HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC SECTOR BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 1143.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:02): It is my pleasure to confirm that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill, but I am not the sole speaker. I know that many members of the opposition intend to speak to the bill and, indeed, to talk about the consultation we have had with the Public Service Association, which I see is ably represented in the gallery today, and to acknowledge that there are some areas where there is support for the government's bill but that there are areas where we have concerns. I will begin by reflecting on a few personal things. I came to this place from a bureaucratic-style career, working within local government.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That's true. It is interesting that some of my more senior colleagues on this side of the house have told me that I need to change my thought processes and to recognise that I am no longer a bureaucrat but someone who determines policy and is involved in the legislative process.

I can understand the thinking behind that but, because I have worked within the bureaucracy and understand how the structures work, I am strongly of the belief that the greatest asset any organisation has is the staff working for it. I believe my experience within local government has given me a good background to consider not only this bill but also many other matters that come before the house.

When I began my local government career, I worked on the front counter. So, I had the most menial of positions. As with anyone who works in any role, I strove to move up the ranks. This involved study and challenging myself and, importantly, it involved people within the organisations for which I worked providing me with opportunities to improve myself. I know that within the public sector that is a very strong focus, too.

I believe there are 79,000 full-time equivalent staff working within the public sector, as well as something like 98,000 additional workers. There are approximately 780,000 people in work in South Australia, and close to one in every eight people employed in this state work within the public sector and are providing a service to the community at large. So, not only are they a very important single employment block but they are obviously a very important group of people who, in many cases, devote their life to trying to serve the needs of the wider community and the very wide range of interests of South Australians.

In my three years in parliament, I have had the opportunity to meet with many public servants as part of ministerial briefings, attending functions or listening to presentations about legislation. There is no doubt that, on each of those occasions, the information that they have provided has been fair, and I note that the intention of the bill is to encourage the Public Service to act fairly and in the interests of the wider community at all times.

I am very impressed by the knowledge that these people possess. It is obvious to me that many within the Public Service are in very challenging roles, not just intellectually or physically but, in many cases, emotionally. It is easy for us to think that every person who works within the Public Service sits behind a desk and is not necessarily exposed to public contact and public scrutiny whereas, in fact, many who work within the Public Service are the face of an organisation.

They are the people on the ground who provide services often in remote localities, at people's homes or in the remote communities that make up South Australia, and these people are challenged every day. I wish, in my opening remarks, to say that I have the greatest respect for the Public Service. I trust that the Public Service will continue to be a career of choice and, certainly, the bill espouses this. All of us within this chamber acknowledge that it is important for that to occur.

There is no doubt that the global economic crisis is placing some pressure upon employment opportunities within the state, and unemployment figures are increasing, but the long-term trend within South Australia is certainly that, within 10 years, there will be a lack of available staff to fill positions. Therefore, for the Public Service to be seen as a career of choice, it is important that it is modernised in some ways.

It is important that those in middle management and senior roles encourage people because it is pretty clear to everybody that, if you start in a role where the environment around you is not supportive, you very soon begin to reconsider whether you want to be a part of that organisation. The Public Service has to focus on the positives. We in the opposition—and, I am confident, the government also—encourage good outcomes and, importantly, positive circumstances within the work environment.

I do quite happily put on the public record that, as a matter of principle, it is important that any organisation, no matter what it is, tries to provide the best possible quality of service but at a price that every customer is able to pay. In this case, it is the community at large, through the tax base, that actually pays, so I understand that efficiencies need to be created. However, I understand that, in addition to efficiencies, there is a need to ensure also that the quality of the service being provided is maintained. Budgetary pressures sometimes put that at risk.

We know now that the financial position of the state is very different from that of 12 months ago and that there is enormous pressure on public servants from CEOs downwards to actually create financial efficiencies. Efficiency dividends have existed in previous budgets, and that was a percentage of expenditure. Now, as I understand it, there is a dollar figure in mind. The decreasing financial position in the longer term for South Australia and the deficit we face, announced by the Treasurer in the recent Mid-Year Budget Review, will put enormous pressure on the Public Service overall to deliver some efficiencies.

The popular media report that it could be up to 6 per cent. That is an extreme figure that would make it very difficult to balance things out. It is obvious that not only will ministers face a lot of pressures when it comes to budgetary talks for next financial year but also everybody who works in the Public Service will be challenged to ensure that they can stimulate efficiencies that will still ensure the quality of the service while meeting financial requirements. We will focus on quality as we talk through the issue before us.

The house and the minister should be aware that amendments have been filed in the name of the opposition, and I believe that the member for Mitchell has also flagged amendments, so I hope they are in the hands of the minister. It is interesting that the amendments proposed by the opposition and many of those proposed by the member for Mitchell are nearly identical; that reflects an area of consultation that has occurred in consideration of the bill.

Those amendments will no doubt ensure healthy debate in the House of Assembly, but it will presumably be in Legislative Council that the real debate about them will occur, because that is where the balance is very different. We are realistic enough to understand that what we propose here will have some difficulty getting through, if indeed it all. It is in the Legislative Council, where the numbers are far more evenly split, that the real debate will occur on the specific issues. That is where the opinions of a far greater number of people can be actively canvassed and votes achieved, and where we hope that change occurs.

This bill has been flagged for some time. I note that, in November 2007, the minister released a position paper on the Public Sector Bill 2008. Consultation was open, I think, until 26 January 2008. I am not aware of the number of submissions that were received on that position paper, but I was grateful for the fact that very soon after that closing date the minister's chief of staff afforded me a briefing on the bill, and we had quite a good discussion.

Since that time, I have wondered what was happening to the Public Sector Bill, given its importance to South Australia. Answers to my questions of the minister, whenever an opportunity arose (certainly, the last one was in October), were that it would be soon. Well, it was soon; it was on the last Wednesday of November when this house sat, which has allowed us the period between late November and now to consult and consider the proposals in the bill and the areas in which amendments may be sought.

I must admit, from my preliminary reading of the draft bill—and I have certainly conveyed this to my colleagues on this side of the house—there are many aspects that we would have proposed if we were on the other side of the chamber; there is no doubt about that. However, there are some areas where we feel the government has gone a little bit too far, and that relates, in many ways, to the opportunity for staff in the executive service to ensure that not only is their tenure continued, which we will talk about later, but, importantly, that their rights and privileges are protected.

It might be that some members on the government side of the house question why an opposition wants to support the rights and privileges of staff members, but we are very serious about this. It comes, I suppose, from my administrative background, where I have tried to consider everybody I had any involvement with as equal. Certainly, in a previous role as a local government CEO, my attitude was to engage people, to promote debate from within them, to promote ideas to come from within, and to ensure that the team approach created the best decision. It worked, I hope, in the organisations of which I was a part, and I am sure that it works within the public service agencies in which it is strongly encouraged; so, we hope to stimulate debate.

I want to put some information on the public record. There was much concern amongst public sector employees prior to the 2006 state election about a Liberal policy in regard to a reduction of 4,000 public servants. My clear understanding of that is that it was intended to be through attrition and arose from the need to put some financial responsibility into the budget. It was never a criticism directly upon the Public Service. We saw that as a need at that time. That policy, which was taken to an election, was very unpopular. All of these policies are open to review; there is no doubt. Accusations made by the government at the time that the Liberal Party wanted to sack people were not the case.

There is an enormous movement of staff in and out of organisations. It seemed to us that there was an opportunity, through negotiation, for discussion to take place to consider the total number of employees required for the Public Service. There is no doubt they provide key services. The dilemma for me, coming into this house relatively new and after this period, is that if you look plainly at the figures (and figures do distort information; there is no doubt) it is obvious that, in the period since 2002, based on what the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment reports, some 17,000 more people will now work within the Public Service.

My understanding of the budget figures supplied since 2002 is that they have provided for an increase of 3,000. So, at that time, there was a desire within government to stimulate and promote programs which required the employment of an additional 3,000. Other figures supplied to the opposition by the Treasurer indicate that the total increase in that time may have been more in the range of 14,000, and it was that difference which concerned us. It is certainly not an accusation directed against the people who have benefited from that employment. We understand that they put up their hand, and they are the people who offered themselves to take on roles identified by the government as being important.

