Bills

Health Care (Governance) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was hoping to provide a response to the Hon. Tammy Franks in relation to consultation on boundaries. As I have advised the chamber, I wrote to the health advisory councils. I am not aware of any responses to my office that opposed that proposal.

In terms of consultation since the bill, the bill was tabled on 7 June and the second reading explanation has made clear that district boundaries would be used as the boundaries for the regional local health networks. On Friday 22 June, I met with HAC presiding members. At that meeting I said I did not want to make changes that did not bring a net benefit.

On that basis it was my intention to maintain metropolitan boundaries for local health networks in the city and use Country Health SA district boundaries for the boundaries of the local health networks in the country. I indicated that I was open to contrary views and none were raised at that time, and I am not aware of any being raised since. Of course, I would be interested if other members have had other advice.

In relation to the issue of costs, as I have advised previously, in the incoming brief there were broad cost estimates prepared by the department. Those estimates were prepared without the benefit of engaging the incoming minister on the government's plans. They were made before the interstate jurisdictions had been engaged and without detailed discussions with the department.

I am advised that the estimated cost for board remuneration is up to $3.6 million per year. We recognise that moving towards local control will support improved efficiencies. The expectation of the government will be that any potential incremental costs in terms of administrative arrangements to support boards will be managed within the overall funding allocations of LHNs and that the boards will drive efficiencies within the overall funding allocations of LHNs.

If it assists the chamber, I am also happy to give an undertaking that the government will bring back to the council a second bill with the governance and accountability framework before boards become fully operational.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 3, line 3 [clause 2(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The amendment removes clause 2(2) to make section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 not apply to this act. Section 7(5) deems that if a bill has not been assented to within two years, it will come into force. Given the minister has outlined that there will be further progression on this and has given representations to the chamber, it is completely unnecessary to give a greater time frame than two years for this to come into force. It seems a simple, good idea to remove this.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the government will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 3 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, lines 22 to 26 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(1)]—Delete inserted subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) A governing board for an incorporated hospital consists of the following members:

(a) 5 or more members (but not more than 7) appointed by the Minister, being persons who collectively have, in the opinion of the Minister, knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively;

(b) a person elected, in accordance with procedures set out in the regulations, by persons employed to work at the hospital.

I might not speak to this in great detail because I think there will be a bit of discussion on clause 11 in total that will help inform us about this amendment. However, I will speak to this specific amendment to help the chamber. The bill provides that boards have at least six and no more than eight members. Our amendment changes it to five but not more than seven, so one less, but inserts a new subsection saying that there should be a person elected in accordance with procedures set out by regulation from people employed to work at the hospital that the boards have jurisdiction of.

In effect, we are not changing the total number. What we are doing is saying that one of the people there should effectively have direct skin in the game and be elected by a hospital in the area to sit on that board.

The CHAIR: Is that amendment distinct from your other amendments? Are there any consequential amendments? That will just determine what I am going to put, that's all. As I understand it this one stands alone, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, they are interrelated in terms of what other things do but I do not think—

The CHAIR: They are not strictly consequential.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think one flows necessarily from this one passing or not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If it helps the debate, I indicate that the Greens might be more willing to support one of the other amendments if this one stands alone.

The CHAIR: I understand that technically this one stands alone.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, it does. While I am on my feet then I will say that the Greens are not of a mind to support this particular one because it leads to a representative model for these particular bodies. We are very mindful of having clinical and, indeed, consumer and diverse clinical representation, but to have a person elected in accordance with procedures set out in the regulations by persons employed to work at the hospital we do not think brings much to this particular structure that has been presented in this bill.

It does set somebody up to be an elected representative in one way or another of those who work at the hospital. Of course, the regulations could determine that it is only senior management who works at that hospital and that certainly would be of concern to us, if that is how this particular amendment played out. However, that idea of electing where no-one else is elected in this circumstance we think skews the nature of these particular bodies.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, I agree with the honourable member. I think it fundamentally undermines the skill-based nature of the board. Could I suggest to the council that it might cause some very difficult relationships within the networks. Let's say that an election was to take place in the Central Adelaide Local Health Network: does anybody expect that anybody who did not work at the Royal Adelaide Hospital would not win that election? Immediately you are giving the RAH a designated position on the board which you are not giving to any other site.

In relation to a country region, can anyone imagine that the Lower South-East—let's say Mount Gambier or Millicent—would not carry the weight to elect a member from that region? I think it would be very unhelpful in terms of undermining the skills-based nature of the board but it would also introduce very unhelpful dynamics within the board.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting it, either, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, do you want to make any further contribution? I put that amendment No. 2 [Maher-1] be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, do you wish to move amendment No. 3 [Maher-1]?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, line 39 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(3)]—Delete '2' and substitute '3'

For the benefit of the chamber, this is related to amendment No. 4 [Maher-1] and if this fails we will not be proceeding with the next one. What amendment No. 4 [Maher-1] does is that instead of having the requirement that at least two members of the governing board must be health professionals, our amendment makes sure that in effect at least one member has to be a doctor, one has to be non-doctor health professional and a third one can be either of those two.

That is why amendment No. 3 [Maher-1] deletes 2 and inserts 3 and then amendment No. 4 [Maher-1] instead of just two members of the governing board being health professionals, there are three members of the governing board: one being a doctor, in effect, under amendment No. 4 [Maher-1] and one being a non-doctor health professional, and a third one being either of those two. We think rather than the possibility of having two doctors or two allied health professions, it is a much better balance to ensure there is greater representation of the clinical knowledge and healthcare providers by having three and, in effect, making sure that at least one of those three is not a doctor or not a non-doctor healthcare professional.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sure that non-doctor health professionals will be pleased to know the opposition thinks they do not have an understanding of clinical governance. We are having a debate on amendment Nos 3 and 4. The government does not support any profession having a dedicated seat on the board. Even if we were to do so, we would not accept the wording of subclause (a), which excludes a retired medical practitioner.

We do not support Maher 3 or 4. We think it reduces the scope for nonclinical skills on the board. The board will always be able to involve staff in their proceedings. With six members, they would already have a third of their members who are health professionals. We believe that is an appropriate balance. It is not stipulated in the bill for the professions to be represented, and we believe it should be merit-based. I would be more than happy to appoint more than one of a profession on the basis of merit.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens will be supporting amendment No. 3 [Maher- 1], but we will not be supporting amendment No. 4 [Maher-1].

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make the point to those members who have not indicated their position—and I respect the Hon. Tammy Franks' position—that if we are going to have a proportion of health professionals on the board to maintain the other skill elements the board has—it needs to have legal expertise, financial expertise, and so forth—the inevitable consequence of the honourable member's amendment would be to increase the size of the board.

The well-established practice of corporate governance in Australia is that often a smaller board is a better board. I respect the intent of the Hon. Tammy Franks supporting it, but it would have the consequence of increasing the size and costs of the board, and not necessarily making a significant difference to the health expertise input on the board. Let's remember that not only will there be the two designated health professionals on the board, current or former, but there will also be, I would expect, at every board meeting the leadership of the network, which would invariably involve health professionals.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate I will not be supporting amendment Nos 3 or 4.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would note that, in the same way that there is no greater virtue in the number 47 than the number 22, there has not been any real evidence about what is the perfect number for a board.

The CHAIR: Hon. Mr Pangallo, do you wish to give any contribution on your position in relation to this?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, line 40 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(3)]—After 'professionals' insert 'of whom—'

(a) at least 1 must be a person who is a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia); and

(b) at least 1 must be a person who is not and never has been a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia).

