Public Sector Act that these sorts of bodies have to report to parliament, we did not have to replicate that provision in this act.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.