Bills

Health Care (Governance) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the House of Assembly desires the concurrence of the Legislative Council.

No. 1. Clause 11, page 6, lines 36 to 38 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(2)(g)]—Delete inserted paragraph (g) and substitute:

(g) Aboriginal health or other fields that, in the opinion of the Minister, will enable the effective performance of the board's functions.

No. 2. Clause 11, page 7 lines 1 to 2 [clause 11, inserted section 33B(4)]—Delete inserted subsection (4)

No. 3. Clause 11, page 7, lines 32 to 35 [clause 11, inserted section 33D]—Delete inserted section 33D and substitute:

33D—Disclosure of pecuniary or personal interest

(1) A member of a governing board who has a pecuniary or personal interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the board must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the board.

Maximum penalty: $25,000.

(2) A member of a committee who has a pecuniary or personal interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the committee must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a committee meeting.

Maximum penalty: $25,000.

(3) A member of a governing board or a committee who has a pecuniary or personal interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the board or the committee—

(a) must not vote, whether at a meeting or otherwise, on the matter; and

(b) must not be present while the matter is being considered at the meeting.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if—

(a) a member of a governing board or committee has disclosed an interest in a matter under subsection (1) or (2); and

(b) the board or committee (as the case requires) has at any time passed a resolution that—

(i) specifies the member, the interest and the matter; and

(ii) states that the members voting for the resolution are satisfied that the interest is so trivial or insignificant as to be unlikely to influence the disclosing member's conduct and should not disqualify the member from considering or voting on the matter.

(5) Despite a provision of Schedule 3, if a member of a governing board is disqualified under subsection (3) in relation to a matter, a quorum is present during the consideration of the matter if at least half the number of members who are entitled to vote on any motion that may be moved at the meeting in relation to the matter are present.

(6) The Minister may by instrument in writing declare that subsection (3) or subsection (5), or both, do not apply in relation to a specified matter either generally or in voting on particular resolutions.

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of a declaration under subsection (6) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 sitting days after the declaration is made.

(8) Particulars of a disclosure made under subsection (1) or (2) at a meeting of a governing board or committee of a governing board must be recorded—

(a) in the minutes of the meeting; and

(b) in a register kept by the board which must be reasonably available for inspection by any person.

(9) A reference in subsection (3) to a matter includes a reference to a proposed resolution under subsection (4) in respect of the matter, whether relating to that member or a different member.

(10) Subsection (2) applies to a person who is a member of a committee and also a member of a governing board even though the person has already disclosed the nature of the interest at a board meeting.

(11) A contravention of this clause does not invalidate any decision of the Board.

(12) Section 8 of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 does not apply to a member of a governing board.

(13) In this section—

committee means a committee or subcommittee established by a governing board under Schedule 3 clause 10.

No. 4. Clause 14, page 9, line 25 to page 10, line 5 [clause 14, inserted section 102]—Delete inserted section 102 and substitute:

102—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 1 July 2022, appoint an independent person to conduct a review of, and prepare a report on—

(a) the operation of this Act, including the extent to which—

(i) the objects of this Act have been attained; and

(ii) the principles of this Act have been applied; and

(b) any other matters determined by the Minister to be relevant to a review of this Act.

(2) A person appointed to conduct a review and prepare a report under this section must have expertise in health care administration or health service delivery.

(3) A review and report by a person appointed under this section must be completed within 6 months of the person's appointment.

(4) 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.

No. 5. Clause 15, page 10, lines 11 to 14 [clause 15, inserted clause 1(1)]—Delete inserted subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister is to appoint 1 of the members of a governing board (by the member's instrument of appointment or by other instrument executed by the Minister) as Chairperson of the board.

(1a) The Minister may appoint 1 of the members of a governing board (by the member's instrument of appointment or by other instrument executed by the Minister) as Deputy Chairperson of the board and, if a member is so appointed, that member will, in the absence of the Chairperson, act in the office of the Chairperson.

No. 6. Clause 15, page 11, line 8 [clause 15, inserted clause 3(3)]—Delete 'they are incurred' and substitute:

they are paid for by the board (whether directly or by reimbursement to the member)

No. 7. Clause 15, page 12, lines 1 to 10 [clause 15, inserted clause 7]—Delete inserted clause 7

No. 8. Clause 15, page 12, line 12 [clause 15, inserted clause 8(1)]—Delete 'a meeting' and substitute:

an annual public meeting

No. 9. Clause 15, page 12, line 31 [clause 15, inserted clause 9(3)]—After 'Chairperson' insert '(if any)'

No. 10. Clause 15, page 15, line 25 to page 21, line 35 [clause 15, inserted Schedule 3A]—Delete inserted Schedule 3A

Consideration in committee.