The concern we have is that the budgetary requirements were not actively fulfilled by ministers who have direct responsibility and who are provided with budgets which allow for the employment of a certain number of people. To go beyond those budgetary requirements and to employ additional people—again, there are no concerns about the people who have been employed—relates back to government controls. It is these government controls that have let us down somewhat and added to the recurrent cost of employment of staff within the public sector. I wanted to put that position on the public record, not to reflect on it any more, but to state that the Liberal Party, certainly in my view, has not declared war on the public sector. If anything, I am sure that comments made in relation to this bill will indicate Liberal Party support for the public sector, recognising that, as a collective group of some 98,000 people, it wishes to operate in the absolute best interests of South Australians.

There have been recent media releases about job cut requirements, and the Mid-Year Budget Review talked about 1,600 over the forward estimates: 1,200 within the next 18 months or so, and then smaller numbers in following years. That is going to be a hard target for the government to meet and a great challenge. More recent media statements have indicated that departmental CEOs are refusing to make the final decision, and it is going to become a minister's responsibility to put some pressure upon them. I hope that the interests of the individual are considered, and that is an important aspect of the debate that will occur about specific amendments that we are proposing. Everybody we represent is an important South Australian, and Public Service employees are no less important, so let us make sure we work hard on this measure.

I want to comment on some frustrations I have experienced since coming into this place. I respect enormously the public sector, but I would like to refer to an instance, which I do not think is going to breach any confidences. I refer to a recent visit to the Riverland where I requested an opportunity to meet with a person who had been appointed to undertake part of the support, reconstruction and revitalisation of the Riverland. I have had a personal relationship with this person over many years; in fact, he was a deputy beneath me at a council where we worked. This person did the right thing: being only nine days into his role, he forwarded to the government department concerned my email request for an opportunity to meet with him. The response was that a briefing would be provided but that, although not necessarily being held in a different location, in this case the minister had to be involved, whereas, normally, it would be departmental staff.

The purpose of my request to meet with this officer was not to discuss state secrets but to gain from him an understanding of the scope of the project that he would be involved in and what good it would achieve for the community at large. That is where the spirit of bipartisanship needs to apply more often. Members of parliament on this side of the house respect the Public Service, and we appreciate that people will not divulge state secrets. However, we understand that they possess immense knowledge and, if there is an opportunity in future years for people to sit down and have candid discussions (whilst preserving confidences) with members on both sides of the chamber, it would certainly be a positive step forward. I hope that we can make this happen in the future.

When discussing this bill with the Public Service Association (and I acknowledge the enormous assistance it has been to me) one of the concerns clearly expressed was about the ability of CEOs within departments to terminate the employment of officers. That is an area where we will put amendments. We feel, without discussing it at length at this stage, that it is important to have a review provision here. Our suggestion to the minister will be that, where the bill provides for termination to occur, then, instead of a CEO having that delegated authority, it actually has to be part of a submission made to the Commissioner for Public Employment, who will make that judgment call. However, I will talk about that in depth later.

The bill aims to ensure that the public sector delivers a high-quality service to the community across departments that can attract and retain talented staff, with the ability to provide open and impartial advice to government without fear of repercussion. That is an obvious requirement, and there will be no debate from the opposition on that, as we recognise its importance and the need to progress that opportunity.

The bill also requires public sector agencies to have in place an effective performance management system, and I would like to take up this point for a moment. From discussions I have had, it seems to me that some departments within government do have very effective performance management systems, while some have quite ineffective systems in place and others do not have any at all. The only way for an organisation or individual to improve themselves is to provide for some critique of their performance to occur.

In my local government sphere I saw this as an important opportunity and a chance for all staff to understand where they stood, where there were areas for improvement, or indeed if there were areas in which training was required. So, in the five years that I spent in my previous role, I ensured that reviews were undertaken each year. It is a lengthy process and I acknowledge that time has to be devoted to it but, importantly, it creates a stimulus for improvement to occur. If we do not have improvement then we as a state will suffer in the long term, bearing in mind that the Public Service delivers such a wide range of services.

We need to ensure that that opportunity is there. It is not a process to be feared: I believe it is a process to be encouraged, and it is important that people have the opportunity to express themselves candidly. Quite often only two or three people are involved in each review, but it does work well. So, in terms of those departments that may not have pursued it in the past, I am encouraged by the fact that this bill will require it to be a commonality across all departments. I hope that everyone within senior and middle management takes it up in the spirit in which it is intended, because it can create significant improvements.

It may be that a performance review involving a staff member, no matter on what level they operate, will identify that a critical lack of training is occurring in some areas. If that works its way up the line and becomes a recommendation, obviously funding must be allocated for it and time devoted to it. As it can only create improvements, it is important that this measure works well in the future.

I have spoken briefly about this matter before but, again, it is important that the bill promotes and enhances the attractiveness of a career within the public sector. From my remote observations prior to being elected in 2006, it appeared to me that the public sector faced enormous challenges in the past. Many years ago it seemed that people who were appointed to the public sector had jobs for life—and certainly, other than the case involving people within the executive service, there is no suggestion of removing the tenure that exists for public servants. However, we must ensure that the attractiveness of the career is there, as well as the opportunity to grow in the career.

It seems to me that appointments and promotions must always be based upon the ability and skill of the individual, and not necessarily on any other factor that might come into it. We need the absolutely best people, and if we have that attitude all the time it will encourage people to become members of the Public Service. I know that in the harsh reality of the commercial world there are opportunities for people who currently work within the Public Service to accept roles that offer greater levels of remuneration. That is the challenge that faces the state now and going into the future, and it is also a risk.

However, the environment in which people work is a large determining factor as to whether or not they stay. If someone is comfortable within their environment but also challenged to do their job well, they will tend to stay within that environment. The public sector needs to promote that, because there will be many young people looking for a career and it may not be seen as being 'sexy' (a term commonly used out there in terms of career opportunities). This is especially so in the case of younger people who, from what I have read, have the potential for not just five jobs within their working life but actually five separate careers. It is important that the public sector is seen as one of those attractive careers. So, it is not just the circumstances in which you work, it is not just the remuneration, and it is not just the attitude; it is the total package that will make the public sector an important career option for people.

In the past, good people have been lost to the public sector for a variety of reasons, some of them where separation packages have been offered and they have gone on to what they have seen as other opportunities, but in many cases we have lost the absolute best because those people have been seen as attractive to all. Let us ensure that we encourage all of our public sector employees to achieve the best that they can, because that is the important thing for the state. Hopefully, with the attractiveness of a career in the public sector, that will flow through.

I note that new principles have been developed and new governance arrangements are in place. Certainly, there is an enhanced role for CEOs. Much of the authority currently held by the Commissioner for Public Employment, and indeed the Governor, for the hiring or firing of staff is being assigned to the Premier and, by delegation, to departmental chief executives. My role prior to coming to this place has given me a reasonable level of acceptance for that, other than where it relates to the termination provisions within the bill. I think it is important that people on the ground have the ability to react, but that ability to react needs to be seen with some consistency.

There has been some concern with some people that I have spoken to about the bill that there is a wide variety of opinions and a wide variety of how decisions are formed which, in effect, creates a very wide variety of consistency of decisions that have been made. While it is impossible for us all to be clones of each other and to ensure that we all act in the same way, it is important that there is some recognition of how decisions need to be made, the appropriateness of those decisions, and the opportunity for review—we will talk about that later when we get to the amendments—but also, importantly, that there is an opportunity to move forward.

I note the creation of the South Australian executive service. My understanding is that this will involve approximately 500 senior staff members. My understanding is that in the future every person appointed to the executive service will be appointed on a contract basis, whereas at the moment—and the minister might like to clarify this in his comments—there is a transitional period where contract provisions are being offered to those people identified as being required to operate within the executive service. Some have already (for whatever number of reasons) chosen to take up that opportunity.

There has been some concern expressed to me about doing that and having a contract which includes a provision for tenure as the fallback position. I would like to get some clarification of this from the minister, if that tenure is lost through the implementation of this bill if it goes through in its current form. This is a key issue for me to ensure that, in those cases, those people do not suffer any disadvantage.

I have discussed this at length with the Public Service Association. In number, it is actually a relatively small percentage of people employed by the Public Service. I know that across the wider community there is relatively little sympathy provided for people in the higher earning brackets, but the people in those roles do possess a very high degree of skill and expertise and it is important to me to ensure that their interests have some level of protection. Some of those people have voluntarily gone into contracts on the basis that, if the contract is not renewed at the end of the contract period, then the position terminates, but for those who have gone into it on the basis that tenure is a fallback position, I am sure that the minister will clarify the government's position as outlined in the bill.

