Bills

South Australian Productivity Commission Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clauses 10 to 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

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

Amendment No 7 [Maher–1]—

New clause, page 6, after line 9—After clause 13 insert:

13A—Disclosure of interests

A Commissioner must disclose their interests in accordance with Schedule 1.

This is in relation to the disclosure of interests of members of the productivity commission. It is about greater transparency for disclosure of financial interests. They must be made to the parliament, not just to the minister, and we say published accordingly. I foreshadow, for the benefit of the chamber, in relation to the disclosure regime, it is not in this clause but when we arrive at clause 14 there are further amendments that have been circulated this afternoon which replace the amendments that have been previously filed.

So that members are aware before we get there, these relate to the disclosure of pecuniary and all personal interests. When we get to clause 14, this is an abbreviated disclosure regime, which is in line with the regime that came back from the lower house in relation to the health boards bill. So the disclosure regime that the lower house decided to support for the health boards bill will be the replacement set of amendments that were filed this afternoon. As we are on a clause about disclosure, I thought I would alert the chamber to that fact.

The CHAIR: Are you going to pursue both options, just for the purposes of—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When we get to clause 14, we will not be pursuing both options. I am foreshadowing that when we get there I will be moving the amendments that are being circulated this afternoon and not the previously filed amendments to clause 14 in relation to disclosure of pecuniary or personal interests.

The CHAIR: Can I ask you to speak to the Clerk to ensure that we have the same amendments on the committee table? While the Leader of the Opposition is clarifying that, does anyone else have a contribution to make on amendment No. 7 [Maher-1]?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek clarification from the honourable member on how this all fits together. Obviously, we have not seen the new amendments until this afternoon, so we will not have a position on those, but I am just not sure how his new proposed amendments fit with the package of amendments he has. At some stage, for the benefit of committee members, it will be useful to see what the package to be proposed by the honourable member actually looks like.

For the benefit of the Hon. Mr Maher, if I can make sense of what I think he is trying to do. I would have thought that the new amendment that he is suggesting replaces this amendment and schedule 1, so I do not see that they actually fit together. So it would not appear to make sense to do this one and defer debate on the other one if what he is proposing subsequently is to replace both this amendment and his original schedule 1 amendment. Far be it from me to try to explain what the member is trying to do, but if that is the case it would not make sense to proceed with this.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate, having looked at notes and taken advice, that that is exactly what this is proposing to do: that the amendment No. 7, which fits together with schedule 1, is replaced by just this. I am foreshadowing that I will not proceed with amendment No. 7 or schedule 1, but will, when we get to clause 14, instead be moving this amendment. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 7 standing in my name.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Clause 14.

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

Amendment No 1 [Maher–2]—

Page 6, lines 10 to 26—Delete clause 14 and substitute:

14—Disclosure of pecuniary or personal interest

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

Maximum penalty: $25,000.

(2) A Commissioner who has a pecuniary or personal interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Commission—

(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.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) a Commissioner has disclosed an interest in a matter under subsection (1); and

(b) the Commission has at any time passed a resolution that—

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

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

(5) Despite section 15, if a Commissioner is disqualified under subsection (2) 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 (2) 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) at a meeting of the Commission 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 (2) to a matter includes a reference to a proposed resolution under subsection (3) in respect of the matter, whether relating to that member or a different member.

(11) A contravention of this section does not invalidate any decision of the Commission.

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

I foreshadow that, when we come to the schedule at the end, I will not be moving such. This replaces both the schedule and the amendment I sought leave to withdraw. This disclosure regime, as I am instructed, is very much in line with, if not identical to, the disclosure regime that has ended up in the health board bill; that is, the Legislative Council, when considering the health boards bill, put in a disclosure regime that was more consistent with the schedule 1 that I will not be moving. It went down to the House of Assembly and was amended to something that is this disclosure regime. Effectively, when it came back here the Legislative Council supported the lesser disclosure regime, which is what we are moving here, given that is the way the Legislative Council supported the regime in the health boards bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government, obviously, does not have a position in relation to this particular amendment because we have not seen it until just now. Given the bill is likely to go backwards and forwards between the houses, the government will not oppose the amendment at this stage, but that does not indicate that we support the amendment. I suspect that crossbenchers, given their voting record thus far on the bill, are more likely to support the opposition's amendment than the government's position.