The CHAIR: Minister, I understand you are required to move that the amendments be agreed to.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I might seek clarification. Would the council prefer to consider them one by one or en bloc? Let me make two points about this: first, I have written to the crossbenchers, and I seem to recall the shadow minister for health and wellbeing in the other place has put his position on every one of these amendments in the other place. I did indicate to the opposition at the beginning of question time that it was my intention to bring it on.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: In your message you said nothing about amendments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry if that was not clear.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, it was deliberately a misleading statement.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There may well have been a miscommunication, but let's be clear: this government has made it clear for weeks that we will be seeking to get this legislation through by the end of this week, because we made a commitment to the people of South Australia that we would seek to make appointments to board chairs by 31 July. Considering the timing of the Executive Council, that will not be possible until 2 August. However, what it does mean, if this council concludes the consideration today, is that potential board members and potential chairs will have months more and greater opportunity to prepare for the work ahead, and we will honour our commitment.

I would also stress to members, as we indicated right through the consideration of this, that part 1 of the reform pack is to put in place the legislation so that we can appoint board chairs. All of these provisions, plus the accountability and governance framework, will be revisited again, either late this year or early next year. Every single word that is passed today will be back before this place, most likely within five months but maybe seven months. So I do not think the chamber should feel concern that what we are doing today cannot be improved on, if necessary, as a result of further consultation.

That is why we are doing it in a two-stage process: so that, in the governance and accountability framework, there can be full involvement of the board chairs at least—and certainly the wider community. So I would seek the support of the council to proceed on the message, as suggested.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I take great exception to the way this has been portrayed in this council. The Hon. Mr Wade came to me today and asked if we would mind the chamber receiving a message. No mention was made about deliberations over amendments. No mention was made about these concerns. The Liberal Party in this chamber has said, for years and years, 'We hold that the debates in this chamber stand apart from those in the other place. Just because there are debates in the other place, we don't believe they should be rubberstamped and rushed through this chamber.' But now we see, right here before us, an attempt by the Liberal government to do exactly that: to say, 'Just rubberstamp it. It went through the other place. They had the debate. What are you worried about up here?'

I hold that this is absolute hypocritical behaviour by the minister. He said to me, 'Do you mind us receiving a message?' and that was it. I said, 'Of course we can do that with messages.' It had nothing to do with the consideration of these amendments, and I say that this is deceptive behaviour by the government. You will hang or fall on the way that you process this through this chamber. So I move:

That progress be reported.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 13

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Before I address the first amendment, I would clarify with the Hon. Ian Hunter that I am sorry there was a misunderstanding earlier. I would have thought the former minister would appreciate that I cannot control when we receive a message; I can only move when we can consider it. In any event, I make the point that the government has consistently indicated that we want this legislation through this week.

I cannot confirm that the letter that went to crossbenchers went to the shadow minister, but what I can confirm is that the shadow minister for health and wellbeing in the other place has been, both in the second reading and committee stage, working on this bill for three days. So the opposition position is clear and the government response in the other place was just as clear.

Amendment No. 1:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

Amendment No. 1 relates to Aboriginal health, and members will recall that the opposition in the Legislative Council wanted to insert an amendment that at least one board member have expertise, knowledge or experience in Aboriginal health.

It is the view of the government that this represents a shift towards representative boards, and appointments should be made balancing all the skills available to the board to fulfil its duties. We do appreciate that the challenges faced in Aboriginal health are extraordinary. In acknowledgement of that the government in the other place proposed an amendment that expanded clause 33B(2)(g) so that the first expertise or skill highlighted would be Aboriginal health.

I commend the motion of the house. It respects the view of both the opposition and this chamber to recognise the particular challenges for Aboriginal people in relation to health.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note that the honourable member said in his contribution just now that he was not sure whether he afforded the same courtesy to the shadow minister as he did to crossbenchers here. The minister clearly knew this was coming on, clearly knew that there would be a debate in the committee stage and had his officers ready, but it appears he may not have extended the courtesy to the opposition to do that. I am wondering, on this matter, if the minister intends to continue in this way or whether he will undertake to extend the same courtesy to the opposition as he does others.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know if those matters reflect on a previous position of the council; I cannot see the relevance to the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He raised it; he opened the door, Mr Chairman, in his contribution on this amendment. He raised it—

The CHAIR: My understanding is that it is in committee and any member can raise any issue within reason, which the Leader of the Opposition has done. However, the minister does not need to respond to it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This amendment seeks to replace one that the Legislative Council inserted last time and I congratulate crossbenchers, in particular, in the Legislative Council who, the last time this amendment was before the chamber, saw fit to make sure that health boards included someone in the field of Aboriginal health. It was a critically important amendment that the chamber, with the support of the crossbenchers, supported last time.