There is a provision to facilitate greater mobility of public sector employees across the sector to allow the required skills to be placed where necessary. That is an issue that I support quite strongly. It is important that, where a skill level is identified that exists for a need that may be beyond the area of responsibility of a particular department or section within which a public sector employee works, that person (subject to mutual consent, of course) has the opportunity to be appointed to a different role, which may be on an interim basis or it may be on an ongoing basis, but it is important that we provide that.

I think that the government has certainly made a positive step in this area. There may be people who have concerns with it, but I think it presents a tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity for people to upskill themselves constantly, with the knowledge that, where an opportunity exists for them to fully utilise that skill—whereas in their current role they might not have that to the fullest degree—that skill will actually have the flexibility to be identified. Again, it will take positive and responsive senior and middle management to identify that. Importantly, that skill will be identified and that person—again, the fact that it has to be by mutual consent will have to be enforced—will have the chance to move to another opportunity. They will not lose tenure and they will keep their fallback chances but, importantly, their skills will be used.

It is on the basis that the state will actually face some very challenging issues in the future that we support this. As outlined in the house previously, financial implications are going to put immense pressure upon the state. It is important that, as part of the overall government response to the issues, the public sector has the ability to be flexible. I think this is a good step forward, and I commend the government on this.

Another issue that we have identified is that the bill, as is my understanding, brings together the Public Service and the broader public sector. The minister might like to clarify this, but I assume that it includes authorities such as SA Water and some people who may have worked within the health department, who are aligned to government but independently managed and who are now brought in under the one scope. This is an issue for which I have reasonable support.

I understand that the executive service will be identified as starting at a level within the award structure. People are required to go on five-year contracts. I think there is an acceptance of the fact that, if you are in a contract—and especially for newer people signing up for roles that do not offer the fallback opportunities of tenure—there should be some level of greater remuneration to reflect that. So, I would be interested in hearing from the minister whether some level or reasonable standard figure is attached to that or whether it depends on individual negotiations. I understand and enforce the fact that all future executive service members will be employed via a contract.

I have already spoken about performance management, and I enforce the fact that I think it provides some great training opportunities for people. It should have been in place many years ago, and it is disappointing to find out that it has not been in place. I would have hoped that the government would have been a leader in this area—without being an innovator—when it was identified that it was a great way to actually improve the provision of services, and it is a shame that it has not been.

I note the honesty and accountability provisions which will become part of the only provisions of the Public Sector Management Act as a result of the consequential bill that we are to consider after this one. As I understand it, that was previously handled via a code of conduct.

I have some questions about the attached office. When I read through the initial consultation paper put out by the minister in November 2007, I must admit that I was confused. I thought: what level of office is this? Is it some group which sits at the side of the minister and which has a greater liaison with staff directly and does not actually involve the CEOs of departments? Briefings that I have had with the minister's chief of staff indicate that this is based primarily around policy needs and emerging demands. I suppose that is where my understanding was: that demands will constantly emerge; there is no doubt about that. Departments and governments need to have some flexibility.

My recollection is that, in some cases, attached offices may only be with sole departments and, in some cases, they may exist to serve across several departments. Some clarification on that would be very helpful. The explanation that has been provided to me seems quite reasonable. I know that CEOs are focused on the management of the department and the immense demands that come with that, to ensure not only the provision of quality services but also that the financial demands are being met. Where additional dollars may be provided as part of some cabinet decision to invigorate it or start a new program, the attached office may have the focus on that. If it is about policy, I am supportive of it, but I just seek clarification.

I had a question during the briefings about productivity improvements. The comment was made to me that it was expected to happen but that it would not be measured. We have already noted that there will be greater flexibility to put people where their skills are required. We know now that, from the budget documents across the forward estimates and the media, greater efficiencies in percentage and dollar terms will be required from all departments. I am interested to get clarification from the minister about whether it is expected that productivity improvements will be measured in some way. The term 'key performance indicators' has been around for a while now, so I would be interested to see whether the intention is to try to measure that. I have never been a true believer in that one, I must admit; but I am interested in what the minister's attitude to that might be.

In considering the bill, and in the discussions I have had with various people, I note that the bill does not refer to a reduction or expansion of the Public Service but that it does provide an opportunity to get rid of staff deemed to be excess to requirements. I use the word 'excess' loosely. However, I note that the department is required to make every effort to find alternative work in another department and/or to retrain identified excess staff first.

The matter of excess staff is very difficult and emotional. For many people who have dedicated their life, or at least many years of work, to the Public Service suddenly to be told that their position is excess will be a very difficult situation to handle. I understand that necessity creates this sometimes. It is a necessity beyond the control of individuals which results from decisions made very high up the line. It is important that we have some empathy for how this works because we are dealing with far more than just numbers. As a member of parliament, when I look at the numbers, I think that, yes, that tells a story, but you must also ask yourself: who are the people behind the numbers?

You consider it in those terms when it comes to unemployment figures, when you expect cost reductions in government services and when you make decisions about whether you can improve an employment opportunity for somebody or at least an employment retention opportunity. The federal government's stimulus package, which was subject to robust debate, uses the words 'to create or maintain' employment numbers. We need to ensure that the debate on this one is healthy because excess numbers are an issue which will be talked about by many people.

I posed a question about the government's position on no forced redundancies. The minister's chief of staff said that government policy has not changed and, as I understand it, the provisions are contained within the enterprise bargaining agreements to which parties of both political persuasions have agreed in the past. It is easy to make a political point-scoring opportunity and just say that a change of policy by either government could alter that, but we will see. These times of financial hardship will make it even more difficult.

I have reflected on the fact that, as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review presented by the Treasurer in December, from his point of view, 1,600 people are required to be removed from the Public Service over the next three years. It will be interesting to see the method whereby that occurs and what the impact will be.

We have also made some consideration of the involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission, as it relates to this bill. I note from my experience of a previous shadow portfolio, when considering the training and skills development bill with minister Caica some six months ago, that the Industrial Relations Commission is now also involved in grievance disputes, as it relates to trainees and apprentices. From my exposure to that bill and to this current bill, it seems to me that the trend is that the use of the Industrial Relations Commission is becoming far more widespread by the government. It is a matter of policy for the Liberal opposition that we do not support that option. We propose (as will be evidenced by the amendments we will put forward) that the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act 1995 be returned to this bill because we feel that the collective use of the existing processes has worked quite well.

It is not that I have any issue against the Industrial Relations Commission, but we would prefer the current provisions of the 1995 act to continue. In its consideration of this bill, the opposition has spoken to a variety of people. Certainly, I put on record my appreciation for the assistance provided to me at very short notice on many occasions by the Public Service Association. That association has informed me from a wealth of experience that it collectively possesses about the real issues that are involved in this bill. It has reinforced the fact that, of the approximately 30,000 people who work within the Public Service who are potential members of its association, it has some 18,000 members, and I therefore recognise that it represents a very large group of people.

The people with whom I have spoken within the PSA have not only been quite candid but also quite rational in their comments, and certainly they support improvement of the bill to ensure that not only are opportunities created to improve the way in which the public sector is managed but also and importantly that the needs and desires of the staff who work within the Public Service are protected. I cannot dispute that and I would never try to. There is the wider issue of what the PSA intends to do in the future in its support of the Legislative Council, but importantly the opposition believes that the amendments proposed by the PSA are quite valid.

We have had some debate about that; and I apologise for the fact that it was so late, in that only this morning a party position was formed on the amendments that I have put forward in my name. Importantly, we think that the PSA has done a good job on this, and we commend the role that it takes not only on behalf of its members but also on behalf of the other people who work within the public sector. Primary concerns expressed by the PSA have focused around a few areas, and I might take a few minutes to elaborate on them. The first and most important one relates to clause 53 and the opportunity for termination to occur.

When the bill was first introduced in the house in November, this clause grabbed my immediate attention. We thought, 'Wow, okay, what is the government trying to do here?' A little more scrutiny into it tempered my thoughts a little, but I must admit that it has not tempered the thoughts of the PSA. An example given to me was where a public sector agency may terminate the employment of an employee. Clause 53 provides:

A public sector agency may terminate the employment of an employee of the agency on any of the following grounds:

(a) the employee is excess to the requirements of the agency;

(b) the employee's physical or mental incapacity to perform his or her duties satisfactorily;

(c) the employee's unsatisfactory performance of his or her duties;

(d) the employee's misconduct;

(e) the employee's lack of an essential qualification for performing his or her duties;

(d) any other ground prescribed by the regulations.

