Bills

Health Care (Governance) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 25 July 2018.)

Clause 15.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

Amendment No 5 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 11, line 8 [clause 15, inserted clause 3(3)]—Delete 'they are incurred' and substitute:

they are paid for by the board (whether directly or by reimbursement to the member)

Amendment No 6 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 12, lines 1 to 10 [clause 15, inserted clause 7]—Delete inserted clause 7

Amendment No 7 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 12, line 12 [clause 15, inserted clause 8(1)]—Delete 'a meeting' and substitute:

an annual public meeting

Amendment No 8 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 15, line 25 to page 21, line 35 [clause 15, inserted Schedule 3A]—Delete inserted Schedule 3A

Amendment No 1 [EnergyMin–2]—

Page 10, lines 11 to 14 [clause 15, inserted clause 1(1)]—Delete inserted subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister is to appoint 1 of the members of a governing board (by the member's instrument of appointment or by other instrument executed by the Minister) as Chairperson of the board.

(1a) The Minister may appoint 1 of the members of a governing board (by the member's instrument of appointment or by other instrument executed by the Minister) as Deputy Chairperson of the board and, if a member is so appointed, that member will, in the absence of the Chairperson, act in the office of the Chairperson.

Amendment No 2 [EnergyMin–2]—

Page 12, line 31 [clause 15, inserted clause 9(3)]—After 'Chairperson' insert '(if any)'

This is in regard to amendment No. 1. The effect of this amendment is to provide the minister with discretion whether or not to appoint a deputy chairperson to a governing board. The intent is essentially that clause 1 of schedule 3 currently requires the minister to appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson. This is a minor amendment which provides the minister with discretion whether to appoint a deputy chair to a governing board. I am advised that the remuneration amendment is just a minor wording change and that the others are all consequential amendments.

Mr PICTON: In relation to amendment No. 6, you are deleting a clause (clause 7) in relation to the conflict of interest under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995. It is a very wordily written piece of drafting. It sounds like it is relatively important, to me. Why is that being deleted?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that we believe that it was incorporated into the new section 33D that was passed yesterday.

Mr PICTON: Bear my lack of recollection of each section number in its entirety. Is that in relation to disclosure of interests?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, that is correct.

Mr PICTON: So you are saying that because you are now going for the slimmer disclosure of interests you no longer need this section. There is no longer any conflict between these acts whatsoever.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We are going for the standard disclosure of interest.

Mr PICTON: In relation to amendment No. 7, what consequence is it in terms of the name change between a meeting and an annual public meeting?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that it was to remove any potential doubt about the fact that the meeting is open to the public.

Mr PICTON: In relation to amendments Nos 1 and 2, what were the issues with the original wording that the government had in relation to these sections which I understand was unamended in the other place? Why has this wording been required to change?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Shadow, I am advised that it was actually to give the minister some appropriate flexibility so that it does not lock him into a specific number. It gives him the opportunity to have a bit of flexibility with regard to the number of members of the board.

Mr PICTON: Can the minister explain how that is the case because, as I understand it, there would not be any change to the numbers of the members of the board based on the different wording. Essentially, there would still be the same numbers; it is just worded differently. How is it the case that there is flexibility now in terms of the numbers? What are the changes in what the potential numbers could have been before to what they will be after the passage of this section?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Shadow, as you know, the minimum number is six. There is an opportunity for the minister to appoint more if he or she wishes to do so at another time. The government believes that it is important for the minister to have the flexibility, and part of that flexibility that may well be relevant is whether or not there is a deputy chair. It might be that the minister and the chair agree that a board with six people does not require a deputy chair. It might well be that they prefer, in another situation, to have a board of eight people with a deputy chair.

Just removing the requirement to appoint a deputy chair gives the minister greater flexibility with regard to getting the right number of people onto the board, keeping in mind that the right number of people is all about getting the skills mix right so that the board can deliver for local people.

Mr PICTON: I am still wondering, essentially, what this will mean in terms of the number of people on the board. I take it that the minister is saying that there is the potential that a deputy chair may not be appointed. However, the minister previously said that this is going to give the minister flexibility in the total number of people that will be appointed to the board. How many people could the minister have appointed to the board previously, and now how many people could the minister, with this new flexibility, appoint to the board?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have answered the second part of that question in my last answer, but let me go into a little bit more detail for you. As I said before, there is an expected minimum of six. It could be more. The government believes that by removing the obligation to have a deputy chair but retaining the opportunity to have a deputy chair it gives the minister more flexibility with regard to the number of people that he might choose to have.

For a certain board, in a certain area, with a certain mix of board members, it may be entirely appropriate to have a six-member board with a chair and a deputy chair and four members who are not a chair or deputy chair, but for another group it might be entirely appropriate to have a board of six with a chair and no deputy so that the other five are board members and none of them are chair or deputy chair; or it might be appropriate to have more than six. Just removing that obligation, I am advised, gives the minister greater flexibility with regard to getting the right people, and the right number of people, onto those boards.

The CHAIR: Just before you go on, I realise this is a big clause and there are amendments, some consequential, but this will be your eighth question.

Mr PICTON: On six different amendments.

The CHAIR: Some are consequential, and they have been moved en bloc. Anyway, just keep that in mind. I am prepared to let you go for a little while.

Mr PICTON: I do not have many more, but I am just trying to seek clarification on an important point. Under these proposed amendments, what is the minimum number of people that would be on a board and what is the maximum number of people that would be on a board?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A minimum of six and a maximum of eight.

Mr PICTON: So there is no change to that. Chair, I appreciate your willingness to allow me to ask a number of questions. Just for the record, I note that based on the assurances from the minister that these amendments are minor and consequential, the opposition is happy to support amendments Nos 1-2, 2-2 and 5-1 and 7-1, but we will be opposing amendments Nos 6-1 and 8-1 on the basis that these are consequential to the amendments that we previously opposed in relation to watering down the disclosure regime.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, that may be difficult to achieve, given that the amendments have been moved en bloc, but I guess from your perspective you have at least put it on the record.

Mr PICTON: It is on the record.

The CHAIR: Yes, I understand that. The question then is that the amendments standing in the name of the Minister for Energy and Mining be agreed to.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:16): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.