We know that health outcomes for our First Australians, the oldest living culture on this planet, are so much worse than non-Aboriginal Australians. A requirement to have someone with that expertise on boards is a critical element, so I commend the original amendment that crossbenchers supported last time which made that a requirement, rather than one that actually does nothing. What this provides is:

Aboriginal health or other fields, that, in the opinion of the minister, will enable the effective performance of the board's functions.

'Other fields' means that there is actually no requirement whatsoever to have anyone on any board who has any understanding of Aboriginal health; no requirement whatsoever. What this basically does is scrap what the council saw fit to pass last time.

What it does with the 'or other fields' is make it very clear that you do not have to have regard to people with expertise in Aboriginal health. With that in mind, and given that the minister sees fit to scrap the requirement to have someone with expertise in Aboriginal health, I have a series of questions about the importance of Aboriginal health. I would be very keen for the minister to put on record the differences in outcomes between Aboriginal Australians, in terms of health, and non-Aboriginal Australians. First, I ask the minister: what is the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member asks questions which I do not think have any relevance to this clause. It is undeniable that Aboriginal health outcomes, in a whole range of domains, are tragically worse than those for other Australians. That is why the government has seen fit to acknowledge the legitimate priority highlighted by both the opposition in moving the amendment and some crossbenchers in supporting it on the last occasion, by making it the first area of expertise in clause (g).

I would also highlight another reason why the government did not feel attracted to the opposition amendment. It first of all moves towards a representative board. I have already mentioned that, but it also, I believe, would not have been robust in terms of implementation. How it read was that at least one person of a governing board must be a person who has expertise, knowledge or experience in relation to Aboriginal health. I would have thought it would have been more credible if you actually said a person of Aboriginal or Islander descent. A person could have a knowledge of Aboriginal health, even in a training program, ready to be nominated. Personally, I do not think it provides even what was meant to be an assurance for Aboriginal expertise on the board. I do not believe it was.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I just want to clarify with the minister: is the minister refusing to give the answer, or is the minister saying he has absolutely no idea, and none of his advisers have any idea, of the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people?

The CHAIR: While the minister is consulting, it is not necessarily appropriate to extend your question to the adviser. Could the questions come just to the minister. If he chooses to seek counsel, it is a matter for him.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders born in the period 2010 to 2012, in other words younger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, the life expectancy is estimated to be around 10 years lower than for the non-Indigenous population.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his answer. Can the member indicate whether that was the figure reported in the last Closing the Gap statement released earlier this year by the Prime Minister?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I understand that was the figure reported in the last Closing the Gap statement, and I thank the minister for finding that figure. It is a damning indictment on where we are as a nation, that we are one of the most prosperous nations in the world yet our First Australians die a decade younger than other Australians. Another Closing the Gap target relates to infant mortality rates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. I am wondering if the minister can outline to the chamber what the differences are in those statistics that also form the Closing the Gap measurements.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to bring detailed information back to the chamber, but I am not going to try to suggest to the council that I have those figures off on memory. What I will undertake to the council is that I will continue to regard Aboriginal health as a high priority. I have already met with the Aboriginal Health Council on at least two occasions since I was appointed minister. I had the privilege of being present at the Aboriginal Health Council NAIDOC Day. I am looking forward to meeting Aboriginal health practitioners in Alice Springs shortly, and I will continue to give Aboriginal health priority.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can help the minister out. The infant mortality rates are about 1.7 times higher for Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal Australians. I think this demonstrates exactly the point that I am trying to make and why it is so crucial that we oppose the government's amendment in the lower house and seek to stick with what this council saw fit—very wisely—to put in originally.

Not even the South Australian Minister for Health, the person charged with looking after our health system, knows these figures. He does not know the figures for infant mortality. He was able to find out, but he himself did not know the figures for the life expectancy gap. If the person charged with being in charge of the health system does not know these figures, then how can we possibly hope that all boards will necessarily have the understanding of these issues and be able to discharge their duties to Aboriginal South Australians in relation to the provision of health if even he does not know?

That is why I think crossbenchers in this chamber quite rightly saw fit to make sure each board has someone with an understanding of Aboriginal health or expertise in the area. As the minister points out, and I think he is making the opposition's point, it does not need necessarily to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. It needs to be someone with expertise in the area of Aboriginal health. There are many—and I am sure the minister will have met many of them—administrators and health professionals who are not Aboriginal who do amazing work in Aboriginal communities.

