Public Sector (Ministerial Travel Reports) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (10:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I indicate that the opposition were of the mind to support this bill in the upper house. Our position on that has not changed in its transferral to this house. We will be supporting the bill and look forward to its quick passage.

An honourable member: A compelling speech.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (10:50): Rich in detail. I rise to indicate that I will be the lead speaker for this bill on the government's side, and our support for the Public Sector (Ministerial Travel Reports) Amendment Bill 2023, subject to some minor amendments.

The bill seeks to amend the Public Sector Act 2009 to insert requirements that each minister who undertakes travel in their ministerial capacity outside South Australia must prepare a report within 45 days setting out the details of the travel, including the reasons for travel, the period of travel and a summary of activities undertaken in the course of travel. The minister's report must also include details of the total cost of their travel, broken down into the cost of airfares and other transport, the cost of accommodation, the cost of food and beverages, and the total of any other costs of travel.

The minister's report must include details of any public sector employee or any ministerial adviser who accompanies them and a separate breakdown of the abovementioned costs for each person. The bill requires copies of all receipts for all costs relating to the travel to accompany the report and provides that reports must be tabled in parliament within six sitting days after preparing a report.

This bill passed the other place on 14 September 2023, with the support from all non-government members, and was unopposed by government members on the basis that we would have a careful look at the bill between the houses to ensure that from a practical perspective it was workable and could be complied with by ministers. The government seeks to hold the highest standards when it comes to disclosure, transparency and accountability, and we are supportive of the measures that increase public confidence in government expenditure.

Much of the information about ministerial travel proposed to be published through this bill is already collated and proactively disclosed by government, and we have always supported such disclosure. Currently, proactive disclosures on overseas and interstate travel for ministers and chief executives are required at least every three months, and for Public Service employees every six months, with reports published on relevant government websites. The bill seeks to truncate the reporting period to 45 days and requires reports to be tabled in parliament.

The bill imposes some obligations that are more detailed than current reporting requirements, including duplicate reporting with respect to each member of the minister's official travel party, an itemised breakdown of each person's costs and a requirement to present copies of actual receipts, which are currently required to be presented for internal accounting purposes but which are generally not disclosed publicly.

While the reporting requirements of this bill are more administratively onerous than the current reporting requirements, the government believes there is merit in providing this level of transparency to ensure public confidence in government ministers and the important work undertaken for the benefit of our state through travel interstate and overseas. While the large majority of ministers, public servants and ministerial staffers—including past, present and future—will do the right thing, increased transparency is likely to ensure all parties think very carefully about how they apply public funds when required to travel, which can only be a good thing.

The government therefore supports the bill but will be proposing some minor technical amendments that seek to make the bill workable from a practical perspective. These include amendments that make provision for circumstances where it would not be reasonably practicable to break down costs between the minister, public servant and ministerial staff member for reportable categories of expenditure or between the different categories of expenditure.

For example, in many circumstances payment for food and drink will be made for all parties in one transaction and it may be difficult, impractical or impossible to separate and itemise costs for each individual upon return home. Another example is where an event ticket includes catering, which could not be separately itemised. In these circumstances, the amendments require that the overall cost for the item is reported within the minister’s report, with a description of the costs incurred and an explanation of why the costs could not be reasonably broken down.

Amendments are also proposed that ensure the scope of a minister's reporting obligations under the bill is limited to their own travel and that of public sector employees or prescribed staff members who are directly accompanying the minister as part of the minister's official travelling party.

Amendments are also proposed that make provision for situations in which ministers do not have information required to be reported under the bill reasonably available within 45 days. This is likely to occur from time to time due to the lead time required for receipt by the government of invoices and credit card statements, particularly where expenditure occurs across two months, and travel credit notes from the state's corporate travel provider.

These are provided in circumstances where flight bookings have been amended prior to or during the trip and historically take more than one month to be provided by the government's corporate travel provider. In such circumstances, the amendments would require ministers to prepare and table the report within the statutory time frame with an explanation as to why the report is incomplete and a description of the outstanding information. They would also require ministers to table a supplementary report when all required information becomes available.

Amendments are also proposed that permit redacted receipts or invoices in circumstances where disclosure of the redacted information would create a risk to the health or safety of a person or amount to a security risk to the interests of the state. For example, disclosure of receipts could pose a security risk with respect to accommodation frequently used by ministers, and disclosure of a confidential government account number might amount to a security risk to the interests of the state. Lastly, amendments are proposed that permit the submission of an invoice or a declaration in lieu of a receipt, noting that receipts will sometimes be lost or may not always be available.