We were not supporting the Leader of the Opposition's original set of amendments and we had a position on that, but in relation to this one it is sight unseen, so we are at a disadvantage. We have not had a chance to consider it or even discuss it with the Premier and that does make it difficult in terms of how we manage the process, but I will take executive responsibility to say that we will not vote against it, but we reserve our position in terms of having a chance to look at it when it gets to the House of Assembly. It may well be that we support it, oppose it or maybe even move a further amendment.

I understand that the point, I think, the honourable member is making is that this is evidently something that is in the health governance bill. I did not follow that debate at all because it was not my bill, so I have no knowledge of that, but I do not dispute what the member is saying. My advice is the current government bill exactly reflects the Essential Services Commissioners bill, so it is sort of duelling conflict of interest provisions, one which exists in relation to the Essential Services Commissioner, which we think is probably more akin to the work that the productivity commissioners are likely to do, that is substantive across the whole board, productivity-related work.

Whether there is also an argument that the provisions that relate to the health commission governance bill might also be applied to productivity commissioners, we will have to reserve a position as a government.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

The CHAIR: We have an amendment from the Leader of the Opposition, amendment No. 8 [Maher-1].

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is consequential on an amendment that failed earlier, that is, requiring not just the chair and one member, but all five members appointed. Given that, it is not being moved. I move:

Amendment No 9 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, after line 37—insert:

(5a) The Commission must cause accurate minutes to be kept of its proceedings.

Amendment No. 9 [Maher-1] is not consequential. This is a rather simple amendment in clause 15 which relates to meetings of the commission. It simply requires that the commission must cause accurate minutes to be kept of its proceedings. We think this is—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Is that opposed to 'inaccurate'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Accurate minutes to be kept of its proceedings. We think this is a sensible way to make sure what goes on at meetings is accurately recorded.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I interjected, but let me put it on the record. This amendment says that the commission must cause accurate minutes to be kept of proceedings. I am asking the honourable member: as opposed to 'inaccurate' minutes? I think it is superfluous language, in the first instance. We are not going to die in a ditch over what one would imagine would just be normal governance procedure, that is, that the minutes are actually kept. I think having to write into statute that you have to keep accurate minutes, as opposed to inaccurate minutes, is certainly not something that I can recall seeing in drafting—I might be wrong.

I am not a lawyer, as I have said earlier, in relation to these things. I do not know whether, on reflection, the member would be objecting to 'the commission must cause minutes to be kept of its proceedings'. As I said, I cannot imagine that anybody, such as the productivity commission, or indeed any commission, would not keep minutes of its meetings—a simple record of what goes on. I would have thought that it is obviously logical that once you are keeping minutes they would be accurate minutes, as opposed to inaccurate minutes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. If it is in there and the honourable member does not think it is necessary, then it does no harm and there is no reason to oppose it. I note that later on in clause 15 it helpfully instructs us that each commissioner present at a meeting of the commission has one vote on any question arising. Again, this would seem to be normal and logical meeting procedure, that each person has one vote. It does go on to say that the chair may exercise a casting vote, but the fact that they have one vote each is logical and normal meeting procedure. We agree that keeping an accurate record of the meeting would be logical and normal procedure, but we think it does no harm to spell it out, just as it does no harm to spell out that each member of the commission has one vote.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This seems to be majoring in the minors and seems wholly unnecessary. The Greens will not be supporting it.

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

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

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

Amendment No 10 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, lines 3 and 4 [clause 20(1)]—

Delete 'the Minister, by written notice, refers to the Commission.' and substitute:

—

(a) the Minister, by written notice, refers to the Commission; or

(b) either House of Parliament, by resolution, refers to the Commission.

This amendment follows on from the vote taken previously about who can refer matters to the commission: either the minister or one chamber of parliament. This inserts 'either House of Parliament' where it states 'the minister'. If it is not consequential-ish, it flows from the previous amendments we passed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We see it as related as well and therefore, whilst we oppose it, we will not divide.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would suggest that the next series of amendments, Nos 11 to 17—and I would be keen to make sure that the government agrees with this—are consequential on amendment No. 10 passing; that is, in the next series of amendments, Nos 12 to 17, where it talks about substituting the referring authority rather than just the minister, and in just written notice from the minister, they are saying 'or resolution' from a chamber of parliament. So I would suggest that amendments Nos 11 to 17 are consequential on the passing of amendment No. 10.

