Budget Measures Bill 2014

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 23 September.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I put a series of questions during the second reading debate to the government. The minister handling the bill has responded to questions from the Hon. Tammy Franks, which I understand. The Deputy Premier has corresponded with me with certain answers to questions on 10 September and, I think, 23 September. I am wondering if the minister is going to read onto the public record the government's responses to the questions that I raised during the second reading.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I had not intended to but if you need them to be, they can.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want them on the public record so either the minister can do it or I am happy to do it—one or the other. If the minister has them it is probably more sensible if they come from the minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Do you need to have both pieces of correspondence read onto the record?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, 10 and 23 September.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to questions asked during the second reading contribution from the Hon. Rob Lucas, a series of questions was asked and the Attorney-General corresponded with the Hon. Rob Lucas. I will read that correspondence into the record. It states:

Budget Measures Bill 2014

I refer to your speech on the floor of the Legislative Council on 7 August 2014 regarding the Budget Measures Bill…and…your comments relating to amendments…

Further, please note that I have also addressed concerns raised by the Deputy Leader in the House of Assembly. A copy of this letter has also been sent to the Deputy Leader.

By way of background, the amendments to the Act confirm the long service leave entitlements that temporary teachers have received since 2003. That is, an allowable interruption in service of three months plus vacation. Prior to this, temporary teachers were given the benefit of a three month break in service.

The entitlements of full-time teachers are unaffected.

Who in the Department for Education and Child Development ('DECD') prepared the modelling and assessment of the State's Potential Liability?

The Office of Human Resources and Workforce Development in consultation with Finance in DECD prepared estimates of the potential liability based on a number of alternative assumptions. These estimates are broadly based for reasons including that the precise number of potential claimants is presently unknown. The Department of Treasury and Finance ('DTF') has noted the estimates prepared by DECD.

What is the Potential Liability?

Given the unknown number of potential claimants, and the fact that liability has potentially been accruing over 42 years since the commencement of the Act, the exact figure is unknown. It is clear, however, that given factors mentioned above, the potential liability is extremely large.

In calculating the potential liability DECD has assessed the entire spectrum of potential liability. It is not appropriate at this stage to publicly disclose potential liability figures given the state of the proceedings in the Supreme Court…which remain on foot.

Details of the Ex-Gratia Scheme

Cabinet has approved the establishment of an ex-gratia scheme…At this stage, the details of the Scheme have not been put to Cabinet, as this is dependent on the passage of the Bill.

While I cannot provide details of the Scheme prior to them being approved by Cabinet, I can tell you that:

$15 million has been approved for the Scheme and will be available for discretionary payments to eligible teachers;

the Scheme will not be used to pay any legal costs associated with the Proceedings;

the fund will be controlled by DTF. It is expected that DECD will review applications and provide relevant information to me, as Attorney-General, to exercise discretion as to who will receive any payment out of the fund. Following approval, DTF would release the funds necessary to make payments;

all eligible temporary teachers will be able to apply for payments out of the fund.

Where are the Employment Records of the Relevant Teachers Kept?

Most records are available in DECD central office. Other records are archived in boxes off-site.

For teachers who combined their service with lecturing in TAFE, some records are in the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.

How Would the Government Make the Calculations in Order to Pay Out All Teachers?

Payments from the ex gratia fund will be entirely discretionary. Applicants will be able to submit information and documents in support of any application. I anticipate that DECD will also provide to me information about the service history of claimants. Calculations would be largely manual.

Are There any Previous Examples of Parliament Retrospectively Correcting an Anomaly?

In 1991, the Government amended the Act to reflect a practice and understanding as to payment when teachers were engaged for a part day. This was following a civil claim that resulted in a judgment that granted a full day's pay for any engagement of a part day. This prompted the Education (Part-time Remuneration) Amendment Act 1991 (SA), which inserted a new s 101A into the Act with retrospective application.