It was discussed at the same time as the last amendment, so I will move the amendment without taking much more of the committee's time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would suggest they are related, if not consequential.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They do stand alone; you could have one without the other.

The CHAIR: They do tend to be similar.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will not call it consequential, but it is related, and I would urge the council to persist in its wisdom.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, after line 40 [clause 11, inserted section 33B]—After inserted subsection (3) insert:

(3a) At least 1 member of a governing board must be a person who has expertise, knowledge or experience in relation to Aboriginal health.

This requires that at least one member of each governing board must be a person who has expertise, knowledge or experience in relation to Aboriginal health. I am informed that there is something similar in New South Wales in relation to governing boards. We know that Aboriginal people suffer diseases and health effects at a much greater rate in many areas than non-Aboriginal South Australians. Their life expectancy is significantly shorter and, in a whole range of areas, there is a big gap between the health of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians. To have just one member of each board with experience in this area I think would be an important step and may help, in some way, to close that gap.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let me from the outset indicate how seriously I take the poor state of Aboriginal health and the fact that more needs to be done. I note the honourable member's comments that New South Wales has a provision such as this. Considering we are the only jurisdiction not to have board governance, that would imply that, of the five jurisdictions that have board legislation, only one of them has a provision such as this. Considering the level of Aboriginal disadvantage in health, expertise in this area would certainly be a very meritorious attribute for any applicant to a board, but on the basis of the government's eagerness that we maintain that focus on a skills mix, we do not support this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr Chair, I might surprise you. I will reiterate the commitment to Aboriginal health, but I do not support this amendment on behalf of the Greens. I think it is too prescriptive. Yes, absolutely, Aboriginal health must be a primary concern. We have a long way to go to closing the gap, but as to having this provision with regard to the membership of the board, I would hope that every single medical professional actually has knowledge of Aboriginal health. This is incredibly broad and I think it again seeks to be more of a representative than a skills-based body. I would be interested to hear more about how the New South Wales model works and whether or not the clinical engagement strategy is actually the better location for this particular goal to be achieved.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will support this amendment. We all know the poor outcomes in Aboriginal health throughout the state and particularly in regional areas. We know that there is a serious problem with diseases like diabetes. There is also drug substance abuse. I think this amendment has merit, and I will be supporting it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Maher–1]—

Page 7, line 2 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(4)]—After 'incorporated hospital' insert 'under subsection (1)(a)'

This removes the part of the clause that prohibits a person from being a member of a board if they are an employee of a hospital that is in the board area. We had previous amendments to try to ensure that that was the case. Those failed but, without this amendment, the legislation would specifically preclude a person who may have the most knowledge about a particular area from being a member of the board. It does not require it to happen, but it means that, if they are one of the most appropriate people to sit on the board, they are not going to be excluded from doing so.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I believe this is consequential and should therefore be opposed. It is related to (1)(a), the elected member, is it not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The member might help me clarify this, but as I understand it, this takes out the provision under subclause(4)(a) that we are dealing with, that the person who is an employee of the incorporated hospital is not eligible for appointment to the governing board. I think that stands alone. The minister might correct me if I am wrong, but as it is currently drafted the intention we are seeking to amend is that someone who is an employee of an incorporated hospital within the board area is not eligible to be made a board member. We are saying you do not have to make them a board member, but that possibility should be open to do so.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sure. If I understand what the honourable member is suggesting, I suggest we might be talking at cross-purposes. As I understand it, the chair is drawing attention to an amendment which proposes to insert in subclause (4) after the words 'incorporated hospital' the words 'under subsection(1)(a)'. That 'under subsection (1)(a)' is the elected member provision in the earlier amendment.

I would suggest that if it is the view of the opposition that employees of an incorporated association, persons engaged to provide a service to an incorporated hospital or the person who is employed in the department, should be eligible to be appointed to a board, then he may want to delete the whole of subclause (4). If it is only the intention of the opposition that a local employee of the local health network is able to be appointed, then he may want to move an amendment to delete subclause (4)(a). I am happy to take that on the floor, as long as we are clear what we are doing. We will oppose either, because we do not believe that it is appropriate.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, just for your clarity, it is technically consequential because your amendment refers to 'under subsection (1)(a)' which is what was lost. You can make further amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move the amendment standing in my name in an amended form:

Page 7, line 2 [clause 11, inserted section 33B]—

Delete subclause (4)(a) and renumber paragraphs (b) and (c) accordingly.

So that (4) reads, 'A person is not eligible for appointment to the governing board for an incorporated hospital if—' and paragraph (b) will now become paragraph (a) 'the person is engaged to provide a service to the incorporated hospital;' and paragraph (c) will now become paragraph (b) 'the person is an employee of the Department.'

The CHAIR: I am going to read it so that honourable members know. The member has moved to delete subclause (4)(a), which reads 'the person is an employee of the incorporated hospital'. He is further moving that (4)(b) becomes (4)(a) and (4)(c) becomes (4)(b).

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you to the honourable member for clarifying what he is trying to do. I would also indicate my disappointment that the council was not given the opportunity of foreseeing that amendment in advance. I am still happy to express that the government's view is strongly that this subclause should be opposed.

It is actually discriminating against nurses. If you go to a local health network, a person who is an employee of an incorporated hospital, particularly in the country, is likely to be a nurse or an allied health professional or a midwife. In the country, in most of our hospitals, bar four or five, the medical services are provided by, shall we say, in-reach general practitioners. What the opposition amendment would say would be that you are allowing nurses—sorry, it is the other way round actually. It is discriminating against doctors.

It is saying that a nurse can be a member of the board, but a doctor cannot. I think it has the same fatal flaws of the earlier failed amendment in relation to an elected member and also in relation to health professionals. It is very important that we maintain a skills-based board. It is also important that we maintain probity.

One of the strongest messages given to us from particularly our interstate consultants—and when I say interstate consultants, these are experienced health professionals who have actually managed health systems. One of them is the health administrator who helped the Western Australian government do the most recent board governance reforms, in 2016. One of the strongest pieces of advice is: do not burden the boards with the conflicts of interest that comes by having employees on the board.

My understanding is that New South Wales is a jurisdiction that, if you like, is more liberal towards employees being involved on boards, and that has been a real problem. I would urge members not to create conflicts of interest problems, probity issues, for the boards. We should maintain the position and not support this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate I will not be supporting the amended amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting it either.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, lines 3 to 5 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(4)(a) and (b)]—Delete inserted paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute:

(a) the person is employed to work at the incorporated hospital; or

(b) the person provides a service to the incorporated hospital; or

This also relates to the importance of the values I was just talking about. It is the government's intent to ensure that the governing board is independent, and to reflect this section 33B(4) of the bill states that an employee of the department is not eligible to be appointed to the governing board, nor is a local health network employee eligible to be appointed to the governing board for the local health network that employs them.

In response to communications about the establishment of the governing boards, there are a number of queries about the eligibility requirements, particularly from persons who work in country health services where there are varying employment arrangements. This amendment is put forward. We believe it is a minor and technical amendment and we believe it will simplify the wording around the eligibility requirements to refer to persons providing a service rather than being engaged to provide a service.

The end result is that it does not matter whether a person is employed, contracted or granted visiting rights, they will not be eligible to be appointed to the board. The requirement that employees of the Department for Health and Wellbeing are not eligible for appointment to a governing board has not been amended.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Maher–1]—

Page 7, after line 8 [clause 11, inserted section 33B]—After inserted subsection (5) insert:

(5a) The Minister must endeavour to ensure that the diversity of communities in rural districts is reflected in the membership of governing boards for incorporated hospitals located in those districts.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the diversity within a particular area and community that a board represents is reflected on the membership of the board. The amendment speaks for itself. Generally, when the diversity of a community is represented on decision-making bodies they make the best decisions, bringing the diversity to that table.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government opposes this amendment. I would make the point that in making appointments the government will be very mindful of diversity and not just geographic diversity. I am a bit concerned that the opposition's amendment suggests that diversity matters only to people in rural South Australia. My understanding of the metropolitan districts is that there is incredible diversity in metropolitan districts.