The CHAIR: You can move amendments Nos 11 to 14 as consequential.

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

Amendment No 11 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 5 [clause 20(2)]—After 'written notice' insert 'or resolution (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 12 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 6 [clause 20(3)]—Delete 'The Minister' and substitute 'The referring authority'

Amendment No 13 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 7 [clause 20(3)(a)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'referring authority'

Amendment No 14 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 14 [clause 20(4)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'referring authority'

They all relate to clause 20 and are consequential on amendment No. 10 having passed.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21.

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

Amendment No 15 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 18 [clause 21(2)]—Insert:

(aa) the referring authority; and

Amendment No 16 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 25 [clause 21(3)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'referring authority'

They put in 'referring authority' instead of just the 'Minister' and I propose they are consequential on the passing of amendment No. 10.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22.

The CHAIR: I understand that this amendment is consequential.

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

Amendment No 17 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, line 29 [clause 22(1)]—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'referring authority'

It is an identical amendment to the ones that we have just passed.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 23.

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

Amendment No 18 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 34—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) The Commission must, from time to time during an inquiry—

(a) prepare a draft report; and

(b) publish the draft report on its website at the same time that the draft is provided to the referring authority.

This relates to the reporting of the commission. The effect of the opposition's amendments are that it would require the commission to prepare a draft report in relation to an inquiry and to publish the draft report into the inquiry at the same time that it is provided to the referring authority, be that the minister or the house of parliament.

We see from the federal Productivity Commission that draft reports are regularly published and we think that is a reasonable and sensible way to go about things, in that draft reports then give an opportunity for the subject matter to be agitated further before the final report.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We support this amendment in principle but I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would consider changing it from a 'draft' report to an 'interim' report.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I take the honourable member's point. I think draft report is the language that is often used in this area. I note that the federal Productivity Commission publishes draft reports that are then subject to change, rather than interim reports. I am keen to see if the government has a view on this but I think 'draft' report might be the language that better suits this, given that it can then be defined as not a final position, just a draft rather than an interim.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's position is not to support the amendment, whether it is called a draft report or an interim report. Let me outline some of the circumstances where that might, in our view anyway, make sense. Whether it is under the government model of a government-initiated inquiry or whether it is under the opposition model of a Legislative Council-initiated inquiry, there may well be some inquiries which are so restricted or limited in their scope and therefore also their time and effort that the whole notion of having to have a draft report or an interim report makes no sense at all.

It might be such a targeted inquiry that the commission has to do that the whole notion of having a draft or an interim report makes no sense at all—that is, they can move quickly, they formed a view decisively in relation to what their position was, and it may well be in some circumstances that time requires a quick response. In other words, time does not allow for a draft or interim report, further consultation on that and public debate, and then a final report in relation to an issue.

The model the government is supporting is one which allows both. Given that I think the model that is being contemplated by non-government members of this chamber is, in relation to the final report, to allow a period of time for the minister and the government to consider its position in relation to the report, at least one can understand the argument behind that. That is the way, traditionally, reports from these sorts of commissions are conducted.

The former government commissioned former judge Mansfield to do a review of the Return to Work Act, and the provisions that were given to him were that within so many days the report had to be tabled in parliament. That was on the basis that the government of the day, whether it was a re-elected Labor government or a new Liberal government, would have time to consider the report, to go through its processes and to decide what its position was going to be.

What this is contemplating is actually that the draft or interim report would automatically go public and be published at the time the draft or interim report had been conducted. I am not familiar with the commonwealth arrangements in relation to draft reports, to be honest. I know there are some draft reports, but whether or not the minister or the government has them for a period of time prior to them being published, I am not sure.

From the government's viewpoint, we prefer the model that we have outlined, which is one which provides the flexibility that, if circumstances require a draft report, then that should be produced, but if something is limited in scope or there is no need or time for a draft report then one is not necessarily required. It just seems that in some cases it will be superfluous if the commission has made up its mind, knows what it wants to do and the draft report goes out, and then fairly soon afterwards a final report follows in exactly the same terms.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the government for outlining their view. We do not think there is any harm in having this as a requirement. It might be that in some cases, if there are in fact very quick reviews, the initial interim or draft report may not vary much at all from the final one. That may be the case. I think in the history of many of these things, though, that would seem to be rarely the case, so we think it is a sensible amendment.