These amendments seek to ensure the obligations conferred by the bill can be delivered from a practical perspective and deal with circumstances where those obligations are unable to be met by no fault of a minister while ensuring timely, open and transparent public reporting. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move:

That time for debate be extended until the bill has been concluded through all stages.

Motion carried.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, line 12 [clause 3, heading to inserted Part 3A]—Delete 'Ministerial' and substitute 'certain official'

Amendment No 2 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, lines 14 and 15 [clause 3, inserted section 12A(1)]—Delete 'Minister in their Ministerial' and substitute 'prescribed person in their official'

Amendment No 3 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, line 18 [clause 3, inserted section 12A(2)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment No 4 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, line 19 [clause 3, inserted section 12A(2)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment No 5 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, line 20 [clause 3, inserted section 12A(2)]—Delete 'Minister's' and substitute 'prescribed person's'

Amendment No 6 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, line 23 [clause 3, inserted section 12A(3)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment No 7 [McBride–1]—

Page 2, after line 24 [clause 3, inserted section 12A]—Insert:

(1) In this section—

prescribed person means—

(a) each Minister of the Crown; and

(b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly; and

(c) the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council; and

(d) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly; and

(e) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council.

Amendment No 8 [McBride–1]—

Page 3, line 1 [clause 3, heading to inserted section 12B]—Delete 'Ministers to report on Ministerial' and substitute 'Prescribed persons to report on certain official'

My first amendments to this bill, which has come here from the other place, are a number that relate to clause 3. The bill that has come from the upper house, moved by the Hon. Sarah Game and supported by the other place, is well justified. It is well within its rights to seek clarity to make sure that, in regard to travel, all of this place—government and ministers—is transparent with taxpayers' funds.

In regard to why these amendments have been moved, if this place is going to maintain a standard, if it is going to maintain transparency and if it is going to maintain accountability, as my amendments clearly highlight, when the government travels beyond South Australia the government has been asked to report back within 45 days. I think the prerequisite was 90 days prior to the amendments from the other place. The cause and reasons for pursuing this line are to make sure that money is well used and well accounted for because they are using taxpayers' funds.

As an Independent, and I note that all Independents in the other place unanimously supported these amendments, I am adding to these amendments to make sure that they cover both government and opposition in a fair and logical set of sequences. I can add further remarks later, but that gives the committee some insight into the amendments.

Mr COWDREY: Given this is the first time that the opposition has even set eyes on the amendments, this is not how we make good sausages—without any warning or providing copies of two sets of amendments, of which there are 25 in total.

The member for MacKillop has not shown due process, has not shown due consideration and has not provided any means of courtesy to the opposition in terms of bringing these amendments to the house. I make the point to the house today that it is incumbent on all members to ensure that due and proper process is adhered to.

We will take as much time as is available to us—all of the three minutes we have had these amendments—to consider these in detail, noting that there are significant implications and that this is an important bill. I make the point to the house that in future, if there is consideration of and want for support for amendments, perhaps it would be nice to at least foreshadow them to all those involved in making laws in this parliament.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Are there any further contributions on the amendments from the member for MacKillop?

Mr COWDREY: Did the member for MacKillop draft these amendments by himself?

Mr McBRIDE: These amendments have been suggested to me. It was coming from the upper house. It had been suggested to me that it was very one sided, and I have sought clarity regarding what was going on and was assisted in this process to make sure that it looked like it was bipartisan, that everyone was playing their part in the intent of the bill so that we were all on the same page.

Mr COWDREY: Who provided that assistance to you, member for MacKillop, to ensure that it looked bipartisan? Are you saying that it is now not bipartisan, that it was just a front to look bipartisan in nature? Who provided the assistance to you?

Mr McBRIDE: I have been supported through this parliamentary process over a number of days, and all I can say is that a number of people have been involved. They considered my request when I was questioning this process and this is the way I have landed. I do not think it will cause a lot of argument. It may cause the opposition to wonder why they might be considered differently to a government in any sort of travel claim. I understand that you might want to question that and that is fine.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order! The member for MacKillop is trying to answer your question.

Mr McBRIDE: Mr Acting Chair, as you would note, this is not trying to find winners and losers here; this is making sure we all play the same game and be responsible and be accountable, and if this is going to happen on one side of the chamber, I cannot see why another side of the chamber should be considered any differently.

Mr COWDREY: Member for MacKillop, I make the point that the opposition are not opposing your amendments by any stretch of the imagination. I just want you to put on record and deny that the Labor Party drafted these for you.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for MacKillop, you can feel free to respond to that any way you feel.

Mr McBRIDE: I work through the parliamentary system in this house. There are obviously resources that we find from all sources, and I have utilised the parliamentary system to make sure that these amendments are professionally constructed.