Let's take the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, for example. You have relatively prosperous communities around Glenelg and Brighton, through to some of the most challenging communities in the south. There are the Hills suburbs and country towns like McLaren Vale. There is incredible diversity in the south, too.

There is a Latin expression, expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expression of one thing excludes the other. To say that diversity should be respected in rural communities implies it should not be in metropolitan. We do not support that distinction. The boards, again, are not representative bodies. The primary focus on appointments is on skills, and all other things being equal, issues such as regional spread will be considered. Communities will be engaged as part of an engagement strategy, and we do not believe that this element of representation amongst board members is helpful.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting it either. I think the suggestion of input from a diversity of community representatives normally sounds meaningless, and the stipulation that members should act in the public interest is self evident, so I will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Maher–1]—

Page 7, after line 24—After inserted section 33B insert:

33BA—Members of governing boards for incorporated hospitals to act in public interest

A member of a governing board for an incorporated hospital is to act impartially and in the public interest in performing the member's duties.

33BB—Members of governing boards for incorporated hospitals to disclose interests

A member of a governing board must disclose their interests in accordance with Schedule 3A.

Amendment No. 8 [Maher–1] seeks to introduce levels of accountability and transparency that were lacking from the bill as originally drafted. It requires a statement that members of the governing board are to act impartially and in the public interest in performing their duties, which I understand is very similar to a requirement that is in place in Queensland.

It then goes further and sets out a schedule in schedule 3A of the requirements for disclosure of members' interests. It also sets out, as happens in other areas, as for members of parliament or local council, publication of those interests so that members of the community can be absolutely assured that interests are being made only in the interests of the health sector and not in interests that a member might have any other financial interest in.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: First of all, I dispute the opposition's suggestion that the bill as it stands does not have probity requirements. The bill is subject to the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you have an opportunity to make comment in the committee stage. Let the minister finish his answer.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Having said that, the government sees the wisdom of the opposition approach to go beyond the management of conflict of interest approach within the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 and move towards disclosure. We will therefore be supporting amendment No. 8, which relates to 33BA and 33BB, but we do have an alternative approach that we believe is to be preferred in a future amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question to the minister is: in clause 33(2)(b), will procurement of equipment and supplies be undertaken locally by the health boards?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated earlier, these elements of policy, such as procurement and what level of devolution will occur, will be part of the stage 2 discussions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I appreciate the minister's response but, given that it is talking about the operations of the hospital being carried out efficiently and effectively, managing its budget and using hospital resources equitably, I think it is reasonable for local regions to know whether procurement will be part of the proposed remit of these boards.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member is correct: communities will know when the boards are in place and what they can hold them accountable for. That information, that scope of responsibility, will be clear when the boards become fully operational from 1 July 2019.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can you say whether local boards will be subject to industry participation plans?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In relation to procurement policies, it depends on whether they have responsibility for procurement.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If they do have responsibility for procurement, will they be subject to industry participation plans?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: They will certainly be held to government policies, as is indicated in the legislation, and to the extent that that applies to procurement, so be it.

Clause as amended passed.

New clauses 11A, 11B, 11C and 11D.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 7—After clause 11 insert:

11A—Amendment of heading to Part 5 Division 4

Heading to Part 5 Division 4—delete 'audits and reports' and substitute:

audits, reports and publication

11B—Amendment of section 36—Accounts and audit

Section 36(1)—after 'in respect of' insert:

each quarter and

11C—Amendment of section 37—Annual report

(1) Section 37(2)—delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) The report must incorporate, for the financial year—

(a) the audited accounts and financial statements of the incorporated hospital (for each quarter and the financial year); and

(b) the following information for each site of the incorporated hospital:

(i) emergency department waiting times of the site; and

(ii) elective surgery waiting times of the site; and

(iii) outpatient waiting times of the site; and

(c) details of all health services provided by the incorporated hospital and the sites at which those services are provided; and

(d) detailed financial information for each site and health service operated by the incorporated hospital.

(2) Section 37(3)—delete 'to be laid before both Houses of Parliament' and substitute:

—

(a) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) to be presented to the Social Development Committee of Parliament.

11D—Insertion of sections 37A, 37B, 37C and 37D

After section 37 insert:

37A—Publication of quarterly financial statements

The governing board for an incorporated hospital must cause the financial statements of the incorporated hospital for each quarter prepared under section 36(1) to be published on a website accessible by the public at no charge within 7 days of being prepared under that section.

37B—Publication of agreed performance measures

The governing board for an incorporated hospital must cause all performance measures agreed with the Chief Executive for the incorporated hospital (including performance measures in the service agreement between the incorporated hospital and the Chief Executive) to be published on a website accessible by the public at no charge.

37C—Publication of real-time operational information

(1) The governing board for an incorporated hospital must cause prescribed operational information for the incorporated hospital to be generated and published in real-time (as far as is reasonably practicable) on a website accessible by the public at no charge.

(2) The website on which prescribed operational information for an incorporated hospital is published may include prescribed operational information for 1 or more other incorporated hospitals.

(3) In this section—

prescribed operational information, for an incorporated hospital, means the following information:

(a) emergency department patient levels, activity and waiting times;

(b) ambulance levels, activity and waiting times;

(c) outpatient levels, activity and waiting times;

(d) elective surgery patient levels, activity and waiting times;

(e) hospital bed levels and inpatient activity;

(f) other information relating to the operations of an incorporated hospital as may be prescribed by regulation.

37D—Publication of serious clinical failure

(1) The governing board for an incorporated hospital must cause notice of all serious clinical failures occurring in the incorporated hospital to be published on a website accessible by the public at no charge.

(2) In this section—

serious clinical failure means an event that results in death or serious harm to a patient and—

(a) is identified as a sentinel event by the Australian Commission on Safety in Quality Health Care; or

(b) is an event of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this definition.

This amendment does two things in relation to audits and reports. It does not just require the auditor's reports but also requires their publication. The second part of the amendment requires them not to be performed yearly but quarterly. This is in line with the minister's long-trumpeted desire for accountability, transparency and openness. We look forward to the government's support in making our health boards more accountable, transparent and open.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This brings the council to the key choice that we have this afternoon. On the basis of my undertaking that this is a stage 1 bill—we will have a stage 2 bill before the boards become fully operational—the honourable Leader of the Opposition suggested, 'How about you accept all my amendments and use my version of the bill as the starting point for the stage 2 consultation?' The main reason the government would oppose that is that our bill is based on best practice. One of the gifts the former Labor government has given us is that, because they fought so long and hard to avoid board governance, we are actually the last jurisdiction in Australia to introduce board governance for health.

That means we can draw on best practice in other jurisdictions right across Australia, and we have done that. The most recent jurisdiction to introduce health board governance was Western Australia. As I said earlier, we have engaged a senior health administrator to be involved in that reform process to make sure we can distil best practice. It would be fair to say—in fact, I am happy for the government to be accused of plagiarism—that there are elements of a number of different interstate models. I have already admitted that the Queensland bill was the inspiration for the consumer and community engagement strategies and also the clinician engagement strategy. There are different elements of the bill that pick up on different elements in other jurisdictions.