There are services like Nganampa Health, which has been a standout in health provision in remote communities around Australia for the almost 20 years I have been involved, on and off, in Aboriginal affairs. Not everyone working or in the administration of that service is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, but a lot of people have significant expertise in the area. That is why it is critically important.

Given that the minister himself, the person in charge of the health system, does not know what some of these horrendous gaps in life expectancy or infant mortality rates are, we cannot expect people on all of these boards to have an understanding. That is why this chamber supported having someone who has expertise in Aboriginal health. Without that understanding on boards, it is very difficult to see how we can necessarily make inroads into what is, quite frankly, a disgraceful disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

I would commend to the chamber to stick to what we decided before. I think it was a very good decision that we have sent a message as the Legislative Council that we do indeed see health outcomes for Aboriginal people as exceptionally important. Every one of these boards should have just one person who has expertise in this area.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make the point that it would often be quite inadequate for a board to stop at one person on the board with expertise, particularly if they have a large Aboriginal community. The government is of the view that boards will have to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other groups within their boards. It may well be quite complex, particularly with some of our larger regional areas. There will often be more than one Aboriginal nation involved in that area and often a myriad of other cultural and linguistically diverse communities. That is why, repeatedly in this bill, there are opportunities to engage.

There is a focus on the consumer and community engagement. That is specifically why we have mandated a requirement to have a consumer and community engagement strategy. A board could establish an Aboriginal health committee. We would expect boards to have committees to respond to whatever information and consultation needs they have. Certainly, the bill provides for partnership and cooperation with services in the region, which of course would include the Aboriginal community controlled services.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When there is one group of Australians, the First Australians, who have such dismal health outcomes, I think, at the very least, having one board member on each of these boards with an understanding of the issues facing it and the possibility to make a difference just is not too much to ask.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make the point to the council that at the end of the board training processes there will be no member of a board who will not be aware of Aboriginal health issues. Because every South Australian health board member will be confronted by Aboriginal health issues it will be part of the training.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I support the opposition on this; that is the decision we made, and I would like to proceed with that. It is imperative that members of the Indigenous community are adequately represented on these regional boards. I think we will stay with what we passed earlier.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On amendment No. 1, I indicate that that was the will of the Legislative Council, so the Greens will support the will of the Legislative Council on this and we will be opposing the government amendment, but we do caution. The process of this place, which has dissolved into a lack of clarity, accusations, asking for fun facts for people who are employed in the public sector to do a job where we are passing legislation, not to give you answers to specific questions that, yes, are incredibly important issues about Aboriginal health, but actually have very little to do with the bill and the substance of this debate.

For the Labor opposition in this place to continually, at the moment, time and time again try to stall legislation needlessly, means that it is a position at the moment where it is like the boy who cried wolf. So you may well have a legitimate case here that you have not been consulted. The crossbenchers have been consulted; we have known this was coming all week. We have seen the amendments; perhaps the Labor Party has not, and they have only just been debated in the House of Assembly, although the parliamentary counsel filing date on the document I had was the 20^th.

So if we could stick to the debates, I think you might find that you might be pleasantly surprised by some of the outcomes, but if the political game playing could stop that would be appreciated, I am sure, by many people who are not necessarily sitting in this council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For the information of the council, I advise that the main set of House of Assembly amendments were filed on 23 July, and these matters have been thoroughly debated in the House of Assembly, including by opposition members.

The CHAIR: Does any other member have a contribution at this time? Then we will proceed to a vote.

Motion negatived.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1, so I will not be moving that.

The CHAIR: My understanding, from the wisdom of the Clerk, is that, given the nature of this committee as a whole, I have to put the question to the committee.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For the sake of progressing the matter, I move:

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

Motion negatived.

Amendment No. 3:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 3 be agreed to.

In the Legislative Council debate the opposition raised the possibility of not only having people identify conflicts of interest but requiring them to disclose that. That amendment, which was filed before the Legislative Council, was received very late. The opposition is not faultless when it comes to process. I seem to recall the Hon. Tammy Franks saying, 'We haven't had a lot of time to think about this amendment but we're attracted.' The government also indicated some interest, so between the houses we have looked at what is an appropriate level of not just conflict of interest but disclosure, and when is it appropriate to disclose.

The government strongly supports probity requirements but considers that the opposition amendment went too far. The opposition amendment was based on the level of disclosure of members of parliament, and goes well beyond the requirements of disclosure of health boards in other Australian jurisdictions and, indeed, of any government board in South Australia such as SA Water, planning bodies or financial entities. The government considers that the level of disclosure is not consistent with the level of risk and may act as a disincentive for potential board members.

