PUBLIC SECTOR BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2337.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank minister Holloway, in the absence of the minister with carriage, for answering some questions last night as we concluded the second reading debate on this bill; he provided some interesting figures. One of the questions I asked in my second reading contribution on the bill related to the actual increase in the public sector between 2002 and the current date—which is, of course, the life of this government. The information provided by the minister indicated that 'between 2002 and June 2007 (the last date for which we have the relevant data), there was a total increase over all categories by 10,959 FTEs'. He went on to say that the figure included: medical officers, an increase of 642; nurses, an increase of 2,390; and other health and community services, an increase of 4,891. There were some interjections, but the minister then went on to say that there was an increase in education and TAFE of 1,357 and in police and emergency services of 560. The government indicated that it believed these increases were, in fact, a very good thing for South Australia.

This did not exactly address one of the questions I posed in my second reading contribution, but it did raise some interesting issues. When you consult the budget papers from 2002 to 2008—there were 2002-03 budget papers and 2008-09 budget papers—and look at the data over the same length of time, you will find that, according to the government's budget papers, the public sector has increased by some 14,842 positions—not the 10,959 positions the minister spoke of last night, given that he claimed that was the latest date for which the government had the relevant data.

There is the possibility that there is one extra year in the budget papers, but I am surprised at the minister's advice that that was the latest date for which they had data—if, in fact, there is data from the next year of budget papers.

Over the time of the budget papers, the budgeted increase at that time for the government was 2,757 positions, yet we have had an increase of 14,842 positions. So, members can see that there is an increase, or a budget blowout, of some 12,085 positions, according to the state government's own budget papers. I do not expect the minister to be able to answer the question about why this does not reconcile with the figures she gave us last night. I have provided her staff with copies of these budget papers. I will ask the minister to answer the question in a moment, but she may well choose to take it on notice.

It is also interesting to note that, over the same length of time, there was a blowout of 12,085 positions over and above those the government budgeted for, whereby the Commissioner for Public Employment says that we have had 17,017 positions extra over that same period (2002-2007). Can the minister comment on why we have these three different figures: those she provided last night, those that are in the budget papers, and then those from the Commissioner for Public Employment? It is a little confusing that we have these different figures. Surely, one set of figures and one of set of data would be enough, unless it is a little like some of the police numbers, that is, whether they are sworn, unsworn, on the beat, off the beat, on long service leave or off on WorkCover. There is a whole range of reasons why we do not have police officers on the beat.

I am a little intrigued as to why we are using such a range of figures. Can the minister give us some advice about why they are different? As I have said, it may not be possible to do it tonight but, when we sit again, can the minister bring back some reconciliation as to why the figures are different? It is also interesting to note that, in the minister's statement last night, it was thought that the increase was a good thing.

It is interesting to note that some of the aspects of this bill allow flexibility to remove public sector employees who are surplus to requirements yet, in the minister's own statement, she claims that this 10,959 increase is actually a very good thing. I cannot see why we need legislation to remove public sector employees if the minister is saying that this almost 11,000 extra positions is a very good thing.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not have detailed answers to the honourable member's questions, but I am happy to take those questions on notice and bring back a response as soon as an explanation is available.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government provided answers to some of the questions I put in the second reading, and they are listed in Hansard on page 2335. I asked a question about the number of executives in the Public Service, because the key part of the legislation talks about the requirements on executives in the South Australian Executive Service. The first question was about the number of executives. The government has provided figures as at June 2007, which to me seems extraordinary when we are almost to June 2009. The government said that the best most recent figures were June 2007, when the government said there were 1,191 persons in the public sector who were classified as executives.

Can the minister indicate why only the June 2007 figures are provided? Surely, the Commissioner for Public Employment or the Department of the Premier and Cabinet would have a more recent figure in relation to the number of executives in the public sector.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I am happy to take the question on notice and bring back a response as soon as that information is available.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It may well be that a number of these questions will be taken on notice, and I am relaxed about that, given that we are obviously going to spend some time in two or three weeks going through the committee stage. The government said that 1,191 persons were executives, However, as at 31 March 2009, in the South Australian Executive Service, under the Public Sector Management Act, there were 552 executives in the Public Service.