The important provision is paragraph (d), with which I have a lot of frustration. A lot of information seems to be contained within regulations that are not open to parliamentary scrutiny. It seems to me that those very broad terms do provide an opportunity for some terrible decisions to be made and for people to be terminated when justification might not exist.

I know that there is an opportunity within the processes proposed by the government—and certainly in the amendments that we are proposing—for review to occur. However, the opposition felt (as put to us by the PSA) that, in terms of a decision being made for a termination to occur, there needs to be an opportunity for review instead of a decision being made by one person and supported potentially by another; and the amendments about which we will talk later provide for that.

A submission must be provided to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to consider the issues contained within the request for a review, and then the commissioner has the power to either support or deny the request. It is this area that we want to take up with quite some vigour. In the broad sense I certainly have a lot of respect for the people who work in senior roles in the public sector, but it has been put to me by others that some people could be seen as not possessing the right attitude to staff management and may make some rather rash decisions which would have terrible consequences.

The review provisions proposed by the government are included in the bill, but our concern is that the process would be quite time-intensive and could take far longer than what might be otherwise needed. If someone's employment were terminated on the grounds provided in clause 53, that person could lodge a request for a review to be undertaken and go through the process available under the bill, but that would take some time which would therefore put that person under some enormous pressure, especially in this time of global financial crisis—there is no doubt about that. The preservation of one's employment is going to be the primary focus for a lot of people in South Australia and the nation—and, indeed, the world—over the next two or three years until economic recovery occurs. People are becoming very conservative in their spending. They are ensuring that they make quite a definite decision about their expenditure.

Under this legislation, a person suddenly can have their employment in the public sector taken away because a senior person has made a decision. An example quoted to me was, 'They don't like the colour of their jeans.' It seems silly and irrational, and I understand that, but that was one example given to me. It is important that we have the opportunity for a review before that decision may be made. If, as is currently provided, someone's employment is terminated and they go through the review process and it is found that the termination was not appropriate and they return to duty within a quick time frame, that person will suffer pain and it will have been an annoyance. However, if it takes a long time for a determination to be made, it places the employee in the very difficult position of having to decide whether to continue with the appeal on the ground that they believe they are correct, or whether the financial pressure is so great that they have to seek alternative employment and therefore the career opportunity is lost.

Our suggestion is that the Commissioner for Public Employment has an important role to play. A decision may be made by a senior manager or a CEO of a department to terminate an arrangement on whatever grounds that are included in this clause but, because it has to go to the Commissioner for Public Employment, it creates that opportunity for a review and a decision to be made in the fullness of time and taking into account all the required information, which allows not only the department but also the employee to see an outcome that everyone can appreciate and understand.

It is interesting also that clauses 60 and 61 are the review of employment decisions and the creation of a proposed public sector grievance review commission which, as I understand it, and the minister might like to clarify, is made up of a single commissioner. It is our suggestion that existing section 61 of the Public Sector Management Act 1995—which provides for a review tribunal made up of a presiding officer, an agency nominee and, in this case, potentially, a union nominee—should be used. I think it should be taken out of the hands of a single commissioner because it would be impossible to possess all the knowledge involved in the issue, and that person would have to seek submissions and extract information to allow them to make a judgment.

Expanding that role to the three people as contained in the current provisions of the 1995 act is an improvement because, surely, the people who would be involved would have the knowledge that would allow not only the right questions to be asked when submissions are received but, also, importantly, for the right decisions to be made—and it provides greater scope and an opportunity for a better decision to be made. So we hope that is supported by the government.

We also will be proposing that existing section 32 of the Public Sector Management Act is used to ensure that the review tribunal can consider reclassification appeals. We are also proposing, and noting, that the bill as it related to probationary periods talked about a period of not greater than 12 months. I must admit I was surprised that probationary periods potentially could be that length of time. In my portfolio community debate on that matter this was identified as an issue. It seems that three months is more of an industry standard, but I note that there will be occasions when that could be extended. We will move amendments on that soon.

We also note the provisions of clauses 54 and 56, in relation to suspension from duty. Representatives of the Public Service Association in their discussions with me and others were very concerned that the bill provided only for suspension without pay. I note that the clause includes the word 'may', but we will seek to tidy that up a little and obtain some clarification by way of consideration of an amendment.

I also note clause 14, which relates to the public sector code of conduct. While I do not think there would be any concern about the fact that a code of conduct is produced, the bill does not define what the code will be, and that uncertainty has created some concerns. So, in our consideration of this matter we will propose an amendment in recognition of the fact that, if a public sector employee who obviously has interests outside their professional role has sought and been granted the opportunity, if something were to occur during the day, to take part in a rally for a particular cause in which they might have an interest, it could never come back and be detrimental to their career within the Public Service.

Various examples have been given to me. One was an example (and I hope I am not breaking that person's confidence) of a person who might have a particular interest in the disability sector because they, an immediate family member, a friend or relative might have a disability.

The disability sector has been quite outspoken in recent times about the need for the provision of funding improvements. If a Public Service employee has sought and been provided with an opportunity to have time off and then takes part in a rally (which might even occur on the steps of Parliament House) in support of the need for the provision of additional resources and was observed in that role by a person who may have taken some offence who works in a senior role within the department in which they are an employee, it could have repercussions for their employment. That is a concern.

I understand that it is probably an extreme version and it would be a very rare occurrence. However, because the bill does not define what the code of conduct will be, we think it is an important area in which to engage in some debate and an amendment has been prepared with respect to that matter.

I have discussed at length the issue relating to clause 41 and the executive service and the need for fallback tenure to still be available for those members who have already signed contracts with respect to which fallback tenure is a provision. So, I will not go into any more detail on that subject.

We had some concerns about the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner for Public Employment as proposed in the bill. We note that Mr McCann is now in that position. It was previously Mr Walsh, and before that I am not sure. We thought that potentially there would be instances in which the commissioner would seek an opportunity of their own initiative to undertake a field of work.

From our review of the bill, it does not appear that that is an option available to the commissioner. So, we will submit for consideration an amendment with respect to clauses 13(1)(e), (f) and (g) to have the words 'or on the commissioner's own initiative' added at the end of each clause. I think it is a positive step forward. It is important for the Commissioner for Public Employment to be a proactive person who does as much as they can for all public sector employees by the inclusion of these words. I would be interested to hear whether this was an innocent miss or a deliberate decision by the government. We think that support for the amendments we intend to move will create an improvement to the system as it currently is.

Representatives of the Public Service have said a lot of things to me. One comment was that these are the key areas in which they see amendments as being required and, following my review of amendments proposed by the member for Mitchell, I believe that there is a commonality in many of the areas; there is no doubt about that. They have stated that, while they are the key areas in which they would like to see improvements, they have concerns with other areas of the bill. Contact that occurred even as late as last night indicated that the minister wrote to the PSA yesterday, quite late in the afternoon, talking about a spirit of cooperation, ongoing dialogue, and so on—all very commendable. The feedback provided to me was that the PSA, as part of its response to the minister, has suggested that there would be ongoing dialogue and ability to improve aspects of the bill if the minister chose to withdraw the bill from consideration today. I note that that brings a smile to the minister's face, and no doubt he will provide—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, but I have not been in charge of the negotiations about it. That is for the minister to comment on. That was the information provided to me. We have consulted with other groups. Business SA was approached and it provided a copy to us of its November 2007 report, entitled 'The South Australian Public Sector—a Program for Reform'—

Mr Hanna: Reform or abolition?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am only repeating the title of the publication—and the member for Mitchell may want to comment on that. I am grateful for the comment made to us. Certainly Business SA has a position on tenure being removed. I have been observing the situation long enough to understand that that was one of the recommendations of the Economic Development Board submitted to the government and, I understand, the only recommendation not supported. That is an issue, and I put on the record here support for the tenure where it exists for staff.

SA Unions were also contacted. I am advised that in this role the PSA has taken primary responsibility for it. SA Unions provided me with comments in early February, expressing concern about chief executives having the power to terminate, matters involving suspension without pay, the appeals process, power shifts to chief executives, redeployment concerns (including reduction of pay by chief executives) and a greater emphasis on the regulations. Again, that is an issue we have concerns with, in that it removes the opportunity for real parliamentary scrutiny to take place.