The government is committed to delivering the highest probity standards of any health board in Australia. Let me explain that: basically, we went to look at all the other health board legislation in Australia to see, at different junctures and different forms of disclosure, what was the highest requirement? To this end, the amendment draws on the existing disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions. It will require disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by board members at the appropriate time in the board or its committees, and disclosure will then need to be entered on a register which will be made publicly available. It is a public disclosure of conflicts of interest and the penalty for transgression of those requirements will be $25,000.

Disclosures will also be contained in the minutes of the board, which the council has already agreed will be published. So if a conflict of interest becomes active, if you like, and, in the operations of the board, a person's conflict of interest arises, not only will they have to declare it to the board but they will have to put it on a register which will be publicly available, and they will also need to put in the minutes, which, within a short period of time, will be available not just on a register that people can inspect but on the minutes that everyone can read.

We think that is a very appropriate level of disclosure. The parliamentary style of disclosure is associated with high-risk behaviour where we are subject to a much greater array of risks and we engage with a much greater array of topics. To be frank, we have chosen public life. These people are choosing to serve their community on a board. Not only is it expecting them to open their book as though they were parliamentarians, it has higher requirements than what they would be expected to do if they were on SAFA or a planning body. This is higher than what we expect of property developers.

If you are telling me that good-hearted people who are putting themselves forward to serve on a health board are a higher risk than property developers, I think the opposition had better go back and think again. We believe that our response is appropriate. In fact, I think it enhances the bill. We now have, shall we say, a practical, risk-focused way to manage conflicts of interest, and I think the bill is better for it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The opposition will be opposing the amendment made by the House of Assembly. I thank the minister for his contribution. We significantly disagree with him, though. The Legislative Council, again, I think wisely, saw fit to put a very high level of disclosure and publicly available disclosure into this bill, and I think that is appropriate. The minister talked about good-hearted people serving their community.

The way in which the minister characterises this, you would think it was organising what time the movie would be on or when a quiz night would be arranged. These are massively important decisions but not just that: we are talking about tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of spending of taxpayers' money. We are very much of the view, which is obviously not shared by the government, that there should be the highest levels of accountability, openness and transparency. The minister is right: it is good to have a regime where you note a conflict of interest and it is good to have a regime where that conflict of interest is publicly available.

But we think, in terms of conflict of interest, it is not only appropriate to have conflicts of interest reported when the person who that conflict of interest applies to thinks they might have a conflict of interest but it is critically important that the public get to know where there are apparent conflicts of interest. That is, let the public make up their own mind, when there is appropriate public disclosure, whether someone serving on the board has a conflict of interest rather than just relying on that person of their own volition to decide they do or do not have a conflict.

It is good that we will be passing a regime that deals with conflicts of interest when a person, of their own mind, thinks there is a conflict, but what the Legislative Council agreed to previously allows that to be properly tested because it is properly disclosed. I would urge the Legislative Council to stick with the amendments we made last time that ensure higher levels of accountability and disclosure.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I reflect on the Legislative Council's willingness to ensure that there is greater transparency and scrutiny. I also reflect on the wording of some of the opposition's amendments that did not even have the word 'approved' before minutes of meetings because they were put together in such a haphazard way. I am comforted that the government has done due diligence here and come back with a far superior set of amendments with regard to that. In terms of amendment No. 3, we will be supporting the government.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I agree with the Hon. Tammy Franks. In fact, it is far more comprehensive what we have here before us today, and we will be supporting it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister confirm that, under the Liberal's more secret regime, it will be up to the individual to decide in their own mind whether there is a conflict of interest rather than it being judged with the publicly available information?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Having had the privilege of serving on a number of boards and having a lot of respect for corporate governance, conflict of interest is primarily a responsibility of an individual, but it is also a shared responsibility of a board. In that context, you would expect a board chair to challenge an individual member if they felt they had a conflict of interest that they had not disclosed. The opposition's argument—and talking about tens of millions of dollars, what about SAFA? The health sector of course does deal with significant amounts of money but not anywhere near compared with property developers and financiers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under the regime proposed, will chairs of all boards necessarily have all of the information in terms of the pecuniary or personal interests of board members?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: First of all, boards get to know each other very well, so in general terms people would be aware of people's circumstances. I am happy to give an undertaking to the opposition and to the council that we will consider putting in the regulations a requirement that a statement of interest be provided to the boards on which people sit. That is so the board chair in particular could be aware of those matters and, therefore, it can be managed within the board.