I might indicate to the Hon. Frank Pangallo that we are not wedded to the word 'draft', so I am happy to seek leave to move it in an amended form to substitute the word 'draft' with the word 'interim' report. We think it has the same effect.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. Again, it seems to be meddling in the operational matters. Certainly, we have concerns that the productivity commission serves the state, that it is something that is transparent, that it is accountable and that pecuniary interests are declared, but in terms of giving them operational advice on their day-to-day workings, we think we can trust the productivity commission to work out when a draft report is required, when an interim report is required or when they can just go and put out a final report.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I agree with the Greens on this situation, and I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 19 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, lines 35 and 36 [clause 23(1)]—Delete 'to the Minister' and substitute:

—

(a) in the case of an inquiry referred by the Minister—to the Minister; or

(b) in the case of an inquiry referred by a House of Parliament—to the presiding member of the relevant referring House.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

This has the same intent to amendment Nos 11 to 17, in that it is consequential on the passing of amendment No. 10, and where it says 'the Minister' they are replacing it with a reference to the 'House of Parliament'.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 20 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 36—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The Commission must, in all reports on matters referred to it, include a variety of viewpoints and options presenting alternative means of addressing the issues in the report.

(1b) If a report on an inquiry relies on formal mathematical economic modelling, the Commission must—

(a) if practicable—utilise at least 2 different economic models, with the assumptions and results of those models made explicit in the report; or

(b) if it is not practicable to utilise at least 2 different economic models, appoint, and report on the views of, an independent reference panel on the modelling.

This amendment is based on the commonwealth act that establishes a commonwealth productivity commission. The commonwealth act requires that the commonwealth Productivity Commission use two different economic models when conducting inquiries, or a proxy for a second model, to ensure that different viewpoints on issues are adequately researched and canvassed in the reports the Productivity Commission makes. We think this should also be a requirement of the South Australian productivity commission.

One thing that I learnt from my time at university, studying and obtaining an economics degree, is that the model that is used in economic modelling has a very large impact on the results and conclusions that you can draw from putting a particular scenario through an economic model. I think, sensibly, the commonwealth Productivity Commission requires that two different economic models be used when conducting inquiries to make sure that at least in some way you can account for the variations that can occur depending on how you model something, and we think that is a reasonable thing to do in the South Australian context.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, the government does not support this particular amendment for a state-based productivity commission, distinguishing it from a federal-based productivity commission. I am not sure how much the federal Productivity Commission costs or what its budget is, but it is certainly much more considerable than the modest state-based productivity commission that we are talking about. We outlined at least the initial budgeting costs of about $2.5 million a year.

My advice is that, certainly within South Australia, I am not even sure we actually have one comprehensive economic modelling outfit or unit capable of doing the sort of modelling that the national Productivity Commission is able to commission at the national level in terms of the impact of some of the decisions that it might take in relation to penalty rates, HFE or whatever it might happen to be.

There are a couple of very well-resourced modelling units out of Melbourne University and one of the other Eastern States universities or think tanks, I think, but my knowledge or recollection is that we have a fairly rudimentary input-output modelling thing, which the former government and the new government, I guess, will need to utilise on occasion, but it is certainly not what one would call formal mathematical economic modelling along the lines of what the federal Productivity Commission would give the tick of approval to. So, if this particular amendment is passed, it will result in a significant increase in the budget cost of running the productivity commission, and there is just not the budget for this sort of requirement to be imposed on the productivity commission.

As I said, one can understand a national Productivity Commission which has access to a much bigger budget and has the capacity to commission nationally based, comprehensive economic models for the impact of some of their decisions. With all of the strengths and weaknesses of economic modelling—and I say this as someone who, whilst I am not a lawyer I have an economics degree—with all of the acknowledged strengths and weaknesses of economic models, they are the modern-day equivalent of sausage machines. You pump something in and something comes out the other end. Some of them are very sophisticated and, as I said, very expensive in terms of the modelling.

Under this model the opposition is suggesting that the small number of inquiries given to the commission from the government and an unknown number of inquiries the Legislative Council is going to recommend that the commission undertakes, we are going to have unlimited economic modelling costs for the bulk of those particular inquiries, if they require estimates of job impacts and impacts on inflation and economic growth and those sorts of economic indicator aggregates that most of these models churn out.

