<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2016-11-30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="5629" />
  <endPage num="5731" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Amendment Bill</name>
      <bills>
        <bill id="s4030">
          <name>Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Amendment Bill</name>
        </bill>
      </bills>
      <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001257">
        <heading>Statutes Amendment (SACAT) Amendment Bill</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Committee Stage</name>
        <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001258">
          <heading>Committee Stage</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001259">In committee.</text>
        <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001260">Clause 1.</text>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001261">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  There is one aspect that I want to pursue during the committee stage, and I will limit it to clause 1 discussion. I have advised the government's advisers of the particular area that I want to raise some questions about, and it is the aspect of this particular bill which eventually transfers the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission jurisdiction to the South Australian Employment Tribunal next July. This is, as I understand, the impact of the legislation. A number of people have spoken to me since the bill was tabled in the house, and have asked me a series of questions. I must admit I was not in a position to answer them, so I thought that, during the committee stages of the debate, I would at least ask the question.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001262">Some might not be able to be answered straightaway and some might need to be taken on notice. My question essentially is: given the new arrangements that are about to continue, as I understand it, does the government envisage, from a public servant's viewpoint, that, post the transfer to SACAT, there will be any change at all in the way public servants, who currently have access to appeal provisions under the PSGRC jurisdiction, access appeal provisions under the current jurisdiction? How might they access them after July with the SACAT?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001263">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that, fundamentally, the machinery that will provide for and allow grievances and issues to be resolved under this bill, or under the SAET, will essentially be the same as is currently the case. Of course, there might be procedural issues that differ as a result of minor changes within the existing framework, but essentially all the same mechanics and machinery that govern how disputes are resolved will be the same.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001264">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  My understanding is the PSA have indicated support for the changes to the legislation. Have they not indicated any opposition to the changes, both in the past bill and in this bill?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001265">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is they have not expressed any opposition.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <page num="5718" />
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001266">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  With regard to the persons who currently constitute the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission, if you look at the Public Sector Act currently, the Governor can appoint a presiding commissioner and assistant commissioners to the commission. I am assuming, therefore, that persons who are appointed currently to those positions will become part of SACAT after July next year. Can the minister just explain if the people who have currently been appointed will automatically continue their roles post July next year, or will there be different people taking over but nevertheless intending to undertake the same tasks with the same functions?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001267">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that, post-July 1 next year, all new matters will be heard by the SACAT. Regarding existing matters that are already in train, the existing commissioners within the PSGRC will continue until such time as those matters are resolved or concluded and, once that process has run its course, the PSGRC will be disbanded.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001268">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Are the minister's advisers in a position to indicate who the members of the PSGRC are at the moment? Are there a limited number of people or is it a large number of people who rotate through the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001269">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that there are three commissioners of the PSGRC.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001270">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Do you know the names?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001271">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Kath McEvoy and Anne Burgess. Sorry, correction, my advice is that there are two and they are those names: Kath McEvoy and Anne Burgess.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001272">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Can I just clarify that the minister's answer to the first question was that if there are appeals or reviews on foot by July—that is, those two commissioners are hearing an appeal or resolving a particular issue—that the legislation that we have will allow the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission to continue in operation for however long it will take to conclude those cases, and it will be at the end of those cases that the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission will selfdestruct and the employment tribunal will then take over. Is that how this legislation is intended to operate?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001273">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Yes, with one small technical clarification: the Governor will dissolve it once it has finished its work.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001274">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Is there available on a government website or in an annual report that is publicly available an indication for each year of the number of reviews that are taken to the commission and the nature of those reviews, with a description of them and the success or otherwise?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001275">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Are you talking about the PSGRC?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001276">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Yes, that is right. Is there something which is produced publicly which is available? If there is, could I get a reference to that, and if there is not, is the minister prepared to take on notice to provide some information in terms of the nature of the work that the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission has been undertaking?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001277">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I am happy to take that on notice.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001278">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  I take it that the answer is that there is nothing publicly available at the moment?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001279">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  We do not know.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001280">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  I am happy for the minister to take that on notice and to provide either a reference to where I can actually find it or some information. The reason is to try to establish some baseline, that is, the extent of actions—</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001281">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  The volume of work.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <page num="5719" />