I think that, if the house is faced with the question of whether we should use the government's bill as a starting point for stage 2 consultation and the governance and accountability framework, or whether we should use the opposition's version, in the context of best practice and to avoid drifting into uncharted waters it is best to use the government's starting point.

In terms of the elements that are highlighted in the honourable member's amendment No. 9, there are a number of aspects there which are very worthy and deserve the consideration of the parliament in the stage 2 debate. As I said earlier, if the opposition was serious about respecting consultation, they would not be putting down suggested amendments to what is, if you like, the best practice framework, without going into that consultation.

So I am not going to be opposing this amendment because any particular element is necessarily offensive. It is, in my view, matters that should appropriately be considered in the totality of the governance accountability framework, and that consultation will be occurring in the months ahead.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment and the related amendments, and we look forward to that consultation ahead.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be either.

The committee divided on the new clauses:

Ayes 8

Noes 8

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There being 8 ayes and 8 noes, I will exercise my casting vote for the noes.

New clauses thus negatived.

Clause 12.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 15 [clause 12, inserted section 48A]—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1a) At any given time there must be at least 1 inspector holding office under subsection (1) for each incorporated hospital.

I indicate that, whilst not consequential, the next amendment, amendment No. 11 [Maher-1], deals with very similar issues and I think I will address both of them and we can discuss them both as we are going through. Having said that, I do not propose that 11 will fall if 10 fails but, for the sake of the discussion here, I think it would be wise to discuss them together.

The bill sets up a scheme where inspectors 'may' be appointed. These amendments make it that inspectors 'must' be appointed so that at least one inspector must be appointed for each incorporated hospital under how the scheme works for incorporated hospitals. There are a number of schemes that have inspectors. I am familiar with the correctional visitor scheme. There is the Community Visitor Scheme that operates in the disability and mental health sector, providing an exceptionally valuable service to the government, but also as a reassurance for those involved in the system, whether it is Corrections or the disability or mental health sector.

We think the amendments that require inspectors to hold office and then the further amendments in amendment No. 11 [Maher-1] that talk about the functions of the inspector and the independence of the inspector, the requirement for the absolute independence of the inspector and the requirement to inspect hospitals at regular intervals, help with openness and transparency, and we commend the amendments to the chamber.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I support the suggestion of the honourable member that we discuss amendments Nos 10 and 11 together, and it is in his hands as to how we vote on them. I propose to the chamber that these amendments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of inspectors. The clauses in relation to inspectors as provided in the bill are reserve powers so that if the minister or the department needs information from a local health network they do not have to rely on an employee of the department checking on the role of the board or the hospital.

The inspector, as envisaged in the bill, will be used where the relationship between the minister and the board has broken down and the board or local health network was not being cooperative. I see these inspectors being appointed on an as-needed basis and being used only in more serious matters where an adverse event had occurred and the board was not cooperating with an investigation or inquiry, or there was a substantial threat to the local health network—let's say serious financial matters.

I note the comments from the Australian Medical Association about ensuring the independence of the board. I cannot see how the perceived threat of an inspector coming in every two or three months will allow the board to act independently. In the context of that role, the elements in the amendment that basically say the minister cannot direct an inspector, totally neuters this proposal for the purpose for which it is designed. If I cannot say to the inspector, 'I need information on clinical governance,' or, 'I need information on financial management,' then I am not going to send them in—they are not providing me with the information I need. Therefore, I think it significantly increases the risk that I will have to take more severe action without all the information I need.

If I could send the inspector in and ask, 'Can you give me an assessment on how they are going with clinical governance? I have heard that the board financial statements are not reliable. Can you check on that?' that gives me a chance to resolve issues at a lower level. If I do not have access to that information through a measure such as the inspector, I have to escalate to more draconian responses.

I think it is a fundamental misconception to see this as a visitor scheme, such as the schemes that were referred to like the Principal Community Visitor scheme. This is very much a matter of governance and accountability and an inspector is a very discrete role to assist the minister in that duty.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for setting out how he would prefer to see inspectors work. I do not doubt that is how he would prefer them to work and for them to have a very limited and discrete role and duty, but that is not how we think they can operate and it is not how we think they might be able to operate. We think our proposal provides much better service to the government and to health consumers in general.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the honourable member thinks we need a community visitor scheme for hospitals, I would suggest he might want to consider a separate amendment. We would not be supporting it because one of the big differences between a principal community visitor, who visits disability houses, supported residential facilities or mental health facilities, is that there are already accreditation procedures: residential aged-care accreditation, hospital accreditation or mental health aged-care accreditation that applies to hospitals completely independent of state government, which is to be welcomed. Let's put it this way: I am open to a proposal which outlines how a community visitor scheme would work in hospitals and why it is needed. The opposition playing with a very necessary role within the corporate governance framework for the boards I do not think is a helpful way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for letting us know that he is open to such a scheme. My proposal is that the committee supports this particular scheme and we go back and work on a bigger and more substantive hospital visitor scheme and, when we do that, we can amend this bill, that we put it in here. I do not think the fact that an invitation to say we may support a stand-alone scheme should mean we should not support one that we have before us at the moment. If we do come back with a stand-alone scheme, great, and we can amend this one that is no longer needed, but I think there is good reason to put this one in now.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would ask the honourable member: what is the estimated cost of his hospital-based community visitor scheme?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. That is one of the great joys of now being in opposition, and crossbenchers as well. I hope the minister would not do a disservice that, if any crossbench member had an idea that would help consumers, help with transparency and accountability, he would be so churlish to crossbenchers to say we should not do this because we do not know the exact cost of doing something that is the proper function of government.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not going to prolong the debate. All I will do is make the point that it is common practice in this parliament, if people put up a proposal, for people to ask what are the implications, including financial. I do not believe the opposition has made a case for a community visitor scheme for hospitals. I believe I have made a case that, within the corporate governance framework, I need an inspector. I would urge the council to not support Maher amendment No. 10 [Maher-1].

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. I think we are at cross-purposes here. There has been a lot of talk about community visitors. It is actually not a community visitor scheme that this bill proposes. A community visitor scheme would be worthwhile. And, oh, I remember when I worked for the mental health coalition of South Australia lobbying the Weatherill-Rann government for a community visitor scheme for many, many, many years before we finally got one. So I welcome their new-found enthusiasm, but this part of the bill is not about a community visitor scheme, it is about an inspector. It is a corporate governance tool. It is not there for what the debate has just turned its mind to. For those few reasons, we will not be supporting the opposition amendments.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Maher–1]—

Page 9, after line 7 [clause 12, inserted Division 10]—After inserted section 48A insert:

48B—Inspection of incorporated hospitals

Each site of an incorporated hospital must be inspected by an inspector at intervals of not more than 2 months.

48C—Independence

(1) In exercising functions and powers under this Act, an inspector must act independently, impartially and in the public interest.

(2) Neither the Minister nor the Chief Executive can—

(a) control how an inspector is to exercise the inspector's statutory functions and powers; or

(b) give any direction with respect to the content of any report prepared by an inspector.

Note—

This provision does not derogate from any express power of the Minister or Chief Executive under this Act.

48D—Staff and resources

The Minister must provide inspectors with the resources reasonably required for exercising their functions.

48E—Reporting obligations of inspector

(1) An inspector may, at any time, provide a report to the Minister on any matter arising out of the performance of the inspector's functions.