Furthermore, they have noted that a meeting held of the involved unions endorses the following principles as a basis of an approach to negotiations on amendments to the bill, involving all public sector workers: maintaining job security; no loss of current entitlements; independent non-legalistic appeals (and in that area I certainly offer my support); a public sector-wide approach to issues, not by individual chief executives—and I talked previously about the need for consistency of decisions; and, the principles of no disadvantage, including any loss of current entitlements and the equity to be applicable to all public sector workers. It is interesting that people across South Australia have quite a varied opinion of the public sector, depending on their individual contact with it. It is easy to criticise and that occurs far too often, but I try to focus on the positives and what the opportunities might be. I understand that many people within the public sector have difficult roles, which they perform as best they can with the resources provided to them. Let us look at what the opportunities might be.

I am happy to put on the public record that my initial view of the draft bill was that many of the principles are areas of support, but in the time I have spent on this matter in the chamber today I have outlined the areas of concern that we have. There will be a healthy debate on that aspect. Members on this side of the chamber will talk about the areas of concern to them. It will be interesting to see what occurs when the bill gets to the other place, but let us hope that ultimately the bill will result in progressing the public sector and recognising its importance in terms of making our state a great one.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: Do you support the bill?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The general principles of it, with amendments to be considered.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59): I commend to the house the comments of the shadow minister. I want to speak personally on this bill in order to signal the support of the state Liberals for the excellent work done by our Public Service. I want to assure those who serve the people of South Australia that this side of the house believes in a professional Public Service, a Public Service where people choose a career, not just a job, and a Public Service within which frank and fearless advice is provided to ministers and to government without the Damocles sword of instant sacking or removal hanging above their head.

There are a number of aspects to this bill with which we have difficulty and we will be moving amendments to it. I think that, over time, the nature of the relationship of the government with its Public Service has changed, and I am not sure that all those changes have been for the better. I have had some experience of this at the commonwealth level within defence, and lessons can be transposed from the commonwealth to the state. There are considerable difficulties when governments change, come in and sort of pull the levers in regard to how the Public Service is managed, in dramatic ways that sometimes cause quite a lot of collateral damage to the long-term sustainability of the Public Service. I am talking here about sudden decisions to either grow or reduce the size of the Public Service without considering the effect it might have on people's careers.

I know that there is a problem in the commonwealth Public Service when someone comes in and says, 'We will not hire anyone for the next two years because we are on an efficiency drive and we want to cut costs.' There is then the effect of a huge black hole moving its way through the Public Service for the next 20 years where, when people need to be promoted 10 years later to a senior level, because they were not recruited 10 years earlier, a huge bubble flows through the career structure of the Public Service, creating problems that continue well beyond the decision not to hire for those two or three years. Similarly, if that cut is followed by an explosive growth two or three years later, it can have the reverse effect where there is an oversupply of people moving through the career system, creating enormous difficulties for managing people's careers.

A world in which people step forward to join the Public Service, knowing that it is a 20-year commitment to a meaningful career and that there are genuine prospects for advancement and that they have every opportunity to advance, if possible, to CEO level and to head their department, is one which we should encourage and promote. If public servants know that they can never make it to the top because the government of the day will always parachute in people from outside in almost every case, often with agendas that are not necessarily designed to deliver a better Public Service, then why continue on? Why choose it as a career? Governments need to discipline themselves in order to encourage and expect that we will grow a Public Service in which people can have a long-term sustainable career, where they can reach top levels within the Public Service towards the end of their period in that service.

I know that governments of all political persuasions have done this in the past, so I am not trying to pretend that Liberal governments have not in the past sought to impose people into the management structure of the Public Service—I am sure they have—but I think it has gone to new heights in recent years, and I have to say that some of the appointments that have been made have bemused many on this side of the house. As elected governments we need to be a little more professional in managing the Public Service in order to make sure that, whilst we keep a flow of people moving to and from the private sector into and out of the public sector, and we keep that freshness and intellectual energy alive by cross-fertilisation, we do not, in effect, in the fullness of time, nobble careers within the Public Service to the detriment of all South Australians.

We need a long-term approach to the way we develop the Public Service, not one that just reflects the short-term priorities of the particular government of the day. In this respect, there needs to be a bit of bipartisanship and cooperation—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: That is why we have carefully considered the bill—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The minister has had his chance to have his say; if he will just listen. If he wants to ask questions, I welcome him to the opposition benches—and I hope that that is not too far away! In the meantime, I would suggest that he leave us to ask the questions and he can confine himself to the answers.

There does need to be some bipartisanship, some cooperation and some long-term thinking in the way we govern the Public Service, because the real concern is that, if we make it unattractive by limiting career prospects and threatening people's ongoing employment unnecessarily, and if in the interests of streamlining we make it unattractive by introducing unfair work practices into the arrangements we have for the Public Service, we will just lose good people. They will go off to the private sector or select other career opportunities, or, as importantly, we will not be able to attract them from the private sector to join the public sector so we will not get that benefit and cross-fertilisation of people moving in both directions.

The shadow minister has flagged intended amendments in the way agency chief executives will be able to operate under these new laws, and we will be moving amendments in that regard. We have flagged review of employment decisions as a concern. Suspension of duty is an area upon which we have focused and to which we will be moving amendments. We have referred to the Public Sector Code of Conduct. We want to ensure that the devil is not in the detail of a code of conduct or subsequent regulations that then go beyond the intent and limitations of the act itself.

I know that the shadow minister has already flagged a range of other issues on which we intend to focus. We have talked to Business SA, the union and other stakeholders, and we have arrived at this position because what we want out of this legislation is a better, stronger, harder working Public Service that is better equipped to cope with the challenges of the future—and there are plenty of them. I conclude by dispensing with this perception that some people try to promote that somehow or other Labor governments are closer to unions, closer to public servants and better for them than Liberal governments.

I can tell you that, if that was once the case, it is not any more. I can tell you that our view—and we have discussed this at length—is one of enormous respect and support for the Public Service. Since I have been in this place, I have never been in the business of Public Service bashing, which some people like to get into. I think it does a fantastic job and, having served 24 years in the defence department, I suppose, in one way or another, I probably could have been categorised as a public servant.

I have seen the work that people do, often in dangerous and very difficult conditions, in everything from fighting fires to dealing with the tragic issues of families and communities, to dealing with our prisoners, to dealing with angry customers; and, I can tell you, I do not know how some of them manage to do it. Occasionally, the odd public servant must feel like leaping across the counter and throttling the odd person who comes into see them. I know how frustrating that can be. How they manage to keep their cool in the difficult circumstances that we, the elected members, put them in deserves a great deal of recognition and respect, and they will always have that from this side of the house.

All public servants understand that government budgets have to be met, that expenses have to be matched by revenues and that governments have to be efficient. Any government is going to seek efficiencies, and there are no exceptions. Governments will always be asking, 'Can we move people out of head office to service delivery?', or 'Do we need this number of people to do that particular job or can we do it with fewer people?' Any government that did not do that on behalf of the taxpayer would be negligent. So, we will always do that.

The sort of Public Service a state Liberal government wants to see is one that provides career prospects and longevity, one that people feel proud to be part of and one that is able to serve the people of South Australia admirably and well. In that regard, we could learn some of the lessons of the past and maybe correct some of the errors of the past and go forward a little more securely and sensibly. So, that is what we will be looking to provide with this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:11): I will be brief. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to speak at this stage. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that we in South Australia are blessed with a dedicated Public Service. People, including some politicians, often want to criticise the Public Service. However, if you look at the history of this state, we have been well served by dedicated, honest and committed public servants. I find that in my dealings with them they are very responsive, easy to deal with and most helpful.

I will not get into a lot of the technical aspects of this bill, but I will make some general observations. I think it is important that we do not allow bureaucracies, whether they be private or public, to become, in effect, self-serving and self-perpetuating so that the focus is on the bureaucracy itself rather than its core business and that we ensure that its staff are able to perform to the highest possible level.

It is important that people in senior positions and, indeed, all positions, within the Public Service are held accountable. One of the great problems of today is that no-one seems to be accountable for anything, whether it be a mix-up in the federal sphere in relation to dealing with illegal immigrants or refugees or whatever. Whatever area of government it might be—and likewise in the private sector—no-one seems to be held accountable Not only do we need a system where there is accountability but also we need to have trust in the people making decisions. In that regard, bureaucracies should be, in my view, as decentralised as possible but still able to carry out their functions. I think we need bureaucracies in smaller units at what I would call the local level. We have that in some aspects of our state Public Service but not in all.

In the related area of education, which is a hobbyhorse of mine, we find increasingly that we are getting the message that in respect of state schools, for example, the decision-making occurs in Flinders Street, and I was at three school council meetings last night. You have to give authority, trust and responsibility to the people out in the field. I guess that is why a lot of country members become annoyed and upset when things tend to be centralised in the city. We need to give local people in the Public Service the authority to make decisions and to relate to the local community, obviously within a general framework of the law and the requirements that are set by the parliament and through Executive Council.