I hear what the Leader of the Opposition says, but from the government's viewpoint this is really getting involved in the nitty gritty of how the productivity commission conducts its business. It will be expensive and we just do not have the budget to do it, even if we agreed that it made sense to do it for each and every inquiry, which frankly we do not.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for his contribution. I think it was the Treasurer who stated that the initial budget is about $2.5 million a year for the productivity commission. What portion of that $2.5 million a year is currently thought to be paying for economic modelling for the productivity commission?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honest answer is I do not know. There are some very broad estimates of the productivity commission. I think the earlier questions we were asked were about how many inquiries, and how long would each of them be? The answer is that we do not know. There have just been some estimates done. My recollection of the discussion I had with advisers when we talked about this from a budget sense was that there was a broad estimate of what the number of the salary costs and on-costs would be of the commission.

We have added into that the hardworking people from the Simpler Regulation Unit who are in Treasury who are being transferred across to be the staff for the productivity commission, so their salaries went into it. I think then there was a notional sum for consultants as part of that particular budget. If you work through the salaries of the commissioners and the salaries of the Simpler Regulation Unit, which the former government had, their salaries go into it.

We are not talking about large sums of money out of $2.5 million, and you have accommodation costs and all of that sort of stuff. We are not talking large sums of money whatever it is. But I honestly cannot give the Leader of the Opposition a breakdown of the budget in relation to how much was budgeted for economic modelling because it has not been done.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for that response. I think it is part of the problem that the Treasurer says it is too expensive to do this and, when we ask how expensive it is, the answer is 'We do not know.' To claim it is too expensive to do it without knowing whether it is expensive or not seems a nonsensical sort of answer.

What we would say is that if the justification for not doing things that the commonwealth Productivity Commission does—and in earlier discussions the Treasurer implored us to follow more closely what the commonwealth and other states do when it suited his argument in relation to amendments—but when it is following the commonwealth to make sure an inquiry relies on not just one model, then you should depart from what the commonwealth does. I think it simply comes down to this: if it is too expensive to do it properly, then why would you bother doing it at all?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the member's first contention, he constructs his own straw man and destroys that, but that was not at all the argument I put. We certainly know that nationally commissioned economic modelling, properly done, is expensive; I have never indicated that it is not expensive. What I have said is that there is a budget allocation of $2½ million. I cannot answer for the member how much of the $2½ million has been set aside for economic modelling.

What I can tell the member is that, contrary to his assertion, if you commission two national economic modelling groups from the Eastern States to do economic modelling of any number of inquiries, it will be very expensive and it will be more than the allocation, whatever it might be, out of the $2½ million. We do not have that particular allocation of funding available in this budget.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not support the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. I see where the Treasurer is going. It could easily blow out the costs of the commission as it is set up to get two different economic models each time there is an inquiry. We will not support it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will support this amendment. This is one that goes to the heart of why we would have a productivity commission. Why would we want substandard reports, and why would we not want the full benefit of more information rather than less? Certainly, this element of the opposition's amendments is actually one of the key ones for the Greens in terms of ensuring a productivity commission that is not simply a shadow of what it could be.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 21 [Maher-1], deleting the number 90 and substituting 30.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The amendment standing in my name is in relation to when reports are published. The bill proposes to allow 90 days—three months—for the report to be published after it is received. We think that is an extraordinarily long period of time. We do not oppose the idea that a government that receives a final report ought to consider it and consider its response to that final report. We think that is reasonable, but we think that three months to hang on to a report before it has to be released is unreasonable and a period of 30 days is more reasonable.

I am speaking to the amendment without having moved it. I note that there are two further amendments on this clause. Mr Chair, will the further amendments from the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Mr Darley be put to a vote first, or does this amendment get put to a vote first and then the other ones will be considered?

The CHAIR: Hon. Mr Pangallo, you wish to make a contribution?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I was just going to move the amendment in my name.

The CHAIR: I think we have three choices. Hon. Mr Pangallo, if you can just hold for a moment. Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to read the amendments myself.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am going to suggest a possible course of action. There appear to be three alternative amendments. I am almost suggesting the parliamentary equivalent of a straw poll. The government is supporting the Darley amendment. If anybody else is supporting the Darley amendment, and every member can indicate what they are supporting, if there is a majority of us, the simplest thing would then be that whomever has the lucky one with the majority, that they move that amendment and we can vote on that. That might be a course.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As much as it pains me to say this, I was thinking along similar lines to the Leader of the Government.