(2) A person appointed as an inspector must, not less than 3 months after the expiry of their appointment as an inspector, provide a written report to the Minister on any relevant matters arising out of the performance of their functions as an inspector during the period of the appointment.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report under this section, have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

The amendment is not contingent on No. 10 having passed or failed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the minister who might be asking an inspector to go in, and considering that I may not need information on the 67 hospitals every two months, I would suggest we do not need amendment No. 11. The government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting it either.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Maher–1]—

Page 9, after line 10—After clause 13 insert:

13A—Insertion of section 102

After section 101 insert:

102—Review of amendments to Act by Health Care (Governance) Amendment Act 2018

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation and effect of the amendments made to this Act by the Health Care (Governance) Amendment Act 2018 to be undertaken within a reasonable time after the third anniversary of the commencement of section 11 of the Health Care (Governance) Amendment Act 2018.

(2) A review under this section must—

(a) be conducted by a person with expertise in health care administration or service delivery; and

(b) include information about the operation and effect of the amendments in relation to—

(i) the quality and safety of health care in this State; and

(ii) the costs of providing health services at incorporated hospitals; and

(iii) the coordination of health services provided by incorporated hospitals.

(3) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receipt of a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This amendment calls for a review of the act, should it pass. The minister has outlined that he is hopeful that, by the end of this year, there will be a new act that will replace everything and make all the work we have done today completely redundant, but that is the minister's prerogative. Given those assurances of the minister, no-one should be afraid of having a review of this act in the future, given the minister has assured the house it will have no work to do and this will be repealed, as he optimistically says, by the end of this year.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have always said that this stage 1 bill will be a foundation for stage 2, and I see the merit of a review after three years. The government will be supporting it. Our understanding is that the consequence of the clause would be that the three years would count from 1 July 2019 because that is when the provision comes in.

I certainly would not want the review to be, shall we say, activated when we proclaim stage 1 and move to appointment, because that effectively puts the boards being reviewed two years into their full operational status. Just to make it clear, that is my understanding. The government supports the amendment but would want the boards to be reviewed after three years of full operation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will also be supporting it. We note that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is the opposition moving for a review. It is always the crossbenchers and the opposition supporting a review, and it would be really nice if the government came back with reviews in their future bills.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 14.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Maher–1]—

Page 10, after line 5 [clause 14, inserted clause 3]—After the present contents of inserted clause 3 (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The Minister must cause the remuneration, allowances and expenses determined under this clause to be published on a website determined by the Minister that is accessible by the public at no charge.

(3) The Chairperson of a governing board must ensure that travel or entertainment expenses incurred by the board in respect of the performance by a member of the member's functions and duties are disclosed on a website accessible to the public at no charge not more than 60 days after the day on which they are incurred.

This amendment is aimed squarely at accountability and transparency of the costs of the board. These are things that particularly crossbenchers fight for regularly in terms of an understanding of what government is spending, and what expenses of taxpayers' dollars are being incurred on things such as travel and entertainment. We can see no reason why the remuneration, allowances and expenses in relation to these boards should not be published and published regularly, similar to what ministers of the government publish so that the public can be assured that their taxpayer dollar is being spent wisely.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I commend the honourable member for having identified an amendment that is relevant to the stage 1 bill. This definitely does relate to boards and how they operate. The government supports this amendment on the grounds of transparency and accountability. The publication of remuneration, to be clear, is already covered as part of the annual report for government boards and committees that is tabled in parliament.

Despite this, I am willing to have the information also published on the website for the local health network. The remuneration level for board members is in accordance with provisions set by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for government boards and committees and also in line with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet requirements for government boards and committees that members may be entitled to travel expenses. The government is willing to have these expenses also published. We support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, can I clarify that we are dealing with Amendment No. 14 [Maher-1]?

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 13 [Maher-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We are dealing with these as separate amendments?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am actually going to speak to the next range of procedural matters in a parcel and I will explain why, because it will give the Leader of the Opposition a little bit of time to do something. The Greens are broadly supporting some of these amendments but not all of them. When we get to the one in regard to the publication of minutes, we note that does not specify approved minutes and we have some concerns that that language is not tight enough and needs to be tightened up.

The other area where I have some concerns with the looseness of the language is that 'a meeting of the governing board must be conducted in a place open to the public'. I understand the intent of the amendment is that the meeting needs to be accessible to the public, but is that definition prohibitive to a boardroom, for example, being used for a meeting? I realise that possibly I might be overthinking this but, on my reading of it, I was a bit concerned that that language was perhaps too loose. Certainly, in regard to the approval of minutes before they are published, I would want to ensure that we were not sending unpublished, uncorrected minutes out to the public before they were approved. Otherwise, we are broadly supportive.

The CHAIR: Do members wish to make a similar contribution on the collection of amendments to clause 14? If not, I am proposing that I will move to put the question in relation to amendment No. 13 [Maher-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: At this point, I indicate that the Greens will support this, but if the government has any concerns with the looseness of the language if that could be—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think we are still dealing with amendment No. 13. We will make comments on amendment No. 14 when we get there.

The CHAIR: All I am putting is amendment No. 13 [Maher-1], then we will go on to an opportunity for honourable members to comment on the other amendments that are proposed to clause 14.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: By leave, I move this amendment in an amended form:

Amendment No 14 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, after line 10—After inserted clause 7 insert:

7A—Public meetings

(1) Subject to this section, a meeting of a governing board must be conducted in a place open and accessible to the public.

(2) A governing board may, if the board considers that it is in the public interest to do so, order that the public be excluded from attendance at a meeting to the extent (and only to the extent) that the governing board considers it to be necessary and appropriate to act in a meeting closed to the public in order to receive, discuss or consider a confidential matter.

(3) A governing board must hold a meeting between 1 October and 31 December in each year at which—

(a) the annual report of the incorporated hospital for the previous financial year is presented to members of the public; and

(b) any member of the public in attendance at the meeting is entitled to address the meeting.

(4) The holding of the meeting under subsection (3) is to be advertised in at least 1 newspaper circulating generally in the area of the incorporated public hospital and by such other means (including on a website accessible by the public at no charge) as the governing board determines.

The amendment is in 7A(1) to add 'and accessible' after the word 'open', so that subclause (1) reads 'Subject to this section, a meeting of the governing board must be conducted in a place open and accessible to the public.' The amendment speaks for itself.

This is based on a number of things contained in the New South Wales legislation for hospital boards, making sure that the community has an understanding of what their taxpayers' dollars are being spent on and why in relation to the provision of health services in their area. It makes sure, again, that meetings are not just open but now accessible to the public and that once a year members of the public have a right to be heard and are entitled to speak at meetings of the board.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is the government's view that these matters are moving into tranche 2 matters. We have concerns about the capacity for the boards to deal with the range of matters before them if they are fully open. We are happy to have that conversation as part of the discussion on governance and accountability. It will be very interesting to hear the views of groups like the health advisory councils as to the way that they operate.