Mr Cowdrey: You couldn't deny it though, could you. You couldn't deny it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): He is attempting to respond to your question.

Mr McBRIDE: They may think it may come from one source over another, but in the end this is a parliamentary system and I am not sure whether they think they have special—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order!

Mr McBRIDE: —let's say, assistance and help that I do not have. I have gone through the means that I have to have these amendments drafted correctly or legally and I think they stand well to make sure that everyone is considered the same in this place.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If I might make a contribution and indicate government support for these amendments and in so doing note that they were circulated relatively recently. I would like to do a recent history lesson about the merit and attention span of the opposition when amendments are filed.

The Botanic Gardens Act has always had a provision to charge general entry, which has never been used. An amendment was filed in October by the government to say that we would, in fact, change the law to remove that provision. Despite that amendment having been filed and sitting on that table, members of the opposition felt quite comfortable going out and terrifying people who go to the Botanic Gardens saying that we are going to start charging, so amendments being filed do not seem to have any attention paid by the opposition at any point, nor is there much adherence to the idea of truth.

I also note that the member had these amendments prepared by parliamentary counsel. It says it on the bottom. Parliamentary counsel are there for all members. That is not the case in Canberra. In Canberra, people who are not part of the government are largely left alone to try to come up with the correct legal language. Here I think it is a very great virtue that any member of parliament is able to have amendments, or indeed bills, prepared by parliamentary counsel, which therefore ensures a degree of integrity.

So I support the amendments. I support the intent of the amendments, which I do believe to be truly bipartisan in the sense that public money is public money, and I defend the member's right to lay on the table his amendments when he chooses, given that the opposition routinely ignores amendments that are tabled with some notice. I also note that parliamentary counsel do a fantastic job.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that response, it might be a question to the Acting Premier. The Acting Premier has indicated that these amendments have been circulated recently. I think the member for Colton indicated when they first came to the attention of the opposition. Can the Acting Premier indicate when the amendments first came to the attention of the government?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): It would be more appropriate to ask questions of the mover of the amendments, but if the minister wishes to make a contribution she certainly can.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have seen these amendments being delivered here, but I had previously been aware of some consideration that was being given by the member for MacKillop to this reform and therefore we support it.

Mr TEAGUE: With that guidance, it was not a question personally directed to when the matter came to the attention of the Acting Premier. I might just note a question then to the mover. When did the mover first provide the amendments or, if it was before that, give notice to the government of the nature of these amendments to be moved by the member?

Mr McBRIDE: I think this bill has been around in the upper house since September. That was the first I heard of it, when it was going through the upper house. It was moved by, as I said, the Hon. Sarah Game. I was interested. I think Sarah even mentioned this whole process to me in conversation. So I learnt more detail around this whole process, and then it subsequently moved through the other place.

All I am going to say to you is that I have known about this sort of process for a number of weeks, and probably the idea of what was going on, from the other place. When I learnt further detail about its intent with regard to the government, I thought, from an Independent's point of view, that I could not see why, if the opposition were able to access funds for travel, they would not play by the same rules as the government.

I do not know where the opposition is coming from in the way of time lines, but I am sorry that they have not seen this early enough. I know that they are going to support it; I know they are going to believe in this. They would be very well advised to just say, 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we will be bipartisan on this,' because these amendments are not huge. They are just tiny words in regard to government ministers in making sure all the opposition, the leader and the deputy leader in both houses are subject to the same sort of scrutiny.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 3, line 2 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)]—Delete 'Each' and substitute:

Subject to this section, each

Amendment carried.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [McBride–1]—

Page 3, line 2 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 3, lines 2 and 3 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)]—Delete ', within 45 days of the conclusion of the travel,'

Amendment carried.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 10 [McBride–1]—

Page 3, line 6 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)(a)(i)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 3, lines 19 and 20 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)(b)]—Delete 'accompanies a Minister undertaking the travel' and substitute 'travels with the Minister as part of the Minister's official travelling party'

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for MacKillop, I understand you have an amendment to this amendment. If you move it formally, you will be moving an amendment to the minister's amendment.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 11 [McBride–1]—

Page 3, line 20 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)(b)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person who is a Minister'

Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, lines 1 and 2 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)(c)]—Delete 'the Minister is accompanied by a prescribed staff member' and substitute:

a prescribed staff member travels with the Minister as part of the Minister's official travelling party

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for MacKillop, same procedure again: if you wish to, you can now move amendment No. 12 standing in your name, which is an amendment to the minister's amendment.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 12 [McBride–1]—

Page 4, line 1 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(1)(c)]—Delete 'the Minister' and substitute 'a prescribed person who is a Minister'

Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 5 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, after line 20 [clause 3, inserted section 12B]—Insert:

(1a) Subject to subsection (1b), a report must be prepared under this section within 45 days after the conclusion of the relevant travel.