I think it is very important to realise the power of the responsibility to declare a conflict of interest. Often, conflicts of interest are almost unforeseeable. It is only when you are sitting around the board table confronted with a particular decision that you say, 'This represents conflict for me.' Registers are one thing. An active board aware of its probity duties is much more powerful, and that is why, through declaring the conflict to the board so that it can be recorded in the minutes and then published and also recorded in the register, we believe it is an appropriate level of disclosure because they are active and real conflicts.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his response. Just to clarify: will all chairs of boards at all times, when deliberations are going on, have the pecuniary or personal interests of his other board members available to them?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not want to be led, shall we say, into an overstatement because I think what I said and certainly what I intended to say was that the government would consider it. Let's put it this way: we are not going to be putting out regulations under this legislation until the second stage bill is through. Certainly we will be considering this issue as part of the overall governance accountability framework and there may well be amendments that need to support that sort of regulation. We are happy to countenance that but we believe that the disclosure requirements the opposition has put in, which were akin to that of a parliamentarian, were overkill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for that. However, for clarity under the regime as it is being proposed by the government—and I take the minister's point that in the future parliaments can come back and reassess or governments can pass regulation to make a regime stronger or better—under the current regime being proposed, under the regime that we are being asked to vote on now, do chairs of health boards have that information available to them about their members' pecuniary and personal interests?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering that I gave an undertaking to put in a regulation obviously the answer is no. That is why you would need a regulation. The point to remember about both acts and legislation and this particular act, is that the government has already made a commitment that there will be a second bill, an all-encompassing bill, by the end of this year or early next. Of course, any regulation of the executive is disallowable by this house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer. In the regime that is currently being proposed, is there any mechanism for a member of the public to make an application so that they can understand the pecuniary or personal interests of a particular member? If a member of the public feels that there has been a conflict or understands that there may be a conflicting decision made, is there any way for any member of the public or any subset of a member of the public to make an application to be able to understand board members' or board chairs' pecuniary or personal interests?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the Leader of the Opposition is almost trying to move us incrementally towards the parliamentary disclosure levels. The key point is that the government believes that parliamentary disclosure levels are inappropriate for community-based boards, regional health boards. We do not see it as necessary for planning authorities, we do not see it as necessary for SAFA and other high-risk governance boards, SA Water and the like, so why would we put it on community health boards?

The CHAIR: Does any other honourable member have a contribution to amendment No. 3? Given that no honourable member has given me an indication and the minister has moved amendment No. 3, I put the question that amendment No. 3 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 4:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 4 be agreed to.

I am reminded of the embarrassment the last time the council sat when Tammy Franks asked when the government was going to start putting in reviews as a matter of course. I am a great believer in reviews so I was a bit embarrassed that that had not been the case. The review provision was put in by the Legislative Council on the last occasion. The government supports the benefit of a review.

The key issue for us, though, is that we want to be clear about the timing. We do not want the review to be triggered by the assent of this bill and we only find the governance boards have been operating for 18 months. They do not become operational until 1 July 2019, so if we set the clock going with a proclamation of this bill we would find ourselves having to review the boards within 18 months.

The opposition in the other place highlighted that the provision, as it is drafted, would mean that we would need to review the whole act. We do not demur from that interpretation, neither do we object to that. In many ways, these board provisions need to be seen in the context of all the responsibilities under the act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and thank the chamber for its view to put a review into this act. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment, but I will be seeking leave to move a very slight amendment to the government's amendment, and that is under section 102(1):

The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 1 July 2022…

change the year 2022 to 2021. So amended, it will read: 'The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 1 July 2021,'. That keeps the fixed date, which was a concern of the minister. However, let's be very clear: the 2022 date of 1 July conveniently falls months after a state election. We are going to suggest bringing it forward months before a state election so that it can be properly reviewed and considered and not hidden after the election.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I will get you to formally move that in a minute.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will support that, Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will support amendment No. 4 when the government moves it, and we indicate that we will support 2021 and that we would prefer reviews to happen before election dates, rather than soon after them. I am going to reflect that I was just told by the shadow health minister that apparently there is no urgency with this bill, but indeed there is urgency to get these chairs appointed. With that, we recognise that it will be a while before the full act is in operation and there is some urgency about appointing the chairs. However, a reasonable amount of time has now been proposed for that review process, namely, 1 July 2021.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I respect the view of the council. I would have thought that the opposition would have been more cautious about doing this, considering the chaos that ensued after they abolished health boards in 2008 and the disengagement of the community. This was hated in country South Australia. Do not try to mention centralised health administration positively in country South Australia. For our part, I am happy to comply with that tweak by the council because I am looking forward to this policy being extremely successful and the review being very positive.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I—

The CHAIR: Is this part of the debate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, it is part of the debate. I am foreshadowing further amendments.