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001282">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Yes, exactly, the volume of work—and then ultimately, after the employment tribunal, we can have a look back on it to see whether or not that has increased or decreased and what the reasons might be for that. It is not the PSA who have contacted me but some individual members of the Public Service who have raised questions about the changes, and I have undertaken to raise the questions on their behalf during this particular debate.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001283">In relation to what the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission has been able to do—and the minister is saying will now be able to continue to do—is it correct to assume that an executive appointment within the public sector cannot take a review of an employment decision, other than dismissal or review of a dismissal, to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001284">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I do not have advice regarding whether or not people in those positions have access to the PSGRC now, but I am able to inform the chamber that I have been advised that if they can now they will not be able to once the new regime takes place.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001285">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Because?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001286">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Sorry, let me just say that again. I think I misinterpreted my advice. The advice is that if they cannot now they will not be able to in the future, so there is no change regarding executive access to the authority.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001287">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  If I could ask the minister to take on notice and confirm that they cannot now under the PSGRC. That is my understanding. The understanding of a number of executives who have been terminated recently within DPC, for example, is that they were not entitled to take a grievance to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission because they were executives and they had signed five-year contracts and had been terminated under the provisions of those contracts.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001288">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that your understanding is accurate.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001289">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  We have fresh in our minds the debate about unfair dismissal under the employment tribunal legislation, where the minister's response was that, in essence, anyone above $100,322, or something, does not currently have access to unfair dismissal and will not in the future. There are some non-executive appointments within the public sector at the ASO8 level, for example, who are earning more than $100,322. They are not executive appointments on contracts; they are akin to permanent public servants.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001290">What is the current position in relation to a public servant who is not on a fixed-term contract as an executive, is a permanent public servant, and is dismissed? Does he or she have access currently under the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission to an unfair dismissal claim and, if he or she does currently, will he or she still have access to unfair dismissal under the employment tribunal regime from July next year?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001291">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  The PSGRC did not have jurisdiction over unfair dismissals; that was with the commission. So, in respect to your question regarding the PSGRC, they never had jurisdiction regarding unfair dismissals.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001292">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  And therefore our previous discussion in relation to who would have access to an unfair dismissal claim, a public servant would be treated exactly the same as someone employed in the private sector. If you earn under $100,000, would you have access to the employment tribunal if you believed that you were unfairly dismissed in the public sector?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001293">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that yes, if you are under the threshold you have access and if you are over, you do not.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001294">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Under the Public Sector Act, section 59—Right of review, it is a review of employment decisions other than dismissal. This section states:</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001295">
            <inserted>This Subdivision provides public sector employees with rights to apply for review of employment decisions.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001296">Generally. It:</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001297">
            <inserted>…does not apply—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001298">
            <inserted>(a)&amp;#x9;to the dismissal of a public sector employee; or</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001299">
            <inserted>(b)&amp;#x9;to a decision to select a person who is not a public sector employee as a consequence of selection processes conducted on the basis of merit…</inserted>
          </text>
          <page num="5720" />
          <text continued="true" id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001300">My layperson's non-legal reading of that is that if there has been a merit-based selection process, and you have established a panel and you are unhappy with the decision, you cannot appeal to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission currently, as a result of that. My reading of that, however, is that if there has not been a merit-based selection—that is, a minister or a CEO has tapped someone on the shoulder and said, 'You've got this particular position'—you do currently have access to a complaint or a review to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission for that. If that is correct—and just a confirmation that that is correct—will that right continue after 1 July next year with the South Australian Employment Tribunal?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001301">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My advice is that nothing is changing in that respect, so whatever is the case now will continue to be so under the new bill.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001302">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  Perhaps I could ask the minister to take on notice, if he is unable to provide a reply at the moment: is that in fact the case at the moment? In the circumstances that I have outlined, can a public sector employee currently take a grievance to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001303">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I am more than happy to take that on notice.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="605">
          <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001304">
            <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS:</by>  I am happy with that and I have no further questions on clause 1 or, indeed, any other clauses.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001305">Clause passed.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001306">Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001307">Bill reported without amendment.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Third Reading</name>
        <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001308">
          <heading>Third Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety</electorate>
          <startTime time="2016-11-30T22:33:13" />
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001309">
            <timeStamp time="2016-11-30T22:33:13" />
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (22:33):</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001310">
            <inserted>That this bill be now read a third time.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20161130ac9d5d1a4a0143caa0001311">Bill read a third time and passed.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>