I trust that this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

John Rau

Deputy Premier

Attorney-General

Minister for Industrial Relations

In relation to correspondence dated 23 September:

Dear Rob Lucas

You have asked for more information about the ex gratia scheme proposed in the 2014-15 budget. I can advise the following:

An invitation to apply for the proposed ex gratia payment will be made by both public advertisement and notation on DECD employee pay slips. The invitation will state the closing date for application. An application form will be posted on the DECD website. Applicants will be asked to provide any documents or information in their possession in support of an application.

Any person believing they may have an entitlement may apply to the scheme. The proposed ex gratia scheme is not limited to claimants in the current court action, nor is it limited to members of the Australian Education Union. When the closing date is reached, DECD will advise me of the total number of applications. DECD will identify whether a teacher and/or is employed as a temporary teacher and will provide a summary of the service record of the applicant. I will consider this information and make a determination.

Yours sincerely

John Rau

Deputy Premier

Attorney-General

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for placing that on the record because the initial set of questions were placed on the record by me in the second reading contribution. For those who are obviously interested in this particular aspect of the Budget Measures Bill I think it is important to see the government's responses. The second letter the minister has placed on the record was in response to discussions I have had with the Deputy Premier seeking further information in relation to how this particular ex gratia scheme would operate. I will have some further comments on that when we come to the appropriate clauses in the bill that we have before us.

Clause passed,

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: There are amendment Nos 1 to 5 of [Lucas-1]. They will be clerical amendments deemed necessary if Mr Lucas's substantial suggested amendments are successful. The Hon. Mr Lucas?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lucas–1]—

Page 4, line 1—Delete the heading

Amendment No 2 [Lucas–1]—

Page 4, line 7—Delete 'Schedule 3' and substitute 'Schedule 1'

Amendment No 3 [Lucas–1]—

Page 4, line 8—Delete 'Schedule 3' and substitute 'Schedule 1'

Amendment No 4 [Lucas–1]—

Page 4, line 10—Delete 'Schedule 3' and substitute 'Schedule 1'

Amendment No 5 [Lucas–1]—

Page 4, line 11—Delete subclause (5)

Mr Chairman, thank you for that explanation. I move the amendment standing in my name. Before speaking to it, I place on the record my understanding of what you have just outlined to the committee and what the Clerk has just outlined to me; that is, should this particular amendment, which is the substantive amendment on which we will have the substantive debate about the car park tax, be successful then amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be handled by you and the staff clerically because they are consequential on this substantive debate that we are about to have on amendment No. 6, and there are also consequential amendments afterwards as per my schedule of amendments.

I intend to be mercifully brief in relation to this particular amendment. The issue of the car park tax has been discussed, debated and argued over for months now. The position of the Liberal Party has been well and truly put by the Liberal leader, the member for Dunstan, Mr Marshall, both in the public arena but also during debate in another place. I, on behalf of my upper house colleagues, have also put our position on it in the second reading debate.

Certainly, from my viewpoint, I do not propose to repeat all of the arguments that the Leader of the Opposition and myself have put in relation to the car park tax. Suffice to say that our broad position has been summarised by the arguments put, again, by the Leader of the Opposition today; that is, in our view South Australia is already a significantly over-taxed state. South Australian families are already struggling. South Australian businesses are already struggling.

The notion that in some way we can provide relief to struggling South Australian families and their budgets and the notion that in some way we can assist struggling South Australian businesses in a struggling South Australian economy by hammering them again with an additional tax, a new tax, is beyond comprehension to me and, we believe, to the majority of observers of this particular debate. It makes no sense, from that viewpoint, and we very strongly put the view to this particular committee that it is in the interests of South Australian businesses, and it is in the interests of struggling South Australian families and their budgets if we can prevent the imposition of a further additional tax, a further additional imposition on their budgets by opposing, successfully, the car park tax in this particular measure.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose these amendments. We have put our case clearly on the record previously, so I also will be brief. South Australia has more car parks per capita than any other jurisdiction. Obviously this transport levy is a key part of our budget. Sydney, Melbourne and Perth have similar levies in place, and those levies have been found to have little or no impact on the retail sectors in those cities.

To remove a provision in relation to the levy from the government's budget clearly sets a very dangerous and undesirable precedent. If this measure does go ahead, as it has been well documented, it will create a hole in our budget by way of a $121.3 million revenue shortfall across the forward estimates. Therefore, I urge members not to support this particular amendment and allow it to go through as part of our budget measures.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens are opposing these amendments because we believe that there is merit in the car park levy and in the state transport fund. My concern at present is that if these amendments are successful I will not get to put and speak to amendments that I have to the tax and to the fund. I just want to outline briefly the conditions on which we would be supporting the government in this.

There were two additional exemptions that we believe were necessary in relation to the car park levy. The first was in relation to electric vehicle parking. Whilst there are not many spots that fall into that category, we think this will be a growing form of transport, so we seek to exempt those parking spots that are dedicated to electric vehicles and contain a charging point.

The second category of exemption we thought should be added is for car-sharing schemes; that is, different from hire cars (Avis, Budget, Europcar and the rest). Car-share schemes are where people, effectively on a timeshare basis, access a car as an alternative to owning their own car. A number of these schemes are in operation already and we believe that, given they fulfil the primary objective of helping people to reduce their reliance on their own private cars, they too should be exempted from the tax.

The other amendment we would be seeking to make if we get to that point in the committee stage is that the purpose of the state transport fund, we believe, could be clarified to make it clear that the money is going to be used for helping people to reduce their reliance on private motor vehicles. That is exactly what the government says it intends; it wants to build park-and-rides by trains, by buses and things like that. My understanding was that the government was comfortable with the words that we proposed, but I just want to put on the record that this is something the Greens will be moving if we get to that point in the debate.

The final thing is that the Hon. Rob Lucas said that there has been some debate over this issue for some time. He is correct. No doubt he was referring to the book that I wrote back in 1994 called Greening Adelaide with Public Transport wherein I suggested a $1 per space per day levy on car parks, with the money being hypothecated to providing public transport services. So, 20 years on, that is exactly what the government has put forward. The amounts might have changed to reflect inflation over the years, but certainly this is an idea whose time has come. The Greens are supporting the car park levy and we are supporting the state transport fund being spent on infrastructure that helps people to reduce their reliance on private cars in urban areas.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I, too, will be mercifully short in placing on the record Family First's position on what has been a very controversial issue. Our position is well known in the public arena and in this place as well. We have expressed our views both here in some detail previously and also via the media in the public arena.

In summary, we will be supporting the amendments of the Liberal Party and the Hon. Mr Lucas, for three main reasons. The first reason is that this is simply another tax, and South Australia does not need another tax; we need fewer taxes in this state. The second reason, in particular, is that it is a tax on motorists. Motorists and property holders already bear the brunt of taxation across this country, and motorists pay at the petrol bowser: every time they fill up they pay, every time they register their car they pay—many, many times over. There is enough tax on motorists.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we made a commitment before the election—'we' being Family First—that we would oppose this tax, and we honour our commitment. I was recently speaking with my colleague, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, who told me that in his 20 years in parliament he has never had to go back on a commitment he has made. I have been here for about 8½ years and in fulfilling this promise today I have yet to break a commitment I have made, and we do not intend to.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting all of the amendments of the opposition to get rid of this car park tax.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I also rise to speak against removing this levy. As I outlined in my second reading speech, the government went to the election very clear on this policy, namely, that if the government was re-elected it would introduce this car park levy. It was clear election policy, and the money collected would be used for transport infrastructure projects, not general revenue. The government has already spent $21.1 million in good faith on additional park and ride facilities around South Australia which thousands of South Australians are currently enjoying.

The minister has said that other states like Melbourne and Sydney and Perth have already introduced these car park levies a long time ago, and I quote some figures. The Melbourne levy currently stands at $1,300 per year and was introduced in 2006. The levy is set at $21,000 per year in Sydney, and even Perth, with money rolling in from mining royalties, also introduced a levy in 1999.

The Liberal opposition campaigned strongly against this levy for at least 18 months leading up to the election and they made it clear to the public that a vote for Labor was a vote for a levy; a vote for the Labor Party would be for this levy. I stand to be corrected here but I remember Steven Marshall said that if the government was re-elected and he was still in opposition he would vote for this levy which was very clever politics on the part of Mr Marshall because it put pressure on the public not to vote for Labor—that was very clever!

At the end of the day the government was re-elected and now the government has a mandate to introduce this levy because if this levy was voted down it will leave a hole of at least $100 million in the state budget—more than a $100 million shortfall. What does this mean? Future transport projects such as park and ride stations, and new buses and trams will now be on hold. Any major transport will now be re-profiled because of this shortfall.

This will also impact on other government services as well because the government will have to find savings somewhere or reduce services to find savings to fund some of these projects if the public so demands. I therefore urge honourable members to think carefully before they vote this levy out because at the end of the day the government was clear and transparent on this policy.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Relevant to this amendment, I ask the minister two questions, particularly in light of the previous speaker's contribution. First, did the government have a mandate to increase the emergency services levy by $90 million a year recurrently? Secondly, if you are going to raise $30 million to $35 million a year with the car parking tax, a new tax that South Australians cannot afford and certainly retail and the economy cannot afford, why are you only going to spend $7.5 million per year of the $30million on park-and-ride?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As the Hon. Mr Ngo has indicated, this government went to the last election with a very clear mandate to introduce this levy. We were open and transparent about what we intended to do and were open and transparent about this levy. It made good policy sense, and we won that election and we will honour that election commitment.

In terms of the way the government chooses to distribute that revenue, whether it is to park-and-ride or other transport and road initiatives, is a matter for the government, but certainly the funding for park-and-ride initiatives were an integral part of revenue created by this levy.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Could the minister answer the second part of my question, namely, does she and the government believe they have a mandate to hit the wallets and purses of South Australians through the ESL by an additional $90 million per annum?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is outside the purview of this bill.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Maher, we do not want a debate on this. The debate will be on the amendments and clauses. As this bill deals with taxation, these amendments will put as suggested amendments to the House of Assembly. I will put the first one of clause 4, which will be a test case for the remainder of the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendments. I put the question that it be a suggested amendment to the House of Assembly to leave out clause 4.

Suggested amendment to leave out clause 4 carried.

Clauses 5 to 23.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Lucas–1]—

Clauses 5 to 23 (inclusive)—Delete these clauses

Suggested amendment to delete clauses 5 to 23 (inclusive) carried.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Lucas–1]—

Schedule 1—Delete Schedule 1

Suggested amendment to delete schedule 1 carried.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Lucas–1]—

Schedule 2—Delete Schedule 2

It is consequential.

Suggested amendment to delete schedule 2 carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Lucas–1]—

Page 16, line 28—Delete the heading and substitute 'Schedule 1—Budget Measures'

It is consequential on the last vote.

The CHAIR: We will be treating that as a clerical amendment.

Schedule 3 passed.

Schedule 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Lucas–1]—

Schedule 4—Delete Schedule 4

Suggested amendment to delete schedule 4 carried.

Title.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Lucas–1]—

Long title—

Delete 'enact legislation in relation to the 2014 State Budget so as to impose a levy on parking spaces within the central business district of the City of Adelaide in order to raise revenue to be used to provide or support programs designed to improve transport services and transport safety within the State and to provide for related matters; and to'

Suggested amendment to long title carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand the procedure that we have adopted, but where does this leave the Hon. Tammy Franks's amendments? The Hon. Tammy Franks has amendments, actually, to clause 2 and to schedule 3. I understand the process you have adopted in relation to the car park tax but, whilst I will not be agreeing with the amendments of the Hon. Tammy Franks, I will defend fiercely to the end her right to put the amendments and be defeated, I hope.

I would hope that with the procedures that you and the Clerk have adopted, it may well be that with the agreement of the minister, we could recommit the appropriate clause to allow the Hon. Tammy Franks to at least put her arguments and move her amendments etc. That may well be, I suspect, Mr Chair, the only way you can now achieve what you need to achieve.

Schedule 3—reconsidered.

The CHAIR: Hon. Ms Franks, your amendment on file to clause 2 will be dealt with as a clerical amendment if your amendment to schedule 3 gets up.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Schedule 3, Part 1, page 16, line 29 to page 20, line 6—Delete Part 1

I note that, while I do have two amendments standing in my name to this bill, both go to the same topic of the entitlement of temporary teachers to long-service leave. I will speak to that amendment as a test case for both. I rise briefly, noting the time of the evening, to make some contributions at this stage. I would certainly like to put on record a few remarks with regard to the minister's answers to my questions on this topic that have been provided to me by the AEU.

With regard to the minister's response to my question, which asked 'Why does the government seek to subvert the High Court decision by retrospectively altering employees' longstanding entitlements to long-service leave?' the Australian Education Union has advised me that this government was well aware, through years of correspondence and legal proceedings, that the question of 'appointment basis' that went to the High Court was all about the long-service leave entitlements of those affected employees. It was not just about their appointment status.

The long-service leave provision under the Education Act is based entirely on the appointment status as either 'officers', who attract the two-year break, or 'other employees', who attract only the three-month break. For the government to say that it did not deal with long-service leave or other conditions of employment is mischievous. The very essence of an affected employee's appointment basis is their conditions of employment. There is no other reason why this question of law was heard by the High Court on appeal.

With regard to the minister's response to my question number two, 'Why does the government seek to differentiate between permanent and non-permanent teachers—they are both classified as "officers of the teaching service" under the Education Act 1972?' the AEU advises me that permanent teachers have the benefit of permanency, unlike temporary teachers, who do not have secure employment.

This affects their ability to buy a home, decisions about starting or adding to their family, and things such as further study, education or travel, while those in permanent work enjoy those workplace entitlements. This impacts upon women in particular, given their greater contribution to caring responsibilities in our culture. To not have a contract renewed is similar in effect to retrenchment. This is starkly evidenced by the department's appalling record of being unable to reach its own permanency targets due to lack of scrutiny of the permanent or temporary nature of the appointments.

With regard to the minister's response to my question number three, 'Why equate these members of the teaching force with "other public sector employees"', I bring to the minister's attention that under the act an 'officer in relation to the teaching service' means a teacher holding office in the teaching service.

In the Education Act, Part 3—The teaching service, section 15 allows for the appointment of teachers to be officers of the teaching service both as permanent and temporary employers (S15(2)) Part 3, at sections 19 to 24 of the act, also provides for long-service leave to officers of the teaching service, that is all teachers appointed under section 15 of the act.

Note that section 22—Interruption of service of the act allows for a break in service of up to two years to count as service if that service was continuous. Part 3 applies to all teachers, whether they are appointed as permanent or temporary teachers. Therefore, it is a nonsense to have teachers working side by side, one employed permanently and the other temporarily, who attract different conditions.

Teachers do not have the same employment conditions as other temporary public sector workers, such as year-round employment opportunities, penalty rates and flexibility in the timing of taking accrued recreation leave, so why align this single element of their employment conditions, a three-month break in service, with other public sector workers? It is nothing more than retrospectively denying these individual employees, who already suffer insecure working conditions, a benefit determined by the High Court of Australia.

Finally, with regard to the minister's response to my question No. 4: what of those current employees whose long service leave entitlement will be reduced and possibly removed by this retrospective legislation? The Australian Education Union's belief is that those affected employees will suffer a loss or reduction in their accrued entitlements as stated on their payslips or statements of service. The department has already denied affected individuals access to information regarding entitlements and withheld approval of any long service leave accrued as a result of applying the High Court decision.

This was a measure not long debated, not with a mandate from the election, not in the spirit of a Labor government and certainly one which has come as a surprise to these affected groups of teachers who have given long service to the teaching profession and who are very surprised to be treated in this way by a Labor government.

While I say there is not a long history of this there is, indeed, a history of this under the Foley/Rann budget of 2010. We have seen a Labor government previously retrospectively deny those in the public sector their workplace entitlements. Unfortunately, this is déjà vu all over again from the Weatherill Labor government.

I urge members to reject this measure, whether or not you believe in this particular case that these teachers are entitled to these long service provisions but in the spirit of a fair debate and a transparent debate. This was a measure snuck into a budget bill, not given due and adequate notice to those concerned and certainly not won by a mandate in the election.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this particular amendment. We have addressed the particular concerns in answers to questions that were put on record during the second reading summary debate. This amendment and the previous amendment filed by the Hon. Tammy Franks would remove from the bill provisions amending the Education Act.

Since the inception of the Education Act in December 1972, both Labor and Liberal governments have maintained the public sector standard of three months for break of service over some 40-odd years. In 2003 it was modified by agreement with the Australian Education Union to three months plus vacations and backdated to 1978. The vacation periods were added to the public sector standard in consideration of the school year and it has been the intention of successive governments that temporary teachers receive long service leave entitlements that are in line with other members of the Public Service.

The High Court decision on 29 February 2012 was about the appointment basis of teachers. It did not deal with long service leave or other conditions of employment. The High Court remitted the matter to the Industrial Relations Court for further consideration and there has been no subsequent hearing in the court. In practical terms the legislation confirms past practice. It is for the reasons that we have already discussed and the information that we have put on the record that the government opposes the amendments filed by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position was made clear in the second reading but there are a couple of additional comments based on the discussions we have had with interested stakeholders and with the Deputy Premier. At this point I want to place on the record (and as I indicated in the second reading) that the Liberal Party's position has generally been not to support retrospective application of decisions but there have been occasions when we have, and there have been occasions when this whole chamber and the parliament has, as well, when a case has been made out to do so.

I have been reminded by the discussions and correspondence with the ministers—and that is now on the public record—that back in 1991 there was an amendment to the Education Part-Time Remuneration Act Amendment Bill which came about as a result of a court decision which essentially said that a teacher who had worked for part of a day should be paid for the full day.

It had never been the practice, but the courts held that that was the law . Potentially, a whole range of people could have made application for payment on the basis that—and someone obviously fought the case at the time, I assume also supported potentially by the Institute of Teachers at the time—that is what the law said and, therefore, as silly as it might sound, you are entitled to be paid. Therefore, for many years, the department would have had to have gone back to work out who needed to be paid a full day's pay even though they might have only worked for half a day or a third of the day of that particular day.

At that particular time it was a Labor government and they introduced the amendment. I was then the shadow minister for education on behalf of the Liberal Party and we supported the retrospective application in those circumstances. We did move an amendment at that particular time in relation to those who had fought the case and that particular amendment bill passed.

More recently, we have also passed, in the time when certain members have been in this chamber, some retrospective application of amendments in relation to stamp duty provisions. I remind members of the case of MSP Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps, where in about 2008 I think it was we were asked, on the basis of a court decision, to make changes which did have retrospective application in relation to, potentially, certain businesses. Again, it was one of the rare occasions where we—and I am not sure whether other parties can speak for themselves as to whether they opposed those particular provisions—were convinced on the basis of the arguments to support the provisions.

This is another example where, on the basis of the evidence provided to us, and for the reasons that I outlined in the second reading—again, I indicate as a former shadow minister and minister, all through the period that I had involvement or responsibility, I never understood, and certainly advice to me was that we never understood the situation that someone who had worked for a period of time and then had not worked for two years and then worked for a period of time as a teacher, and then had another two years' break and then worked for a period of time, that in some way that would allow for ongoing calculation of long service leave. The court has held otherwise and we are being asked to form a view in relation to these circumstances now and, for the reasons I have outlined, we will not support the amendments that have been moved by the Hon. Ms Franks.

The critical issue that we then further explored was the details of the ex gratia scheme because, to be frank, the details the government put on the record were too threadbare. There was not enough detail and, understandably, some stakeholders wanted to know exactly how the ex gratia scheme might operate. I thank the minister for putting on the record that it will not just be the 900 claimants who were parties to the particular claim who potentially might benefit from the $15 million ex gratia scheme.

As the minister on behalf of the government has outlined now, an invitation to apply for an ex gratia payment will be made by a public advertisement, so that will be publicly advertised, and there will be a notation on current DECD employee pay slips. The public advertisement is important, because there are some former employees of DECD who will not be receiving pay slips. As former employees of DECD or its preceding agencies, having looked at the website or the public advertisement, they will be entitled to make application. There will be a closing date for those applications. The form will be posted on the website. Applicants will be asked to provide documents or information, and the department will then have the onerous task of trying to work out eligibility and how the scheme might operate.

The minister has made it quite clear, as I said, that it will not be limited to the 900 or so claimants to the scheme, so there might be many thousands who make application. He has also made it quite clear that it will not be limited just to members of the Australian Education Union, which for some persons interested in this particular issue was an important issue for them as well. So, it will be open to anybody who makes application.

Necessarily, and I accept the minister's arguments in relation to this given the impossibility of knowing how many people will apply, it may well be that the total number of teachers who apply and the total calculation by the department of what the potential payout will be will be less than the $15 million. My understanding is that the current government's thinking, without binding the government in any way, will be: if that is the case then, in essence, those applicants will get 100¢ in the dollar because the total payment will be less than the $15 million.

If, however, there are literally thousands and thousands of applicants and after assessing eligibility (that is, the department) the total potential payout is more than $15 million then the department, and ultimately the minister, the Deputy Premier, under the government's current arrangements, will need to take advice on—this is my assessment not the minister's—if applicants will get 80¢ in the dollar or 70¢ in the dollar, or whatever it is.

I understand that there may well be, if we are in these sorts of circumstances, the possibility—and again this does not bind the government or the minister in any way—that if it is significantly over the $15 million there might be some minimum threshold; that is, whether it is $50 or $100, that is the cost of administering and working it out. It may well be that there will only be payouts above a certain level. That would only be in the circumstance where the $15 million ex gratia payment was likely to be fully expended.

I hasten to say that the minister and the government have made it clear that no final decisions have been made in relation to how this might operate. I have just flagged, potentially, options that the department might consider in terms of putting advice to the minister and the government; that is, in terms of the final payments. There are clear commitments in terms of public advertisement and notation on payslips. Anyone can apply, you are not limited to be a member of the AEU. Then, the final details of the scheme will be based on advice from the department but, ultimately, it is a decision for the Deputy Premier as the responsible minister in terms of how it might be applied.

On behalf of my colleagues, I think that is certainly a lot more information in terms of how the ex gratia scheme might operate than was immediately evident in the early stages of the debate. I therefore thank the minister and the department for at least providing further detail on how the scheme might operate.

I accept that it is impossible to dot every i and cross every t at this stage because of the impossibility of knowing how many will apply and what the total potential outlay might have been. I accept that particular difficulty but I think the shape and structure of the proposed arrangements are not unreasonable and in those circumstances that is further reason why we will support the government's proposals in relation to this aspect of the Budget Measures Bill and we will not be supporting the proposed amendments.

The CHAIR: I will put the second amendment first. If that is successful then No. 1 will be a clerical amendment.

The committee divided on the suggested amendment:

Ayes 6

Noes 13

Majority 7

Suggested amendment thus negatived.

Bill reported with suggested amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.