It is important that we attract talented young people to the Public Service. I am a great believer in the traineeship scheme, and I am sure that other members have found the scheme to be great in terms of their own office. Many of the young people I have been associated with have gone on to very significant positions in the Public Service.

I would make a plea to the Treasurer and other ministers that they not cut back on the traineeship scheme as it relates to the public sector. We need to encourage young people, whether they be graduates or non-graduates, to enter the Public Service. We also need to make sure that people of mature age who wish to continue working in the Public Service can do so.

I have argued for a long time that, just as people who work part-time can access part of their super, people who work full-time and have reached a qualifying age should be able to access part—not all—of their superannuation entitlement. It is their entitlement, and there is no reason why we should force out talented people even before the age of 60 when we could use their talent.

Not only do we need to attract bright, talented, young people but also we need to keep those mature age people who are willing to stay on, who are capable and who are able to deliver. We need to allow them to stay in the Public Service and make a contribution.

It concerns me that, whenever there is talk of cuts to the Public Service, they normally take place at the coalface where the interface with the public occurs and, therefore, across-the-board percentage cuts to the Public Service are often counter-productive and not in the interests of the community at large. I make the plea to the government—because I know we are facing tougher times—that we do not have these silly across-the-board cuts that mean, ultimately, that staff at the coalface are cut.

I am pleased to see that there is reference in the bill to the public sector meeting the objectives of the government of the day. That was an issue that I raised years ago with the now Premier. If the public sector does not meet the objectives of the government of the day, you have to ask: what are they meant to be doing? I am pleased to see that that is spelt out in this bill.

There are a couple of areas that concern me. I think it is time that the provision for sick leave was reassessed. We know that there is a small minority that abuses it, misuses it or regards it as a form of annual leave, but I think that that provision—and I notice that there is reference here to some changes—needs to be organised in a way that genuinely caters for those who are sick but does not pander to the minority that abuses it.

Likewise, long service leave should be reassessed, and this is an issue that I will raise at another time in this parliament. One has to question whether or not it is really desirable, in this day and age with changing employment, and whether or not it is fair and reasonable, to have a system of long service leave for which some people qualify and which, in some ways, hinders the creation of a dynamic economy.

You could reward people in other ways rather than just reward someone who has stuck it out for a long time. It may have been better if that person had moved on or moved into a different field. I have written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking her to have a look at this issue of long service leave as well as sick leave, which I raised earlier.

Finally, flexitime sounds good in practice. Once again, I think there is a small minority that abuses it. I hear stories of people who go to work, clock on and then go out and have their breakfast and read the paper and so on. I do not know how widespread that misuse is, but all of these things ultimately come back to having trust in your employees and giving them responsibility. If you put trust in them and give them responsibility, that is a good thing. If they do not deliver on it, you should come down on them like a ton of bricks.

They are the points that I want to make in relation to this bill. I think it is important that the public sector be revitalised on a continuous basis but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we should avoid making the public sector the whipping-boy of the community—which is what often happens to us as politicians—because not only is it unfair but also it is unproductive and unhelpful.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:20): I am speaking to the Public Sector Bill brought in by the Labor government. I will express some concerns about it. I have some amendments which address a couple of the key issues. My amendments unashamedly pull the proposed legislation back towards the current legislation in a couple of areas.

To start, one reflects on the Public Service as the means by which a government implements its policy decisions. The parliament passes the laws, the executive manages that, and the Public Service implements what we say what should happen in terms of the way services are delivered to South Australians.

The diversity of the Public Service always needs to be borne in mind when we talk about it. Some people think of people in the Public Service as pen pushers or, these days, people behind computers in desks in big office buildings in the city. But, of course, we need to remember our firefighters, teachers, nurses, and so on—people who work in specialised fields, people who often have face-to-face contact with some of the most difficult customers you can imagine.

I want to make a brief observation about the member for Fisher's comments about long service leave. I think it is missing the point to think that long service leave is about giving someone a bonus of some kind because they have stuck it out for a certain length of time. I actually think it is about people being refreshed after a long period during which they might burn out. That is certainly the case for those people who work in the most difficult areas. For example, I think of the local mental health team in my area and the Flinders emergency ward, where there is a very high risk of burnout. For people to stick it out years on end I think warrants a period of reflection, rest and recreation of several months, and that is what long service leave is all about.

One of the general concerns that I have had about trends in the Public Service over the last generation has been their politicisation, especially at senior levels. The Hon. Rob Lucas, in another place, has made a meal of Labor government appointments to senior Public Service positions, with allegations of mates being appointed, and so on. I am sure somewhere in the past there has been some Labor heavy who has made a similar speech in parliament about the various Liberal appointments to the Public Service. It has been an unfortunate trend over the last 20 years or so.

I do not see the government reform, on this occasion, as being helpful in relation to that process. If anything, it tends to give greater power to the top of the tree, the top of the hierarchy. There is an even greater risk that, with the greater power of the executive and chief executive officers, there could be even greater political influence forced into the upper echelons of the Public Service.

The main concerns I have about the legislation are probably in respect of termination and transfer. These issues in turn relate to this question of politicisation. If there is a stick hanging over people and it becomes easier to get rid of them, either geographically or in terms of their employment, it is then easier to keep people in line, and I think this government is very interested in keeping people in line, particularly in the Public Service.

Probably one of the practical concerns here is about the flow of information out of the Public Service on an informal basis to media, agencies such as the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police, and to members of parliament. If this legislation is intended to increase the pressure on people who might want to speak outside of their day-to-day roles in the Public Service about what they see as wrong in their workplace, that would be a retrograde step.

One also cannot refer to the Public Service without making reference to that long-running and popular television series Yes Minister. Some people think it is a documentary! I must say that I was reminded of it when I received a letter from the minister handling this legislation, the Hon. Jay Weatherill. I wondered if some of his description of the legislation echoed some of the concepts that were featured in that television series. The minister referred to 'new public sector principles' being set out in the bill. I wondered if that actually meant that private sector principles are now being applied to the public sector to a greater extent than ever. The minister referred to a 'greater emphasis on one government'. I wondered if that referred to a greater degree of executive control, more than ever, in respect of the upper levels of the Public Service especially.

The minister referred to 'an enhanced role for chief executives'. Again, if chief executives have a greater flexibility in hiring and firing and transferring public servants, they therefore have a stick with which to keep public servants in line. If chief executives are chosen with a political eye, then the will of the executive has another avenue to be laid down through the upper echelons of the Public Service. The minister has also described this legislation as having 'provisions to facilitate greater mobility of public sector employers across the public sector'. Of course, that could be a good thing but, if one is faced with a transfer to become desk manager at Oodnadatta because of one's public airing of grievances in the media, for example, then that would be a retrograde step.

The minister claims that there is also 'greater emphasis on performance management and development processes'. Again, that sounds good and we should have monitoring of performance in the public sector, as we have in every other sphere of life. However, I wonder if the emphasis on performance management also has an eye to greater emphasis on media management. Again, there is that concept of controlling and limiting public servants who might seek to comment on what they see as wrong in their workplace. Finally, the minister also described the legislation as having 'streamlined rights of review'. I think that probably means more limited rights of review.

When it comes to my amendments, they focus on restoring greater power to the Commissioner for Public Employment, who has a very important role—as close as we can get to an independent umpire—when dealing with the various grievances that come up in the Public Service. Secondly, I think the area of appeals needs to be revisited. I was very pleased to see that the Liberal Party has placed a number of amendments on the file. Many of them are in common with what I am suggesting, as well. No doubt, we are both inspired by the discussions we have had with the Public Service Association, which has done a sterling job in representing the interests of its members.

I was heartened by the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith) because it did seem to be a case of an old dog learning a new trick in terms of the Liberal Party acknowledging the value of the Public Service and turning its back on a history of denigrating the Public Service and the work it does. That was really heartening. In conjunction with the thoughtful speech made by the honourable member for Goyder, I think that if not in this place then in the upper house we might see some improvements to the legislation.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:29): Before I came into this place I ran a successful veterinarian practice. When I was out doorknocking during the 2000 election campaign, a lady said to me, 'You're the vet, aren't you?' I said yes, and she replied, 'Oh, you'll be right; you're just going from one lot of mongrels to the next.' I think she was being disparaging about my patients and I certainly think she was being very disparaging about my colleagues. I, for one, am absolutely fed up with the way politicians are maligned in this place, in the press and in public. I do not think there is anybody here who does not work very hard, and we are all here for honourable purposes. The Public Service is continually maligned in just the same way.