The CHAIR: I came to that position myself.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To help this flow through, I might indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Pangallo amendment, which I understand he may be moving in amended form for 30 days instead of 90 days, but if that fails, the opposition will then be supporting the Darley amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It may well be if there is a majority for the Darley amendment, we will not have the Pangallo amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If that's what people indicate, yes.

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

The CHAIR: As far as I can see the will of the members, the Darley amendment may have the consensus of the council.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am not actually wedded to the change to 30 days. I could live with the 90 days.

The CHAIR: What is normally the case is that we put it to the council where the amendment comes; however, I think given what honourable members have advised the chamber, there will be success in relation to amendment No. 3 [Darley-1]. That is for the benefit of all honourable members. I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to put his amendments formally if he so chooses, or you can withdraw them or not move them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to move my amendment, having seen the views of the chamber.

The CHAIR: I thank the honourable member. We now come to amendment No. 3 [Darley-1] which the Greens have indicated they will support, and the Leader of the Government has indicated they will support. Hon. Mr Darley, can I ask you to move your amendment?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Darley–1]—

Page 9, after line 4—Insert:

(3) The Minister must, within 90 days of receiving a report delivered to the Minister by the Commission under subsection (1), provide a response to the Commission on its report and the Commission must publish the Minister's response on its website.

This amendment will obligate the government to provide a response to the commission's reports within 90 days. That is to say that the government must indicate whether they agree with the recommendations or not, and what they will be doing about it, if anything. I understand the Hon. Frank Pangallo has filed similar amendments; however, they are more prescriptive than mine in that they outline that the government needs to give an indication of whether they will be adopting or taking action on the recommendations and if not, why not.

My amendments are not as prescriptive but the intentions are the same. I am not sure what else the government would put into a response other than whether they will be adopting the recommendations or not, and the reasons for their decision. I hope the house will support my amendment. I am relaxed about which ones will be successful but I am hopeful that at least one will be accepted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As the Hon. John Darley said, ours is more prescriptive. With this amendment, within 90 days following receipt of the final report, it must provide the reasons for either carrying out the recommendations made by the commission and the manner in which they will be carried out. I point out that the amendment we are to move is actually identical to the one in the Coroners Act, which had government support previously.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I want to clarify that, from the Greens perspective, again we are getting into the operational side of things and being too prescriptive, which is why we are voting the way we are.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that we prefer the more prescriptive measures in the amendment and prefer the Pangallo amendment to the Darley amendment. However, I can count to 10 and I can also count to 11, so I can see where the numbers lie on this. I can see that the Darley amendment will succeed over the Pangallo amendment, but place on the record that Labor prefers the more prescriptive terms, but prefers the Darley amendment over nothing, which is what we had before.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, given the success of that amendment, there is no need for you to move your amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, thank you, Mr President.

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

Amendment No 22 [Maher–1]—

Page 9, after line 4—Insert:

(3) The Chair must, at least once in each year and at such other times as is required, appear before the Economic and Finance Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 in relation to a report on any inquiry conducted by the Commission.

This, again, is one of the oversights and transparency amendments that the opposition has moved and requires that the chair of the commission 'must, at least once in each year and at such other times as is required, appear before the Economic and Finance Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 in relation to a report on any inquiry conducted by the Commission'.

We think it is a sensible amendment. It gives oversight to the parliament in relation to the conducting of the inquiries that the commission is doing, and we do not think it is overly onerous. I am not a Treasurer, but I suggest that this would not blow the budget, like other things, as has been claimed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Leader of the Opposition will be delighted to know that I will not use an argument that has no substance in relation to the cost of this amendment—I only use that where it has some substance, and that was the modelling amendment. The government does not support this, although, ultimately, if it is the will of the parliament, so be it. The government's model of the productivity commission is that it would be as a statutory authority subject to the review of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee; that is, capable of an inquiry being conducted by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee.

It is true to say that there is no statutory requirement for them once a year to go to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee; that would have to be a decision of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, if they so choose. So the government's position is not to support this; however, if ultimately that is the case then so be it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition's amendment. This seems a reasonable level of transparency, and certainly SARC could call the productivity commissioners before them as well.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting the opposition's amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 24.