An honourable member: But wait, there is more.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, and this is the problem. I appreciate that this was agitated in the lower house; however, representing the shadow minister for health in the upper house, I have not had the opportunity and benefit of looking through these. I think it is a process issue that we have reflected on. We will talk to the Hon. Stephen Wade to make sure that we better understand when things are happening and what the nature and effect is of what we are doing.

I think I am correct that, if we change it to 2021, it will read: as soon as practicable after 1 July 2021, the person must be appointed and prepare a report. That report must then be completed within six months of the person's appointment. This could take you to 1 January 2022. Also, under subsection (4), that report must be laid before the houses 12 sitting days after it is delivered to the minister.

If the report is not due until 1 January 2022 and, as has happened in the past, there are no sitting days between 1 January 2022 and whatever the third Saturday in March is in 2022, the object that there will not be a report released before the state election will be fulfilled. I will leave in 'as soon as practicable after 1 July' and change it to 2021, as I foreshadowed. However, in terms of subsection (4), I am going to move that we strike out all of subsection (4) and replace it with:

The report must be made public on a website that is available to the public no less than six months after the appointment of the person to conduct the review.

The CHAIR: At some point, Leader of the Opposition, I might get you to write that out for the benefit of the parliamentary staff.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government does not support that change. This is the normal process for tabling reports. The report would be written in the context of the following election. It has to be completed within six months of the person's appointment, not after six months. I think the report is likely to be received and tabled before the end of that year, and the amendment as drafted should be supported. Let's remember that this amendment was put in by the Legislative Council, so the opposition can hardly claim they have been ambushed. They actually put it in weeks ago.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of clarity, I will say that the amended version that the opposition is proposing is to subsection (1) of section 102:

The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 1 July 2021, appoint an independent person to conduct a review…

and subsection (4) would be deleted and would now read:

The report must be made available on a website available to the public on or before 1 January 2022.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make the point to honourable members that that puts the duty on nobody. Subsection (4) actually puts the duty on myself or whoever else holds the office at that time. I do not support a responsibility without a holder.

The CHAIR: Do you have more on that? I have some complicated questions to put, so I need honourable members to have had their say before we go into the technical side.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a further amendment—and I thank the minister for wanting to be responsible. So subsection (4) would now read:

The minister must cause the report to be made available on a website available to the public on or before 1 January 2022.

That takes into account the minister's dilemma of him not being responsible. He now is responsible under the wording of subsection (4) that would provide, 'the minister must cause the report to be made available'.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I think that makes a lot of sense, actually. We do not know what will happen with these boards. We do not have a crystal ball to see if there could be some issues. I think the thing is that we actually would like to see a report before a state election. The way it is framed at the moment, quite clearly, if they are to take it to the very letter that is outlined here, it says 'within six months' and then 'has to be laid before both houses of parliament'. Both houses of parliament will not be around in January, so we will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The issue here is one of transparency and political game playing in the past. We have seen governments—indeed, I think a previous government—allow a Transforming Health review to come out after a state election, the one that we just had. We have also seen governments sit on reports and hold off in that period of time, which is why there is such cynicism about whether we would see this report.

The remedy here is actually to make sure that a report can be tabled regardless of the sitting of parliament, which we have sought redress for in other areas, which I imagine we could also do in this area. If that is agreed to in terms of this then the Greens will support this amendment as it stands, noting that we do wish to see it before the election, regardless of whether parliament resumes after a very long summer break or does not resume before the state election.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Whilst the government is not attracted to moving away from this amendment, other than 2021, I urge the council to look favourably on the direction in which the Hon. Tammy Franks is taking us. I do not want to stir up the Hon. Ian Hunter, but I think we need to respect the ephemeral nature of the internet. A report tabled on a website today may be totally unfindable next week, let alone in a century's time.

For those of us who have had the privilege of looking at the dusty volumes of the Legislative Council, we should not be disrespectful of the need for a report to be available not only today but also for years ahead. There are certainly provisions in the parliament for reports to be tabled and released when the parliament is not in session, but I think the Greens' approach is better than the opposition's approach.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is democracy and legislation in action. I think we can accommodate what everyone wants by simply putting the opposition's amendment in between subsections (3) and (4); that is, 'a minister must cause to be published' becomes (4) and then (5) becomes 'the minister must, within 12 sitting days, table in parliament'.

So we get the best of both worlds; it is made available on a website before the election, and that becomes what I have suggested as (4), and what is now (4) becomes (5), so it is also required to be tabled in parliament for everyone to enjoy for ever and ever on.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would like to move an amendment from the floor regarding amendment No. 4 and then 102(3), which currently provides, 'A review and report by a person appointed under this section must be completed within 6 months of the person's appointment', and then the words 'and that the report be published at this time' be inserted.