I saw a bumper sticker once that stated, 'Do the world a favour; run over a public servant.' What an atrocious attitude that is! The Public Service—whether it is the South Australian Public Service, the national body, or even those existing around the world—does its very best to serve the public, and to be continually maligned like that is as much of an injustice for those officers (if not more so) as it is for members of parliament. At least we can stand up and have a go back in this place and in the media.

It is an atrocious attitude and that is why, when we introduce legislation in this place to change the way public servants are employed, we need to ensure that we do not in any way reinforce the misconception held out there that public servants need to be whipped into line or put on notice all the time. That is not the case. I do not believe this legislation aims to do that per se, but we need to make sure that there is no opportunity for people to come out and say, 'It's about time the Public Service got its comeuppance.' It does not need that.

My relationship with the Public Service Association has been an excellent one. Obviously with WorkCover we disagreed on a number of things, and we are still working with issues there, as well as with issues on industrial relations. However, I have met on this issue with Peter Christopher and Janet a number of times. In fact, Peter Christopher and I are on a committee outside of this place and of the Public Service Association that is involved in saving the clipper ship City of Adelaide. I have come to know Peter through that committee—obviously he does a lot more work on it than I do—and he is an honourable person who is representing people who have a genuine belief in what they are doing and a genuine desire to do a good job. That is why it is very important that we examine this legislation to look for ways of improving the outcomes not only for the people of South Australia but also for those who serve the people of South Australia, the public servants.

We need a strong Public Service. If I get the chance to be a minister in this place, I want to get full and frank advice from public servants; I do not want the Yes, Minister syndrome. We live in fear of that, because there is nothing worse than having people around you who are just making sure their backsides are covered: if you do okay that is good for them as well, and it is probably in their interests to make that happen. A strong Public Service is needed, and I encourage all members in this place to make sure that we do not inadvertently, or with misguided intent, do anything that would in any way jeopardise the strength of our Public Service.

I hear stories in this place about some public servants who are misinformed, or who are doing something they have been asked to do but with which they may not agree, and perhaps their attitudes need some adjustment, but in my case, without exception, I have had no problem with public servants; they have been fantastic. Every time you make a phone call or have any interaction with people in, say, the motor vehicle registry or any other area of the Public Service, it has been a pleasure to deal with them. They always get back to you and do the right thing, so I am happy to stand here and talk about this legislation and make sure that public servants get a fair deal. That is all they want; they really just want a fair deal. I have found that all people want in life is a fair deal, and I hope this legislation will preserve that by the time it has been amended.

I understood that there were to be some amendments considered by the government and that the bill may have been postponed, but that has not happened. We have it here today and so we are dealing with it today. The draft bill was released in November 2007 and was to be introduced nearly a year ago in April 2008. The aims of the bill are all highly commendable. It aims to ensure that the public sector delivers high-quality service to the community across departments, attracts and retains talented staff, and ensures the ability to provide open, impartial advice to government without fear of repercussion. Well, I think the public sector is doing that already.

The bill also highlights the requirement for public sector agencies to have in place an effective performance management system, and of course you need to make sure that everyone is able to do their job. My mother was a grade 3 schoolteacher and she used to say, 'A failure to learn is a failure to teach.' If you train people and provide them with opportunities for professional development, they will take advantage of those opportunities—and I suspect that in 99.9 per cent of cases the people involved in that training or development will then carry out their job to the best of their ability. If they do not have that ability, then fair processes should be in place to retrain or counsel those people.

The shadow minister has spoken quite clearly about the concerns put up by SA Unions. The need to make sure that there is a right of review—I will have a look at some of the amendments in a moment—is there with the role of the Commissioner for Public Employment. SA Unions has also had some input on this.

I did not hear the shadow minister speaking about that—he may have; I may have missed it—but the main concerns were: maintaining job security, no loss of current entitlements, an independent non-legalistic appeals process to be put in place, that the public sector-wide approach to issues was not by individual chief executives, concerns about the appeals process, and suspension without pay.

The thing that we are seeing a lot of in government nowadays, and this government in particular, is the reliance on regulations. The devil is always in the detail and it is always in the regulations. We have just seen the introduction of some regulations for country taxis. To my knowledge, there was no consultation on that, and the feedback that I have had from the country taxi people is that they are outraged at that. Let us hope that this emphasis on regulations is not going to flow through to this particular piece of legislation.

Amendments have been put up by the shadow minister and the member for Mitchell, Mr Hanna. There are some very similar amendments there. Certainly, they are fairly straightforward amendments and, I would have thought, common-sense amendments.

The need to be able to speak out on issues in your own community, I think, is something that is a part of natural justice. For public servants to feel that their jobs are in jeopardy is wrong. If they want to stand up and speak on issues that are of concern and that are dear to them, they should be able to do that. Obviously, if there is a conflict of interest with their role as a public servant, that needs to be taken into account, and that is taken care of in the member for Goyder's amendment:

The code of conduct may not restrict participation by public sector employees in community activities unrelated to their employment except so as to ensure that public sector employees conduct themselves in public in a manner that will not reflect adversely on the public sector.

That is common sense, and I think it is a bit of natural justice. The need to make sure that public servants are treated fairly is in another amendment that has been put up by the shadow minister, and that is the right of review of pay rates. I think there should be some right of review.

If you are going to have your pay, your livelihood, your whole lifestyle threatened by having your income changed, particularly if it is being reduced, then it should be able to be reviewed. There needs to be a commission with teeth, in this particular case the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission, with the ability to say, 'This is what needs to be happening, this is what needs to be put in place', so that people get a fair go.

Along those same lines, the right to fire public servants needs to be not taken lightly by a person in power because of some personal grievance or personal agenda. That must not happen. I note that the new Commissioner for Public Employment, Mr Warren McCann, is a very experienced public servant. He is aware of these changes, and I would be interested to know what his views are on this.

Obviously, he cannot speak out, but I would be very surprised if the Commissioner for Public Employment was not concerned about him or her being sidelined in the ability to fire public servants. I think there needs to be a review process and that the commissioner should have the opportunity to review, if not delegate, the ability to fire.

If the government does not want to give the commissioner this power, it needs to give him some right to oversee this power, even if he does not use it, or perhaps the ability to intervene at certain times if there is a disagreement. That is something that I think we need to look at.

The amendments put up by the shadow minister and also the member for Mitchell are pretty much common sense. They do not really take much out of this bill, but what they do provide is more natural justice.

We move on from firing public servants to just suspending them. The need to make sure that, once again, there is some natural justice is included in the 14th amendment by the shadow minister. We want to provide:

Suspend an employee of the agency from duty for a specified period (which may be or include an antecedent period) with or without remuneration or accrual of leave rights,

I think that, when you suspend someone without pay, it needs to be really well thought out and well examined. We really need to include that subclause, because remuneration is a very important issue.

The other amendments will obviously be discussed in more detail in committee, but I do want to mention the grievance panel. If we are to have a grievance panel, a panel of one does not really suit the job. We really need to have—as has been suggested by the Public Service Association—a panel of three, comprising the commissioner, a union rep and an agency rep. I think that is a very fair arrangement and that, if these amendments are supported by the government, it will be a significant improvement to this piece of legislation.

As I have said at the start, this legislation should be all about making sure that the Public Service is able to do what it wants to do, that is, getting on and being servants of the public, doing it as well as they do now and, if possible, improving it through both a secure employment structure and a definite line of promotion. Also, financial rewards to suit people's efforts and results are also important.

We must all remember that the Public Service is a huge part of South Australia. It is a vital and integral part of our everyday life, so this legislation should not be dealt with lightly or rushed through this place. I understand that there will be some discussion in committee about these amendments. I hope that the government sees sense. I understood that it was going to sit on this bill for a while and discuss it further with the PSA. That has not happened, but I know that those discussions will take place across the chamber in committee. With those words, I conclude my remarks.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:42): I rise today to support the Liberal Party and the shadow minister, the member for Goyder. I support the bill as well as the amendments that the shadow minister will move. The primary portion of the bill is to make provision for employment, management and governance matters relating to the public sector of this state, to repeal the Public Sector Management Act 1995 and for other purposes. I note that the public sector involves the employment of some 79,000 full-time equivalent people, with total numbers coming close to 100,000 and clocking in at about 98,000 people.