We also think there needs to be a lot more consultation about some of the implications of how this might work. A board could be open and accessible to the public at a very remote location. There are a lot of issues that need to be discussed if these matters are to be practical, and we believe that that is better done as part of the tranche 2 consultation. Those comments only relate to amendment No. 14 [Maher–1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will try to keep my remarks to this particular clause this time. and apologise to the council for getting ahead of myself. I think the Leader of the Opposition has actually misunderstood some of my concerns. I am slightly concerned that 7A(1) would exclude a boardroom as a location for a meeting. I am prepared at this stage to say that we will support this amendment, but if that wording is of a nature that gives rise to problems, I would appreciate the minister taking that on board in the conversation between the houses.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We would be happy if the council would not support this amendment, and I am not going to give an undertaking that the government is going to support it in the other place if it is passed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In checking the procedure, I think I did slightly misunderstand the nature of what the honourable member suggested when she spoke to this amendment in the previous amendment: not just 'open and accessible' but 'accessible' rather than 'open', so that somewhere that is not usually open, like a boardroom, but for the purposes of a meeting could be accessible. Is that what the honourable member meant? Was the honourable member suggesting the word 'accessible' instead of 'open' rather than in addition to it?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, my concern is that we are moving a series of amendments around transparency. There are levels of transparency that I think are appropriate—publication of approved minutes, promulgation of an agenda, awareness of the issues to be debated—but I would expect that typically a place like a boardroom is where we would see these meetings take place, and they are not open and accessible to the public locations, so I am concerned that this definition is counterproductive.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate to the honourable member that if concerns became apparent, we would not be closed to a conversation. If this was amended in the other place and came back here with sensible amendments that made the operation of this even more effective and workable, we would not have a closed mind to changing it when it came back here.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate the goals that the Hon. Ms Franks is going for, and I think the honourable member is highlighting more and more the problems with this amendment. I do not know why Mount Gambier is coming to mind, but I have been at a number of meetings in Mount Gambier and they care passionately about their health. How can a board know in advance that that meeting is going to produce a community response that means they need to hire the community hall, not the boardroom at the hospital?

A board that was going to take this amendment seriously would therefore have to have every meeting at the town hall. Again, I would urge the council that a thought bubble from the opposition is not a substitute for a well-consulted proposal. We would suggest that this is better done in the tranche 2 consultation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his suggestions. I disagree with him, though, that a small boardroom that has no seating around it, perhaps in a hospital, or a big community hall are the two binary options that are available to hold a meeting in. Many regional councils hold their meetings in chambers that are very small and have limited seating and do quite fine with the possibility of each council meeting being open to the public.

There is the possibility that it is a boardroom that has some seating that, like many local small councils in the regions, would allow members of the public to attend. I think if there was a contentious matter being heard, as happens in council meetings, they would make appropriate arrangements for more seating or a place that would be even more suitable.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I share the concerns of the minister. I am quite bemused by this. How would this work? You make a comparison to councils, but we are talking about an executive board here. We are not talking about an open council meeting with elected members where you are going to have people coming forward. I have been to some of these meetings, where things get quite passionate and open and fiery. It is a board that is actually dealing with the governance of a place.

I think we need to work out how it is going to work and how often they are going to have public meetings, if you suddenly open the doors every time you are having a board meeting. I do not see company boards opening up their boardroom to the public to come in and have a say. I just do not think it is workable, honourable opposition leader.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his comments. I think the analogy with local government is a good one. Local government is open unless they decide not to be open. These boards will possibly be dealing with tens of millions of dollars, or even more, of taxpayers' money. That is even more substantial than local councils in terms of the quantum of money that they are spending.

This amendment provides a provision for the board, if it considers it is in the public interest to do so, to exclude people from attendance, if there was something that was necessary for it to be held in camera, for the board to discuss that they needed to make a decision not with the public around. They have the option to do it in here, much like local councils have the option to do it.

I would be surprised if the Hon. Frank Pangallo is going to not support an amendment that increases the public's right to know. That would fly in the face of many years of what he has done. A private company is not spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money; these boards probably will be. I think taxpayers have a right to know; the honourable member may disagree.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I agree, but I want to know how it is going to work effectively, so it does not descend from decorum. I think there needs to be some idea of what is going to be open to the public and what is not going to be open to the public. If there is an indication here that these boards are going to have to open their doors to the public at each meeting or the board then has the discretion of saying, 'Well, we are going to hold this in camera,' I think you are going to find it is going to create a lot of angst within communities.

As I have pointed out, this board is an executive board, not an elected board. For sure, I would like to hear what is going on and certainly give the public an opportunity to have their say to the board, but I think these sessions need to be properly structured rather than just having it sitting there that they can go in.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the analogy I had started. Local councils seem to do fine with much less money being spent and much less quantum of money being spent, but having their proceedings, everything they spend money on, open to the public, unless they decide that they should go in camera. I am surprised the honourable member would think that a much greater amount of money means there should be less public scrutiny on this, but it is up to the honourable member what he supports and does not.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that once you reach a certain threshold you should have your board meetings open. I do not recall the former government legislating in that regard in relation to SA Water or the TAFE board.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: I don't think I said that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It might be suggested that that was not relevant to what the Leader of the Opposition said. What he said was that these boards are spending a lot of public money, therefore they should be open. Well, what about the TAFE board? What about the SA Water board? The fact of the matter is that the councils are fundamentally different. Because they are representative, elected bodies, the community has the right to hold their elected members to account. That is why parliament is open. That is why councils are open. It is not relevant to hospital boards.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition: if it was so important to have hospital boards open, why did they not do it for the first six years of their administration between 2002 and 2008? If it was so important for hospital boards to be open, why did they not do it the last time they had hospital boards?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think this will put at ease some of the honourable member's concern about the public having too much right to know: I am going to seek leave to move this amendment without subclauses (1) and (2), so that clause 7A will have only subclauses (3) and (4). In that way, the public will generally not know what goes on at board meetings and it can remain secret.

Only subclauses (3) and (4) remain, which is just one public meeting a year. That means that what happens on a day-to-day basis, what happens with the tens of billions of dollars being spent, remains completely secret. The public will not have a right to know. The public will only have a right to know once a year, and so the problem of how big the room needs to be will not be a problem at each board meeting. I will move an amended form to remove subclauses (1) and (2) and leave only subclauses (3) and (4) remaining.

The CHAIR: You have to do it in a slightly different way, but we will get there. I will give you some guidance in a moment. Does any honourable member wish to respond to what the Leader of the Opposition has just put forward? Then we will go to having him formally moving it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Again, I make the point that this discussion has highlighted the value of consultation. That is why the government believes that this amendment and others should be considered as part of tranche 2 and should benefit from wider consultation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would like to conclude before we go the mechanics of how this is moved separately. Having removed subclauses (1) and (2) means that every public meeting is not open anymore. That is taken off the table, and it is just one public meeting once a year that is open. The public gets one go at coming to a meeting, and the board knows it is that one meeting a year. That is all that is open. That is already in the New South Wales legislation. We are taking out the first two clauses, meaning that just one meeting a year is open to the public, not every meeting.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will support that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will support that.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, can I have you seek leave to withdraw your amendment and then move the amendment in the amended form.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment and to move it in the following amended form:

Amendment No 14 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, after line 10—After inserted clause 7 insert:

7A—Public meetings

(1) A governing board must hold a meeting between 1 October and 31 December in each year at which—

(a) the annual report of the incorporated hospital for the previous financial year is presented to members of the public; and

(b) any member of the public in attendance at the meeting is entitled to address the meeting.

(2) The holding of the meeting under subsection (3) is to be advertised in at least 1 newspaper circulating generally in the area of the incorporated public hospital and by such other means (including on a website accessible by the public at no charge) as the governing board determines.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to the wording in subclause (2), 'the holding of a meeting under subsection (3) is to be advertised in at least 1 newspaper', we no longer have a subsection (3). We have subclauses (1) and (2). So I assume we have to change that.

The CHAIR: I understand that is automatically taken into account in instructions to parliamentary counsel, should the amendment pass.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, after line 13—After inserted subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The agenda for a meeting of a governing board must, at least 7 days before the meeting is to be held, be published on a website accessible by the public at no charge.