Given these figures are for 31 March, and the executive numbers are for June 2007, are we to accept, assuming that there are approximately 1,200 executives in the public sector and there are 552 executives in the South Australian Executive Service, there are 600 or so executives unaccounted for? Are they in corporate agencies and not general government agency departments, for example? I am seeking some explanation as to the distinction between a much lower figure as to the number of people in the South Australian Executive Service and the 1,191 people who are classified as executives in the public sector.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I am happy to take the question on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to go through the list of questions I have, rather than have the minister pop up and down every time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that; I am not being critical. The government's reply also stated that, on 8 September 2004, the government made a policy decision not to offer fall-back duties for PSM Act executives. Again, I guess I am looking for a couple of things. The first is in respect of the definition of executives in the public sector; we then have South Australian Executive Service executives, which is a much smaller number; and then we have the PSM Act executive definition to provide what the distinction is, if any, between those three areas. The 8 September 2004 decision I thought was a much wider decision than just, as the government described it:

On 8 September 2004 the government made a policy decision not to offer fallback duties for PSM Act executives.

I thought at that time that the government made a decision, and the publicity at the time (I will try to dig up the publicity) basically seemed to be saying that executives will be employed on contracts from hereon in, that is, they will not be tenured but will be appointed for five-year periods or whatever it might happen to be, and that was going to be the big change. I seek a response when the minister comes back in three weeks on that, but my understanding of the 8 September 2004 decision was that it was wider than just a policy decision not to offer fall-back duties for PSM Act executives. I seek clarification as to the complete range of decisions that they took at that time.

I also asked a question about the number of executives who declined to give up tenure when it was offered to them. A number of executives at the time spoke to me and indicated, particularly those at the lower levels of executive service, that the decision that they had to take was whether, in essence, they went into the executive positions and gave up their tenure or whether they reverted on fall-back to the highest level of what used to be the ASO8 range, which for some at the lowest executive levels was not a significant salary difference, and others were flirting with the idea of going back to the ASO8 range on the basis that they had permanency, had tenure, whereas if they stayed in the executive service they had a higher salary, but they took the risk that they might not have a job in five years time. Some were having to make decisions.

That is particularly the case if you are a young corporate executive and rising through the ranks; that is a punt you are prepared to take. If you have been there for a long time and are nearing retirement, and have just made it through to the lower rungs of the executive level, it might not be as attractive, so some people were weighing up their options. It was a not unreasonable question that I put, namely, if that was an option, how many people in essence did not give up their tenure but used fallback or declined to give up tenure and either reverted to their fallback position in the Public Service or retained that option. The answer the government gave was:

This data was not collected on the number of executives who declined to give up tenure when it was offered to them.

That is an extraordinary position. It may be accurate, but if that is the case it seems extraordinary that that is not a figure that the Commissioner for Public Employment or the Department of Premier and Cabinet would not have compiled for what was described at the time as a significant policy change. So, I asked for further clarification of that. The government then goes on to say:

I am advised as at June 2008—

a different date again—

there were 40 tenured and 131 untenured PSM Act EX category executives. Additionally there were four tenured and 44 untenured MLS executives, and one tenured EL executive.

Again for my benefit and the benefit of other members, the minister in bringing back a reply might describe to us the difference between the EX, the EL and the MLS categories so that we can understand it. Essentially, according to that, there were still 85 tenured executives, but that is at a different date, June 2008, for some reason. Earlier the number given for the SAES executives was 552 in March 2009, and the total executive number was at June 2007. So, none of the dates coincide; they are all different: one is 2007, one 2008 and another 2009. The government then goes on to say:

I am advised that no data has been collected regarding the number, if any, of executives given tenure since the policy change.

This is an issue that I intend to pursue through the committee, because I have raised questions in the chamber about this and I think I gave some examples. Perhaps my understanding of the September 2004 decision is wrong and the minister can clarify that, but I thought the government had indicated as a policy decision that executives in future, from that date onward (whatever that date was), would not be offered tenure, that they would be on contract positions and that was the big change.