The CHAIR: Hon. Ms Franks, you are at amendment No. 4, subsection (3), and you are adding some words at the end, is that correct?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes.

The CHAIR: And those words, just for the benefit of the Clerk, were—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Those words were, 'and that the report be published at this time.' I seek advice from parliamentary counsel whether 'published' means that it is publicly available, regardless of website, or not.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I raise the concern that when it is completed is presumably when the person signs it. There may need to be a review by the minister, the government. They still have to do it within time, but you may need to consider communications, how to get it out to people who are interested.

I just think that, shall we say, 'sign it today' or 'publish it today' is putting on an onerous burden. These subsections, particularly subsection (4), are a typical provision. The opposition's amendment is understandable, but to say that as soon as it is completed it has to go out is, I think, overcooking it. I think 'publish forthwith' or 'as soon as practicable' is a sensible way to put it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This has been a very valuable process and I foreshadow that the opposition will be supporting the direction the Greens are moving on this. I have foreshadowed that we will insert a new subsection (4) and push (4) down to (5); I will not be proceeding with what I have foreshadowed but instead the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' addition to the words after (3) 'and published at that time'.

In addition, I will be moving that subsection (1) not just be a change to 1 July 2021 but also to strike out the words 'as soon as practicable after' and inserting the words 'on or before'. For the sake of clarity and for other crossbenchers I will read out how this subsection would look if the amendments of both the opposition and the Greens get up. The subsection would provide:

The minister must, on or before 1 July 2021, appoint an independent person to conduct a review of and prepare a report on—

and then the rest of what is printed. Subsection (2) remains the same. Subsection (3), with the Hon. Tammy Franks' foreshadowed amendment, becomes:

A review and report by a person appointed under this section must be completed within six months of the person's appointment and published at that time—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 'as soon as practicable'—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: 'and published as soon as practicable'. Subsection (4) remains the same.

The CHAIR: If you will allow me, Leader of the Opposition, to revisit the wording. On the new subsection (3), at the end, you left some words out of the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment. For clarity, if this was to be moved, we would add the words at the end of (3), 'and that the report be published as soon as practicable'. Leader of the Opposition, you left out a couple of those instructive words. I am looking for consensus before we get ourselves into moving motions.

I am going to recap, for the benefit of all the members. I will then take some advice from the Clerk and we will put some questions. I will give members another opportunity to speak if they so choose. In amendment No. 4, subsection (1), we are going to strike out the words 'as soon as practicable after' and insert the words 'on or before'. We are going to delete '2022' and insert '2021', so the '2' goes at the end and the '1' gets inserted. We are going to amend subsection (3) by adding at the end of subsection (3) the words 'and that the report be published as soon as practicable'. Does any honourable member have any further suggested amendments from the floor?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With the wise counsel of the Clerk, I move:

That the proposed amendment from the House of Assembly not be agreed to and the alternative amendment be agreed to in lieu thereof.

The CHAIR: I now put the question that the House of Assembly's amendment No. 4 be not agreed to and that the alternative amendment that the minister moved be agreed to in lieu thereof.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 5:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 5 be agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 is trying to make the reporting period for expenses more practical. If it was 60 days from the expense being incurred, then someone who delays putting in a reimbursement claim could inadvertently breach the 60-day rule. I understand the intention is to make sure that, when they are paid or reimbursed, they are duly revealed. We think the payment of the reimbursement should be the trigger, not the incurring of the expense.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Support.

The CHAIR: Mr Pangallo, do you wish to contribute to the debate?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will support the government on that one.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 6:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 6 be agreed to.

I put it to the council that this amendment is consequential.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 7:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

This was another example of the Legislative Council improving a clause but not getting it quite right. The consensus clearly when we last met was that we wanted to have an annual meeting and we wanted it to be public. In our artwork, we did not make that clear, so I am suggesting that the amendment of the House of Assembly polishes that for us and should be supported.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Support.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We support it.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 8:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 8 be agreed to.

I put it to the council that amendment No. 8 be put and agreed to because it is consequential on amendment No. 5.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 9:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 9 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 10:

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment No. 10 be agreed to.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 3.

Motion carried.

The PRESIDENT: I have to report that the committee has considered the amendments made by the House of Assembly and has agreed to amendments Nos 3, 5 to 10, disagreed with amendments Nos 1 and 2 and disagreed to amendment No. 4 but made an alternative amendment in lieu thereof.

The following reason for disagreement was adopted:

That the Legislative Council prefers its original position and other enhancements.