We have decided that meetings should be open to the public only once a year. We have removed the public's right to know and we have increased the secrecy in terms of how public money is spent. That was a decision this chamber made. At the very least, if the public has no right to be there when a decision is made, they should at least have a right to know what decisions are going to be made, even if they will not have any idea of how they were made. Publishing the agenda will help them do that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Whilst the more detailed matters of the government's framework will be discussed in the tranche 2 consultation, the government sees merit in the opposition's amendment insofar as we agree that the publication of an agenda is an appropriate disclosure to the public before a meeting.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Obviously, the Greens will be supporting this, but we note that those bodies may wish to hold public meetings at any time, in addition to this one, and that they should do so at their own behest.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move this amendment in an amended form:

Amendment No 16 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, line 37 [clause 14, inserted clause 8(6)]—After 'meetings' insert:

and must, within 7 days of a meeting, publish the approved minutes of the meeting on a website accessible by the public at no charge

The amended form is that, after the phrase 'publish the minutes' we have inserted 'approved', so that it reads 'publish the approved minutes'.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To the other end of the bookend, we agree with both agendas and minutes.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Maher–1]—

Page 14, after line 5—After inserted Schedule 3 insert:

Schedule 3A—Disclosure of interests

1—Interpretation

(1) In this Schedule, unless the contrary intention appears—

beneficial interest in property includes a right to re-acquire the property;

domestic partner means a person who is a domestic partner within the meaning of the Family Relationships Act 1975, whether declared as such under that Act or not;

family, in relation to a Member, means—

(a) a spouse or domestic partner of the Member; and

(b) a child of the Member who is under the age of 18 years and normally resides with the Member;

family company of a Member means a proprietary company—

(a) in which the Member or a member of the Member's family is a shareholder; and

(b) in respect of which the Member or a member of the Member's family, or any such persons together, are in a position to cast, or control the casting of, more than one-half of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of the company;

family trust of a Member means a trust (other than a testamentary trust)—

(a) of which the Member or a member of the Member's family is a beneficiary; and

(b) which is established or administered wholly or substantially in the interests of the Member or a member of the Member's family, or any such persons together;

financial benefit, in relation to a person, means—

(a) any remuneration, fee or other pecuniary sum exceeding $1,000 received by the person in respect of a contract of service entered into, or paid office held by, the person; and

(b) the total of all remuneration, fees or other pecuniary sums received by the person in respect of a trade, profession, business or vocation engaged in by the person where that total exceeds $1,000,

but does not include a financial benefit received by the person as a Member;

gift means a transaction in which a benefit of pecuniary value is conferred without consideration or for less than adequate consideration, but does not include an ordinary commercial transaction or a transaction in the ordinary course of business;

income source, in relation to a person, means—

(a) any person or body of persons with whom the person entered into a contract of service or held any paid office; and

(b) any trade, vocation, business or profession engaged in by the person;

initial return—see clause 2(1);

Member means a member of a governing board;

ordinary return—see clause 2(2);

a person related to a Member means—

(a) a member of the Member's family;

(b) a family company of the Member;

(c) a trustee of a family trust of the Member;

register—see clause 4(1);

return period, in relation to an ordinary return of a Member, means the financial year or part of a financial year to which the return relates (see clause 2(2));

spouse—a person is the spouse of another if they are legally married;

trade or professional organisation means a body, corporate or unincorporate, of—

(a) employers or employees; or

(b) persons engaged in a profession, trade or other occupation,

being a body of which the object, or 1 of the objects, is the furtherance of its own professional, industrial or economic interests or those of any of its members.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) a person who is an object of a discretionary trust is to be taken to be a beneficiary of that trust; and

(b) a person is an investor in a body if—

(i) the person has deposited money with, or lent money to, the body that has not been repaid and the amount not repaid equals or exceeds $10,000; or

(ii) the person holds, or has a beneficial interest in, shares in, or debentures of, the body or a policy of life insurance issued by the body; and

(c) in relation to a return by a Member—

(i) 2 or more separate contributions made by the same person for or towards the cost of travel undertaken by the Member or a member of the Member's family during the return period are to be treated as 1 contribution for or towards the cost of travel undertaken by the Member; and

(ii) 2 or more separate gifts received by the Member or a person related to the Member from the same person during the return period are to be treated as 1 gift received by the Member; and

(iii) 2 or more separate transactions to which the Member or a person related to the Member is a party with the same person during the return period under which the Member or a person related to the Member has had the use of property of the other person (whether or not being the same property) during the return period are to be treated as 1 transaction under which the Member has had the use of property of the other person during the return period.

2—Lodging of returns

(1) Each person appointed to be a Member must, no later than 30 days after the appointment, submit to the Minister a return (an initial return).

(2) Each Member must, no later than 31 August each year, submit to the Minister a return (an ordinary return) relating to the previous financial year or, if the member only held office for part of that financial year, the period for which they held office.

3—Contents of returns

(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, an initial return must contain the following information:

(a) a statement of any income source that the Member required to submit the return or a person related to the Member has or expects to have in the period from the day of the Member's appointment and ending on the next 30 June after that appointment;

(b) the name of any company or other body, corporate or unincorporate, in which the Member or a member of the Member's family holds office whether as director or otherwise;

(c) the information required by subclause (3).

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, an ordinary return must contain the following information:

(a) if the Member required to submit the return or a person related to the Member received, or was entitled to receive, a financial benefit during any part of the return period—the income source of the financial benefit;

(b) if the Member or a member of the Member's family held office whether as director or otherwise in any company or other body, corporate or unincorporate, during the return period—the name of the company or other body;

(c) the source of any contribution made in cash or in kind of or above the amount or value of $750 (other than any contribution by the State or any public statutory corporation constituted under the law of the State, by an employer or by a person related by blood or marriage) for or towards the cost of any travel beyond the limits of South Australia undertaken by the Member or a member of the Member's family during the return period, and for the purposes of this paragraph cost of travel includes accommodation costs and other costs and expenses associated with the travel;

(d) particulars (including the name of the donor) of any gift of or above the amount or value of $750 received by the Member or a person related to the Member during the return period from a person other than a person related by blood or marriage to the Member or to a member of the Member's family;

(e) where the Member or a person related to the Member has been a party to a transaction under which the Member or person related to the Member has had the use of property of the other person during the return period and—

(i) the use of the property was not acquired for adequate consideration or through an ordinary commercial transaction or in the ordinary course of business; and

(ii) the market price for acquiring a right to such use of the property would be $750 or more; and

(iii) the person granting the use of the property was not related by blood or marriage to the Member or to a member of the Member's family,

the name and address of that person;

(f) particulars of any contract made during the return period between the Member or a person related to the Member and the Crown in right of the State where any monetary consideration payable by a party to the contract equals or exceeds $7,500;

(g) the information required by subclause (3).

(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, a return (whether initial or ordinary) must contain the following information:

(a) the name or description of any company, partnership, association or other body in which the Member required to submit the return or a person related to the Member is an investor;

(b) the name of any political party, body or association formed for political purposes, or trade or professional organisation, of which the Member is a member;

(c) a concise description of any trust (other than a testamentary trust) of which the Member or a person related to the Member is a beneficiary or trustee (including the name and address of each trustee);

(d) the address or description of any land in which the Member or a person related to the Member has a beneficial interest other than by way of security for a debt;

(e) any fund in which the Member or a person related to the Member has an actual or prospective interest to which contributions are made by a person other than the Member or a person related to the Member;

(f) if the Member or a person related to the Member is indebted to another person (not being related by blood or marriage to the Member or to a member of the Member's family) in an amount of or exceeding $7,500—the name and address of that other person;

(g) if the Member or a person related to the Member is owed money by an individual (not being related to the Member or a member of the Member's family by blood or otherwise) in an amount of or exceeding $10,000—the name and address of that person;

(h) any other substantial interest whether of a pecuniary nature or not of the Member or a person related to the Member of which the Member is aware and which the Member considers might appear to raise a material conflict between the Member's private interest and the public duty that the Member has or may subsequently have as a Member.