I asked whether any executives had been offered tenure since then. First, I want to clarify exactly what was the decision and, since then, has the government been offering tenure to executives? I asked questions about Mr Lance Worrall, who came out of Premier Rann's office and took a position in the Government Reform Commission or something along those lines, on whether he had been offered a contract with tenure. I intend to pursue that issue. I also asked questions about jobs being advertised in minister Holloway's department. If you go to the Locher Management Consultancy website they describe those jobs as permanent, which to me means they have tenure. Maybe I am wrong in relation to how they describe the jobs. They are three director level positions within the Department of Planning and Local Government. They happen to be inhabited at the moment by three former staffers to ministerial officers, and I have raised questions about that in question time and I am awaiting a response but I will pursue it in committee.

I give those examples because it appears that some executive positions are being offered with tenure or permanency. The government should be able to answer the question better than saying, 'I am advised that no data has been collected regard the number, if any, of executives given tenure since the policy change'. Surely, the Commissioner for Public Employment, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, or somebody, should know that, if there is a policy decision that we will not offer tenure, that it is actively discouraged, or whatever it might happen to be—and the minister will come back with the answer to that—we know whether or not ministers, departments and agencies are actually acting against that by offering executive positions with tenure. There are people in the public sector saying, 'Hold on, if that is the case, why are some people in positions getting tenure and permanency and others are just being offered contracts? Do they have an inside running because they happen to know someone—a minister, or whatever it happens to be—to obtain that particular position?' The next series of questions the minister asked was in relation to—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can provide an answer to that particular issue, and it is probably easier to do it now than at the end. I have been advised that, in relation to the executive positions in question, they were advertised as South Australian Executive Service (SAES) level 1, contracts for up to five years, so in fact they do not have tenure.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Which ones are these: the planning and local government ones?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised yes.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not know about that position, so I will take that on notice.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that and I am happy when we come back to bring the website job and person specifications as to how they were described and, as I said, the word, I am pretty sure, was 'permanent' in relation to those positions. The minister is indicating that is not the case. I am happy to accept the minister's advice on that issue.

The next question I asked the minister, and the government replied, was about the number of employees who had been appointed other than through the merit process. The government indicated that, as at 30 June 2008, 580 employees had been appointed by a process other than the merit selection process, and then the minister incorporated in Hansard a table of that 580 as at 30 June.

One of the questions that we will come to in the various clauses—and the minister might want to respond when we return after the break—is: does the minister and the government believe that the changes being implemented in this legislation (which significantly reduce the power and authority of the Commissioner for Public Employment and that role in some areas and increases the role and responsibilities of chief executives) will mean there is greater flexibility for chief executives to increase the number of persons appointed other than by the merit process? That is, are we likely to see the number of 580 people who are currently appointed not by a merit process and reported by the Commissioner for Public Employment under this provision increase because of the changes in the legislation?

Secondly, will the Commissioner for Public Employment, if the bill is passed into law, still produce these figures? Someone has raised the question with me that maybe after these changes the Commissioner for Public Employment will not be producing these figures. If the minister has a reply to that now, I would be grateful to receive it. If not, I am happy for her to take it on notice.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take those questions that I have not been able to provide answers for and bring back a response when I am able.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I asked a question that was not answered during the minister's second reading response, and I know it is a very general question. Given that we have this discrepancy, I guess, with the figures on the actual increase over budget in the Public Service, my question was: how does this happen? We have had budgets tabled by the Treasurer and signed off by cabinet and a forward planning of what they hope to do over a certain period of time yet, clearly, in some cases we could be looking at a 450 to 500 per cent increase over and above what was budgeted for.

I think we all accept that, when running the business of government, to be precise and nail things down to the last position would be impossible, and probably fluctuations of 10 per cent or 20 per cent would be acceptable. Can the minister explain—maybe not tonight—how on earth we can have a set of budgets tabled in this place over the past seven years and then we find that the government has basically exceeded its predictions and its budgeted expectations by probably 400 per cent?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to include that as part of the questions on notice.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.