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

Amendment No 23 [Maher–1]—

Page 9, lines 6 to 10—Delete the clause and substitute:

24—Annual report

(1) The Commission must, on or before 1 October in each year, prepare a report on the administration of this Act.

(2) The report must—

(a) relate to the financial year preceding the making of the report; and

(b) describe—

(i) the number and general nature of the inquiries held by the Commission; and

(ii) the performance plan and budget submitted to the Minister under section 18 in relation to the financial year preceding the making of the report; and

(c) deal with any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

(3) A copy of the report must be delivered to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly within 10 sitting days of 1 October in each year.

(4) The President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly must, on the first sitting day after receiving a report, lay it before their respective Houses.

This amendment deletes clause 24 of the bill, which is in relation to the annual reporting requirements, and puts in a not overly onerous but a more rigorous annual reporting requirement. As the annual reporting requirement currently stands in the government's bill, it merely requires:

(1) The Commission must, within 3 months after the end of each financial year, deliver to the Minister a report on the administration of this Act…

and it requires the report to be tabled in parliament within 12 sitting days after the receipt of the report.

What the opposition's amendment does is tighten up on what is required to be reported, and also the time frames on reporting: 'on or before 1 October in each year, prepare a report' and 'within 10 sitting days'. The large difference is:

(2) The report must—

(a) relate to the financial year preceding the making of the report; and—

importantly—

(b) describe—

(i) the number and general nature of the inquiries held by the Commission; and

(ii) the performance plan and budget submitted to the Minister under section 18 in relation to the financial year preceding the making of the report...

We think this is an important one in relation to the budget, given the huge uncertainties even within the government about the budget for the commission and how it works.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The budget will be on 4 September—an outline as to what the budget will be. The Leader of the Opposition is asking questions in relation to budget issues without the budget having been formally brought down in total. When the budget is brought down, it will have a budget for the productivity commission, assuming the legislation passes and the body is to be established. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should assume the information he receives in July is the information that will be available publicly when the budget is released on 4 September.

The member says that this is tightening up on provisions. The government's bill provides:

(1) The Commission must, within 3 months after the end of each financial year, deliver to the Minister a report—

and the Leader of the Opposition has changed that to 'must, on or before 1 October'. Is that not the same time? I do not know how that tightens it up. You have changed it to 1 October—whoopsy do.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: On or before.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, whoopsy do. The government has used the phrase 'within 3 months,' which is July, August, September, so by 1 October or 30 September. This is momentous amendments just for the sake of making amendments.

With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that is part of the problem. There is a desperation to be able to amend every particular provision and clause just to delay the passage of legislation and cause grief. What is the problem with describing it as 'within 3 months'? They have gone to the trouble of crafting an amendment to say 'on or before 1 October', and this somehow provides greater transparency.

I just illustrate that as an example. We talked in an earlier amendment about accurate minutes. It is really just amending legislation for the sake of 'we're no longer in government and we now want to draft the bills in the way we actually want them to be drafted', which is great, but there is a lot of time going to be taken up in the committee stage for not much productive use, if that is the approach that is going to be adopted.

In relation to delivering a copy of the report, the government amendment says 12 sitting days and the Leader of the Opposition has moved 10 sitting days, so there is a tightening-up requirement of two sitting days in relation to the aspect of reporting to parliament. In relation to the budget issue, the budget will be public and, as the leader would know as a former minister, clearly all of these bodies, once established as statutory authorities, will have to provide financial reports and financial statements on whatever their budget is. If it is $2.5 million dollars, they will have to have audited statements and all of that sort of thing. It is just a part of a normal annual report.

Upon closer scrutiny, the whole notion of this as some bold new thing is really not that, in terms of providing greater transparency. The budget is the budget, and it will be revealed. It is not as if it is a secret budget. Once the body is established and it is given a budget, Treasury will be aware of it. It will be in the budget in the aggregate, and when it reports each year on its audited accounts it will have to have those accounts reported. I assume the Auditor-General would do the normal audit, so there is no great secret in relation to this.