(4) A Member is required by this clause only to disclose information that is known to the Member or ascertainable by the Member by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

(5) Nothing in this clause requires a Member to disclose information relating to a person as trustee of a trust unless the information relates to the person in the person's capacity as trustee of a trust by reason of which the person is related to the Member.

(6) It will be sufficient compliance with subclause (2)(f) if a Member's return contains particulars of a class of contracts referred to in that paragraph (rather than particulars of the individual contracts comprised in the class) provided that each contract of the class is an ordinary commercial or arm's length contract.

(7) A Member may at any time notify the Minister of any change or variation in the information appearing on the register in respect of the Member or a member of the Member's family.

(8) A Member may include in a return such additional information as the Member thinks fit.

(9) Nothing in this clause may be taken to prevent a Member from disclosing the information required by this clause in such a way that no distinction is made between information relating to the Member personally and information relating to a person related to the Member.

(10) Nothing in this clause may be taken to require disclosure of the actual amount or extent of any financial benefit, gift, contribution or interest.

4—Register

(1) The Minister must maintain a register of interests (the register) and cause to be entered in the register all information provided under this Schedule.

(2) A person is entitled to inspect (without charge) the register at the place where it is kept during ordinary office hours.

(3) A person is entitled, on payment of a fee determined by the Minister, to a copy of the register.

(4) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the receipt of initial or ordinary returns from Members, prepare a statement constituting a compilation of the information contained in the register relating to those Members.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of a statement prepared by the Minister under subclause (4) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of its preparation if Parliament is then sitting, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within 14 days of the next meeting of Parliament.

5—Restrictions on publication

(1) A person must not—

(a) publish information derived from the register unless the information constitutes a fair and accurate summary of the information contained in the register and is published in the public interest; or

(b) comment on the facts set forth in the register unless the comment is fair and published in the public interest and without malice.

(2) If information or comment is published by a person in contravention of subclause (1), the person, and any person who authorised the publication of the information or comment, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

6—Failure to comply

Any person who wilfully contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of this Schedule (other than clause 5) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

This is a rival amendment to the minister's amendment. This relates to disclosure of interests. We think it is very important that there is accountability and transparency, particularly for the community to make up their mind and hold people who spend possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to account, and to understand where there are disclosures of interest. This has been drafted by parliamentary counsel, based on similar disclosures for things like members of parliament and local government, and we commend the amendment to the chamber.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 14, after line 5—After inserted Schedule 3 insert:

Schedule 3A—Disclosure of interests

1—Interpretation

(1) In this Schedule, unless the contrary intention appears—

domestic partner means a person who is a domestic partner within the meaning of the Family Relationships Act 1975, whether declared as such under that Act or not;

family, in relation to a member of a governing board, means—

(a) a spouse or domestic partner of the board member; and

(b) a child of the board member who is under the age of 18 years and normally resides with the board member;

family company of a member of a governing board means a proprietary company—

(a) in which the board member or a member of the board member's family is a shareholder; and

(b) in respect of which the board member or a member of the board member's family, or any such persons together, are in a position to cast, or control the casting of, more than one-half of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of the company;

family trust of a member of a board means a trust (other than a testamentary trust)—

(a) of which the board member or a member of the board member's family is a beneficiary; and

(b) which is established or administered wholly or substantially in the interests of the board member or a member of the board member's family, or any such persons together;

a person related to a member of a governing board means any of the following:

(a) a member of the board member's family;

(b) a family company of the board member;

(c) a trustee of a family trust of the board member;

spouse—a person is the spouse of another if they are legally married.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person who is the object of a discretionary trust is to be taken to be a beneficiary of that trust.

2—Disclosure of interests

(1) A member of a governing board must—

(a) as soon as practicable after the member's appointment, submit to the Minister a return in the prescribed form relating to the member's pecuniary interests in accordance with the regulations; and

(b) on an annual basis, in accordance with the requirements of the regulations, submit to the Minister an annual return in the prescribed form relating to the member's pecuniary interests in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Without limiting the effect of subclause (1), a member of a governing board will be taken to have a pecuniary interest for the purposes of this clause if a person related to the member has that interest.

(3) A member who has submitted a return under this Schedule may at any time notify the Minister of a change or variation in the information appearing on the register in respect of the member.

3—Register

(1) The Minister must maintain a register of interests and cause to be entered in the register all information furnished under this Schedule.

(2) A person is entitled to inspect (without charge) the register at the place where it is kept during ordinary office hours.

(3) A person is entitled, on payment of a fee determined by the Minister, to a copy of the register.

4—Compliance with Schedule

(1) A member of a governing board who fails to comply with a requirement under this Schedule is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

(2) A member of a governing board who submits a return under this Schedule that is to the knowledge of the member false or misleading in a material particular (whether by reason of information included in or omitted from the return) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

5—Restrictions on publication

(1) A person must not—

(a) publish information derived from the register under this Schedule unless the information constitutes a fair and accurate summary of the information contained in the register and is published in the public interest; or

(b) comment on the facts set forth in the register under this Schedule unless the comment is fair and published in the public interest and without malice.

(2) If information or comment is published by a person in contravention of subclause (1), the person, and any person who authorised the publication of the information or comment, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

As I indicated earlier, the government appreciates the opposition highlighting the benefit of disclosure. Our regime in the bill was for managing conflicts of interest, but, the opposition having raised the issue, we do see that it is appropriate to have a disclosing of interests provision.

The honourable member indicates that the parliamentary counsel indicated that these disclosure provisions were similar to those in relation to parliament. I think the fuller disclosure requirements of parliament are very appropriate, considering the position the parliament holds in the decision-making process. We suggest that, rather than a parliamentary disclosure regime, members might prefer this amendment because it is modelled on the disclosure provisions contained in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

Under this amendment the provisions for the disclosure of interests are set out in the principal act, with the details of the disclosure being prescribed by regulations. The government prefers this approach because it provides a more flexible approach to varying the reporting requirements, while still allowing parliamentary scrutiny over the requirements. In other words, the disclosure requirement will be by regulation and the regulation itself can be disallowed.

The key difference between this amendment and the one proposed by the opposition is the reporting of interests to parliament, which would then have these disclosed interests in the public domain. Consistent with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, this amendment has the requirement for these disclosed interests to be maintained on a register that may be accessed by application of the minister. However, there is no requirement for these interests to be published.

The government considers that this is a better approach, ensuring that persons appointed to a governing board have disclosed their interests, while at the same time protecting their privacy. The government does not want individuals to be deterred from applying for board membership because they thought that their financial information, or that of their spouses, will be publicly accessible.

The role of a governing board member is different to a member of parliament or a corporate company that is accountable to shareholders whereby this information should be publicly available. We believe the government's amendment strikes the right balance.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition's amendments simply because they are far more encompassing and cover a lot of ground. I think the amendments put by the minister do not go far enough, considering the responsibilities of this board.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the government's amendment and not the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: At this stage we are going to be supporting the opposition's amendments. I note that there are financial imposts on people to access some of the information under the government's scheme. The government amendment was only recently filed, so we have not actually had the time to compare them line by line, but on first glance some of the penalties in the government one are lesser and we think they should be of the larger amounts. We have concerns about the reference to financial imposts being put on people to access some of this information.

The CHAIR: The question I am going to put is in relation to the Leader of the Opposition's amendment No. 17 [Maher-1] because that was filed first. If it is successful then I understand that I do not put the government's amendment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.