(1b) If, in relation to a report of particular travel, the Minister does not have the information or documents necessary to provide all of the information required under subsection (1)(a)(iv), (1)(b)(iv) or (1)(c)(iii), the Minister must—

(a) nevertheless prepare a report under this section setting out such of the information required under subsection (1) as may be known to the Minister; and

(b) set out in the report an explanation of why the report is incomplete and a description of the outstanding information; and

(c) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the Minister receives the outstanding information or documents, prepare a supplementary report containing that information.

(1c) If, in relation to a report of particular travel, it is not reasonably practicable for the Minister to provide a breakdown of the costs in accordance with subsection (1)(a)(iv), (1)(b)(iv) or (1)(c)(iii), the Minister will be taken to have complied with those requirements if the Minister sets out in the report—

(a) the total cost of the travel; and

(b) a description of the costs incurred in the travel; and

(c) an explanation of why the costs could not reasonably be broken down in accordance with those requirements.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for MacKillop, you have the opportunity to now move amendments Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the second set of schedule amendments that you have filed, which is 92(3).

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 20—In inserted subsection (1b) delete 'the Minister' first occurring and substitute 'a prescribed person'

Amendment No 4 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 20 [inserted subsection (1b)]—In inserted subsection (1b) delete 'Minister' second, third and fourth occurring and substitute in each case 'prescribed person'

Amendment No 5 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 20 [inserted subsection (1c)]—In inserted subsection (1c) delete 'the Minister' first occurring and substitute 'a prescribed person'

Amendment No 6 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 20—In inserted subsection (1c) delete 'Minister' second and third occurring and substitute in each case 'prescribed person'

Amendments to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Next on the list is amendment No. 13 of the first set of amendments moved by the member for MacKillop. Member for MacKillop, do you wish to move No. 13?

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 13 [McBride–1]—

Page 4, line 21 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(2)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 6 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 22 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(2)]—After 'receipts' insert:

or invoices

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 7 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, after line 23 [clause 3, inserted section 12B]—Insert:

(2a) However, a Minister need not comply with subsection (2) in relation to a particular receipt or invoice, or particular class of receipts or invoices—

(a) if the receipt or invoice relates to a matter to be addressed in a supplementary report prepared under subsection (1b), in which case the Minister must instead cause a copy of the receipt or invoice to accompany the supplementary report; or

(b) if a receipt or invoice in respect of a particular cost is not able to be obtained by the Minister, or has been lost or destroyed, in which case the Minister must instead complete a declaration containing any information required by the regulations in relation to the cost and cause a copy of the declaration to accompany the report or supplementary report under this section (as the case requires).

(2b) If a Minister is of the opinion that to comply with subsection (2) or (2a) in relation to a particular receipt or invoice would create a risk to the health or safety of the Minister or any other person, or would amount to a security risk to the interests of the State (however described), the Minister may cause a redacted copy of the receipt or invoice to accompany the report or supplementary report (and in such a case the Minister will, to avoid doubt, be taken to have complied with the relevant subsection in respect of the receipt or invoice).

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for MacKillop, you may wish to move Nos 7 and 8 of the second set of amendments in your name, if you wish.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 7 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 23 [inserted subsection (2a)]—In inserted subsection (2a) delete 'Minister' wherever occurring and substitute in each case 'prescribed person'

Amendment No 8 [McBride–2]—

Page 4, after line 23 [inserted subsection (2b)]—In inserted subsection (2b) delete 'Minister' wherever occurring and substitute in each case 'prescribed person'

Amendments to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 8 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 27 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(4)]—Delete 'accompanies a Minister undertaking travel to which this Part applies' and substitute:

travels with a Minister undertaking travel to which this Part applies as part of the Minister's official travelling party

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 14 [McBride–1]—

Page 4, line 26 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(4)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person who is a Minister'

Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 29 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(4)(a)]—Delete 'receipts' and substitute:

documents

Amendment carried.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 15 [McBride–1]—

Page 4, line 34 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(5)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 10 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 4, line 34 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(5)]—Delete 'report and accompanying receipts' and substitute:

report or supplementary report and accompanying documents

Amendment carried.

Mr McBRIDE: I move:

Amendment No 16 [McBride–1]—

Page 4, line 38 [clause 3, inserted section 12B(6), definition of prescribed staff member]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'prescribed person who is a Minister'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (11:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.