If it is a body established by the government, it is going to be subject to the general controls that most of these bodies are subject to. So we do not support it. We think this is amending for amending's sake. We do not believe that it provides any greater transparency in relation to what is being proposed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for his contribution. A couple of times in relation to clauses in this bill, the Treasurer has said, 'We're going to do this anyway. It will happen.' If it is the case that that is going to happen anyway, there is absolutely no harm in making absolutely sure of it by passing this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting the opposition on this one. It is quite clear cut what an annual report is going to contain. The honourable leader's amendment goes into quite a deal of minutiae, but I accept the way that it has been drafted by the government. I will not be voting for the amendment.

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

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just for the record, the Greens will not be supporting it either.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 25 passed.

New clause 26.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Darley–1]—

New clause, page 9 after line 24—Insert:

26—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted on the expiry of 3 years from its commencement.

(2) The review must be completed within 6 months and the results of the review embodied in a written report.

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

This amendment is fairly self-explanatory and would cause a review of the act to be undertaken three years after commencement to see if improvements or modifications to the act need to be made. It is important to do this as the bill establishes a new entity, and often new entities need modification after they have been in operation for a few years. Often kinks cannot be identified or ironed out at the beginning, and it is only with lived experience that this can occur.

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

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The opposition will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, whilst the Treasurer is taking some advice, do you wish to take the opportunity to indicate your view?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: On Mr Darley's amendment?

The CHAIR: On Mr Darley's amendment No. 4 [Darley-1] inserting a new clause 26. You are not obliged to have a comment; I am just giving you the opportunity.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is this the one about the review?

The CHAIR: Yes, this is inserting a new clause 26.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the interests of getting this bill through, we are delighted to support the Darley amendment in relation to a review. It is traditional that the Hon. Mr Darley moves amendments in relation to a review of new proceedings and we will support the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am inclined to agree with that.

The CHAIR: The amendment has been moved by the Hon. Mr Darley, so I will put the question that new clause 26 as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. J.R. Darley be so inserted.

New clause inserted.

The CHAIR: There is a further amendment to be moved by the Treasurer, amendment No. 1 [Lucas-1]. This is inserting schedule 1, related amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I withdraw the amendment standing in my name. It is consequential on an earlier debate that we had about competitive neutrality.

Title.

The CHAIR: I assume, Treasurer, you are not going to move amendment No.2 [Lucas-1].

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is that about competitive neutrality as well?

The CHAIR: That is making amendment to the long title.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, it is consequential and I will not be moving that amendment.

Title passed.

Bill recommitted.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I hope that with at least the concurrence of a majority of members in this place, I move:

That inserted new subclauses (5) and (5a) be deleted and original subclause (5) be inserted.

There was an earlier vote of the council where two members were at a very important domestic violence summit doing good work. I do not think the bells rang; the lights might have flashed, but the work was so important that they did not get back in time for the vote. So I hope, with the concurrence of the committee—well, it has obviously been recommitted—that we can recast our vote. I think that, with a full complement, there is support for the position that I am putting.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think it is beholden on all of us to do our best to get to divisions, but I was at the same event, and I know that in that room in parliament the bells are not loud and the light is very high. However, I urge both the government and the opposition to remember this moment. When someone, through no fault of their own, doing important parliamentary business, does miss a vote I would like to think that it was good practice and would become the practice of this committee to recommit clauses so that the numbers are fairly reflected and so that people do not take advantage of those who are missing through no real fault of their own.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As someone who has been in this chamber much longer than anybody else, can I indicate that the convention and practice in my time, which I certainly as Leader of the Government would wish to seek the concurrence of all parties to, if that is possible, is to do not only that but more. With the major parties, when a member through no fault of their own—sometimes no fault of their own; occasionally it might be their fault—has not turned up, the whips have previously informally paired.

There would be no formal pairing arrangement, but if two government members missed the vote, two opposition members were withdrawn or vice versa. That has been an informal convention between the whips and between the parties.

I would certainly indicate on behalf of government members a willingness to work that way as we have in the past. That would not necessitate having to go through recommittal proceedings. In relation to crossbench members, if we were aware that someone had gone missing or had not got to a vote in time—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, and the Hon. Kelly Vincent sometimes found it very difficult to get from one end of our environs to here within the two minutes or whatever it is that the bells ring for, if we stick to the strict policing of the ringing of the bells, and there were occasions where, when we knew where she was, we would pair as well.

I will not delay the committee proceedings any longer. I think what the member suggests is fine, but I think there is another practice which would mean we would not have to recommit on all those particular occasions as well.

Amendment carried; clause as further amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (18:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.