A review of the bill highlights that the aim is to ensure that the public sector delivers high-quality services to the community across departments, to attract and retain talented staff and ensure the ability to provide open, impartial advice to government without fear or repercussion. I think this is absolutely vital when, obviously, as time goes on, governments change. It also highlights that it requires public sector agencies to have in place an effective performance management system, and I think that is equally important.

Also, there is a need to attempt to enhance the attractiveness of a career in the public sector. In this state, I think one in eight people in employment works in the Public Service. So, obviously, if profitable, enjoyable careers can be pursued, it benefits not only the individuals but the community as a whole.

Key policy propositions in the draft bill include new public sector principles and new public sector governance arrangements. Also, an enhanced role for chief executives—which is where much of the authority is currently held by the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Governor for the hiring and firing of staff—will be assigned to the Premier and, by delegation, to departmental chief executives. A South Australian executive service, comprising approximately 500 people, will be created. Provisions will also be made to facilitate greater mobility of public sector employees across the sector to allow for required skills to be placed where necessary.

In consultation on the bill, many issues were identified for discussion, including that it will bring together the Public Service and the broader public sector. Authorities in health and SA Water, for example, where some people have been employed by government but managed independently of government, will be more aligned. As I mentioned, the South Australian executive service will have an award structure, and these people will be required to go on five year contracts; no doubt, people will be considering their position as to whether they go into these contracts and give up permanent tenure. Obviously, it looks like there will be remuneration benefit increases by approximately 10 per cent for going on contract. All future executive service members will be employed via contract.

As I mentioned, regarding performance management, formal structures will be put in place in departments, and CEOs will be reviewed against this structure. These performance reviews will identify training plan requirements for individual staff, and it has been noted that perhaps this should have been in place years ago. Another issue identified is that the honesty and accountability provisions will become the only provisions remaining in the Public Service Management Act 1995, previously handled via a code of conduct.

Productivity improvements are expected, although, as the shadow minister mentioned earlier, these will not be measured, but it will give greater flexibility to put people where their skills are required. The bill does not refer to reduction or expansion of the Public Service but does provide an opportunity for CEOs to get rid of staff deemed to be excess; however, the department is required to make every effort to find alternative work and/or retrain identified excess staff.

I also note that the government has a policy position of no forced redundancies, but it has said that it wishes to get rid of 1,600 staff over three years. I think there are also revenue issues with lower GST receipts in this time of global financial difficulty; obviously, less money is being spent everywhere. An important point made here is that the right of review of decisions affecting employees still exists, with the Industrial Relations Commission involved.

Consultations have occurred with the PSA, SA Unions, Business SA and individuals regarding this bill. The shadow minister made a very good speech on this. I also acknowledge that the PSA, through Peter Christopher and others, is very keen to express its point of view. When I have talked to various people about the changes occurring through shared services, where hundreds of jobs are being forced to leave regional areas, I have learnt that people are unable or too scared to speak out against the government for fear it will affect not only their employment but that of others whom they know and work with.

It would be just impossible for a couple who live in, say, Mount Gambier, and one of them gets transferred to Adelaide. That is disgraceful in terms of family life. Obviously some decisions must be made by the family as to what they do, because in that situation I would not be surprised if one member of the partnership gives up their job. I represent the seat of Hammond, with Murray Bridge being the largest town in that electorate. Many public sector staff work in Murray Bridge, and there is nothing more enjoyable than being able to have a relationship with staff on a one-on-one basis.

I know that some staff follow the protocols and say that if you have an issue go directly to the minister. They end up writing the ministerial, anyway, when it comes back to them. Some staff are very good to get on with when you ring up. I do not believe that I am an ogre. I may be big, but I think I am—

Dr McFetridge: Big and cuddly!

Mr PEDERICK: 'Big and cuddly', says the member for Morphett.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: And I thank the member for Newland for his advice. I believe that you can cut off a lot of issues at the chase if you do have relationships with people in departments. Perhaps either the protocols need to be relaxed a little or people need to be given the opportunity for a bit of flexibility. I can understand the protocols, especially if you have a government paranoid about control. Another big issue bubbling along in my electorate is the proposed expansion of the Mobilong prison, and I do note—

Mrs Redmond: Maybe not.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, maybe not. It may or may not happen. I must admit that I have an open view on this topic. If the prisons do go ahead at Mobilong, near Murray Bridge, that will supply plenty of work for local contractors in the area—obviously in the construction phase—and then hundreds of jobs down the track. The problem will occur if you cannot get people to staff the prisons in the longer term. I also note that, if we do not get professional staff for the proposed James Nash House replacement (which has probably been put further down the track), in terms of people working in the mental health field, etc., how will we get on?

I think that the government does need to talk more with the PSA on matters such as this. As I said, I am open-minded to it and welcome any discussions personally with PSA representatives. I do note that, when I have attended consultancy meetings with the rural city of Murray Bridge, the PSA certainly attended and certainly put its points of view, so you can never deny that it does act for its members. With those few words, I support the Liberal Party's position in supporting this bill with amendments. I support the bill.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (12:53): Last Saturday was not just St Valentine's Day and not just the 43rd anniversary of the introduction of decimal currency—it was the 37th anniversary of the day I began work as a public servant. It was my first full-time job after finishing high school. I was 18. And for those members who are trying to figure it out, that makes me 55 currently, coming up to 56. I finished high school and I began work in the Public Service. I know, because of the years that I spent as a public servant, how hard and often how silently and uncomplainingly the Public Service works, whether it be in this or other states. As the member for Hammond mentioned, some one in eight people in this state are Public Service employees, and they number nearly 100,000 of the people who live in this state.

Personally, I have found that not only are they hard working, industrious, largely uncomplaining and certainly very good at dealing with somewhat difficult customers at times but I have always had the view that I prefer the old-fashioned view of public servants in that they should be there without fear or favour, able to provide honest and vigorous advice to whichever party happens to be in government.

So, at a personal level, I rue the fact somewhat that we have now moved to a situation where people are frequently employed on a contract basis and need to beware lest they make a mistake. Indeed, I have found this government, in particular, rather difficult to comprehend in its attitude and resistance to those fundamental ideas of having a public service which is able to operate without fear or favour.

It seems to me that on a number of occasions ministerial responsibility has been forgotten in favour of hanging out some poor public servant to be whipped by the public because something has gone wrong. We need to bear in mind how much of our community relies upon public service of various sorts—for transport, registration and licences, provision of roads, whatever it might be, and police, nurses and numerous occupations. I would be hard pressed to think of a day in my life that I do not at some part of the day come into contact with something supplied to me by the Public Service in some form or another.

As I said, I take the view that they should be there and able to operate without fear or favour, and, although I do not blame the public servants for this, it saddens me that we have reached the position that I think the member for Morphett mentioned, that is, this idea that we want to blame someone and some poor public servant gets the blame, and therefore we create a public service of people who are sometimes focused on covering their backsides, and I cannot blame them for that. It used to be that you got security of tenure in the Public Service and the trade-off might be that you had somewhat less in terms of monetary return than you would if you were a talented individual—and, largely, they are talented individuals in the Public Service. You might get less money, but you would have that security of employment—and, oftentimes, you would have very interesting work.

When talking to people I used to work with in the Crown Solicitor's Office they have said that over their career they did much more interesting work as public servants than they would inevitably have faced doing fairly dreary conveyancing day after day in a suburban solicitor's practice. So, often it was interesting and challenging work. My own experience is that I got to read advisings on the interpretation of Norman Lindsay's will, and I got to do research about who owns the continental shelf that surrounds Australia—is it the states or the commonwealth, and so on? I did some really interesting things as a public servant. I am saddened that we have reached a situation in which, I think, at times, instead of being focused on how we assist the public to achieve things, public servants (as I said, through no fault of their own) are forced into a situation where they have to be covering their backsides, and I hold this government to account for a lot of what happens.

I do not intend to go through the detail of the bill, which has been more than adequately covered by the member for Goyder, but there are a couple of things I want to comment on. There are two things that one might consider highlights of the bill. One is an attempt to enhance the attractiveness of a career in the public sector, and I think that is important. I have not looked at the figures for a while, but my understanding the last time I looked was that we do have something of a top-heavy Public Service in terms of the ageing of our public servants. I think we need a consistent approach to getting new young blood into the Public Service and making it a career which people are happy to stay in and not go off into private enterprise, because we need those good brains, good minds and good hearts to be our public servants in this state. I think we should aim to have the best Public Service in the country in terms of the quality of the applicants that we attract and our ability to retain them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT