Compulsory Third Party Insurance Regulation Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This particular clause states that the CTP regulator is not subject to ministerial direction in the exercise of its functions or powers, except as provided under this act. Can the minister outline what his advice is? Can he give some examples of where the minister can direct the independent regulator?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that during the transitional period, schedule 1, part 3, section 14 outlines:

During the transitional period, the CTP Regulator is subject to the directions of the Minister as to the exercise of the following of the Regulator's functions:

Does the honourable member want me to read them out?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No—post the transition period.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is no direction. These apply during the transitional period, and after that is when the ability to direct ends.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I understand the minister's response, what he is saying is that this clause has work to do during the three-year transition period, but that after the three-year transition period there is no power to direct in this act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the issue of salaries and bonuses for staff who are employed, one of the issues that has been raised in the past with semi-independent autonomous bodies, e.g. Funds SA, was that when bodies such as that wanted to pay either retention allowances or bonuses to their staff the Treasurer of the day (who happened to be Kevin Foley) had a different view. I think that was easily resolved, in that the Treasurer did have the power to direct.

In relation to the issue of post the transition period, does the independent regulator have absolute flexibility to pay his or her staff whatever they wish, whatever bonuses they wish, and whatever retention allowances they wish, given that he or she is not subject to the direction of any minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it would be constrained by the proper exercise of the functions of the regulator, bearing in mind the regulator has to report to parliament. So, yes, what the regulator does, as an independent regulator, for most intents and purposes, is up to the regulator, but they are constrained by having to report to parliament and, as I outlined, constrained within the functions there prescribed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My reading of the bill is that if there is no power to direct, therefore there is no power to prevent the regulator, if he or she chose, to pay bonuses or retention allowances or incentives to staff because the reporting provisions and all of the other provisions there do not relate to that sort of specific issue. They would be given a budget, I assume, and as long as they operate within their budget it would appear that, if they cannot be directed by the minister, they therefore are not subject to a public sector wide prohibition, for example, on paying bonuses.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I can confirm for the member that is, in effect, correct. However, it would be wrong to characterise it as escaping scrutiny; there still needs to be a report to parliament. So, what they do in relation to the sort of scenario the honourable member has outlined does not escape scrutiny, they report to parliament, but what he has outlined could be correct, yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just on the issue of escaping of scrutiny, I am not sure where it might be covered, but post or even during the transition period is the independent regulator subject to freedom of information?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the regulator is potentially subject to applications under the FOI Act, but of course subject to all the restrictions in the FOI Act about personal information and privacy. If there is any different information that we can get over the next two days I am happy to provide it to the honourable member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek greater clarity than 'potentially'. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to be seeking under FOI the personal details of the Hon. Mr Maher's accident claim, or whatever it is, although I could seek the information as it relates to me, obviously. When we are talking about transparency, if the regulator decides to pay bonuses to staff or to spend money on consultants, that is, the expenditure of public moneys, is the minister saying, not just potentially, but would that sort of information be available subject to freedom of information requests?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the scenario the honourable member has just outlined my advice is, yes, that would be subject to the normal FOI procedures and, of course, subject to report to parliament, etc.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 and 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has already indicated that there has evidently been an advertising process and appointment process for a potential regulator. On what salary range was it advertised and what executive level was applied? If it was an executive level—for example, SAES1 or something like that—that covers a broad range of up to $100,000; what was the actual salary that was applied to this particular position?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the numbers for what range this band applies to but the honourable member will probably be familiar with it: it was advertised in the SAES2 band.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy if the minister is prepared to take this on notice, whether or not he is able to advise after the passage of the bill what particular level within the SAES2 band because, as I said, it can range up to $100,000 from the top to the bottom. Is the minister prepared to take that on notice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am happy to take that on notice and provide an answer to that question.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek information from the government on this. It is a curious provision—at least from my viewpoint it is curious—in that it says section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act does not apply to the chief executive officer or the acting CEO. Section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act has a very comprehensive clause which extends over a page and a half with 10 separate subclauses which, in quite some detail, lists the duties of officers in relation to conflicts of interest and how they should be handled.

This particular conflict of interest provision is much smaller—less onerous would be my interpretation. I ask the minister why the government has excluded this officer from the provisions of section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act and instead has incorporated what I would judge to be a much less onerous requirement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This was not a policy issue or decision of the government but a suggestion from parliamentary counsel, and we think it is for consistency with other similar positions in similar acts, but I will check that. I will take it on notice and bring an answer back to the honourable member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not want to prolong the debate today on this issue, but I find that an intriguing response, in that those provisions in the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act—again, I am operating at short notice—only went in in maybe 2009 or something, but I might be wrong. I thought they were relatively recent provisions, not decade-old provisions. We had a not inconsiderable debate in this chamber about these particular issues.

If parliamentary counsel now thinks that these issues are outdated in some way or too onerous, I wonder if the minister could at least place on the record why parliamentary counsel in the last three years has deemed section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act not the appropriate way to manage conflicts and why what I would see, in my view, is a less onerous provision in terms of managing conflicts is now to be the standard for managing conflicts of interest.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am further advised that this is not something that we are seeking to introduce just for this. I am now advised that it is consistent with other similar acts, for example, section 19(5) of the ESCOSA Act and it is consistent with that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This may be an issue we explore in the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and others in terms of its report, but I ask the minister why parliamentary counsel, and the government obviously (parliamentary counsel can only advise, the government obviously has to make a policy decision), thinks that the existing arrangements in section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act are too onerous and too cumbersome, and we have this, in my view, less onerous provision in terms of managing conflicts, particularly when this person is to be independent of government, as needs be, but nevertheless is in a very important position in terms of the work that he or she will undertake.

The whole notion of managing conflicts of interest, whether or not things like gift registers, hospitality and entertainment and all those things, which clearly apply to public sector employees in terms of potentially managing conflicts and being aware of those sorts of conflicts, whether these new provisions here mean that those same accountability measures might not apply to the independent regulator.

If that is the case, it would be of concern to me. I am happy if the minister is prepared to undertake on notice to provide a more detailed response as to the government's policy position. I am not in a position obviously, as I have not heard the response yet, to try to amend this particular provision, and I do not propose to delay, given that we have to do this this afternoon, further consideration of clause 14. If the minister is prepared to take that on notice and provide advice, we can pursue it in other fora.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that on notice and come back with an answer for the honourable member.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (15 to 22), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (18:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.