PUBLIC SECTOR BILL

Committee Stage

Bill recommitted.

Clause 13.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

Page 14, line 13 [clause 13(2)]—Delete 'or by the Minister'

The effect of this amendment is to remove the ability of the minister to assign functions to the commissioner. The provision in this bill is worded in such a way that the minister can dictate to the commissioner and this amendment, if successful, will remove that capacity. In order to make the commissioner a truly independent position, Family First believes that the minister should not have the power to assign these functions to the commissioner, and if the amendment is successful it will have that effect.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will support both the amendments being moved by Family First.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendment. The power to assign further functions to the commissioner mirrors section 22(1)(g) of the PSM act. There has never been a suggestion that this provision has caused any problem. This is a sensible provision to allow for some flexibility as unforeseen issues emerge.

What can possibly be threatening about this position? It is hard to see the concerns and why members feel threatened by this provision. The commissioner is the protector of merit, standards and values. Any additional functions will not work to the detriment of employees or the Public Service.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

Page 14, after line 2—After subclause (5) insert:

(6) Sections 10 and 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 apply to the code, or a variation of the code, as if it were a regulation within the meaning of that act.

This amendment deals with the code of conduct specifically; and the effect of the amendment, should it be successful, will be to enshrine the code of conduct in the regulations. The reason for that is essentially that if the code of conduct is presented in the form of regulations then, of course, it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and parliament can overturn the regulations, should it choose, or it certainly opens them to more scrutiny, at the very least.

Further, we believe it will also have the other effect of strengthening the way it is received in the public sector because it will be seen as a higher authority, if you like, given that it is under regulation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition is very happy to support the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment moved on his behalf by the Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendment. The code of conduct is to be issued by the commissioner. This is what currently happens, and there has never been a suggestion that this has caused any problems. Evidently, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire does not trust the commissioner to get this right. This is bizarre, given his support for the commissioner to be a person deciding on the termination of public servants. It portrays a misunderstanding of the commissioner's role under the bill. Most of the public would find it pretty odd that politicians would be deciding on the detailed conduct rules of public servants—we do, too.

At this point, I table the South Australian Public Sector Employees Code of Conduct, which was requested by the Hon. Rob Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I take this opportunity to place on record an issue that I raised last night which relates tangentially to the Public Sector Employees Code of Conduct. It is the only clause that is open. I ask the minister to take on notice a further question. I asked a series of questions of the minister last evening about whether or not there was a policy of executives being appointed for five years and then being reappointed for three years. The minister indicated that there was no such policy but that it had been the practice for a period of time.

Information provided to me today advises that on 25 October 2004 cabinet approved a policy that chief executives would be appointed initially for a period of five years and, after that, could be offered a further three-year contract of renewal only in the same position. After that, they could not continue in that chief executive position but could then be moved to another chief executive position in another department, or leave. The maximum that they could spend as a chief executive in one department was eight years.

I put those questions to the minister last night and she said that there was no such policy. I am wondering whether, without delaying the proceedings this afternoon, she is prepared to undertake to revisit that to see whether or not her answer last evening was wrong or misleading and whether, in fact, it is correct, as I have been advised, that on 25 October 2004 cabinet approved such a policy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The response I gave to the question yesterday was in accordance with the advice that I have received. I do not have any other advice further to that. However, I am happy to have the information that the Hon. Rob Lucas has put on the record today followed up and to bring back a response.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as further amended passed.

Bill reported with further amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.