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 (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1148.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (17:35): I note that, in some sort of Freudian slip, the green slip before us says that we are dealing with the private sector bill, but I assume that we are really dealing with—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I will just continue from where I left off. I was talking about a couple of highlights of the bill. I then want to move to a couple of issues that have been raised by the Public Service that I think are of particular concern, and I note that there will be some amendments dealing with those matters. I had already mentioned the idea (although I do not know how one really achieves it via legislation) of making a career in the Public Service more acceptable to some of our young bright sparks so that we do not have a brain drain and we see them coming into our Public Service and, indeed, staying there for an extended time.

Another thing that this bill seeks to do is to require public sector agencies to have in place an effective performance management system. Largely, I think that the public sector's performance management system is the public itself and, as long as everything is going along fine, that is the indicator that our public sector is managing appropriately. I am not really in favour of managing the minutiae.

I say that because, as I have previously mentioned in this house, I have been a member of the board of the Stirling District Hospital for some 27 years now. As a hospital we have to go through what is called an accreditation process, and I am pleased to say that our hospital has always been awarded its accreditation. Indeed, when the teams and the members of various occupations from other states come and do the accreditation survey they are always so impressed by Stirling hospital that they would like to take it back to wherever they have come from and use it as a demonstration of how a little hospital could be run.

However, whilst there is some value in that process, over the years I have always wondered whether there is really any improvement in the services provided and the outcomes for the clients of the hospital. There is a huge amount of paperwork, and often an enormous amount of stress is placed on people for the sake of ticking boxes without any real outcome. So, I simply express my hesitation about being able to legislate to have in place an effective performance management system, although I accept the general thrust that we want to know that our Public Service is working as well and as efficiently as it could. That is something about which I really have very little doubt, in any event.

I now want to turn to three of the issues raised by the Public Service Association and the proposals that it is suggesting to resolve those issues. The first is the issue of suspension from duty. The Public Service Association is concerned that the bill only provides for suspension without pay, and has proposed an amendment that the suspension may be with or without remuneration.

As the minister well knows (as a lawyer), we have a policy in this state and in this nation: we have a fundamental principle of law that one is innocent until proven guilty. I note that it is probably the government's intention that the use of the word 'may' means that someone could be suspended with or without pay but I think that, out of an abundance of caution, it is appropriate to accept the proposal by the PSA because it seems to me that, for the most part, in managing our Public Service we should in all but the most extraordinary circumstances accept that if someone is to be suspended it should be with pay, unless there is good reason to do otherwise.

It seems to me, as a logical consequence of the notion of innocent until proven guilty, that we cannot simply suspend someone from their job and take away their livelihood—and it could be for a long time while issues are investigated and sometimes pursued through court before they are found not guilty. Ultimately, I think the better way in which to address that situation is to have a clear provision. I would prefer it to be interpreted completely the other way so that there is a presumption that one would be suspended, if at all, with pay, but only without pay in the most unusual circumstances.

The second issue, in relation to the concerns of the Public Service Association, is the code of conduct. The concern is that employee activities in personal time, unrelated to employment, could be in conflict with and create problems for the work environment. Indeed, during the last sitting week, the member for Davenport raised in this house an example of someone who was on leave and in her own time went to support a friend who was accused of a crime and was taken to court for a bail hearing, if my memory serves me correctly. Upon her return from leave she was told by the head of the unit for which she worked that she should not take any time off to support this friend and that such activities were inconsistent with her employment duties.

It seems to me to be only reasonable to say that members of the Public Service do not give up their rights as citizens by virtue of taking on the role of a public servant. Therefore, in my view they must be free to pursue any lawful activity in their spare time, as long as there is not created thereby a conflict with the duties which they must perform in their occupation. I fully endorse what the Public Service Association has said in terms of that matter.

I will not go through all the detail of the Public Service Association's concerns with the bill. They were canvassed more than adequately by the shadow minister in his second reading contribution. I want to mention the regulations and the use of regulations as a means to an end when, in fact, in my view, we should be spelling out all the intentions of any legislation in the legislation itself. I am a member of the Legislative Review Committee, which will meet tomorrow morning. Our function is to peruse all the regulations passed under all the legislation of this parliament—not just new regulations but all regulations come through on a regular basis. We have to identify whether those regulations are in line with the authority of the parliament that has been given in the primary piece of legislation, that is, in the bill or when it has become an act and the regulations come into force.

For example, last year the committee looked at some regulations in relation to the introduction of licence fees for the sale of tobacco. Those licence fees had been increased by a considerable amount. The committee had had contact from a number of owners of small businesses, little corner shops and delis, on Eyre Peninsula and in my electorate in the Adelaide Hills, who said, 'The increase in fees is just unreasonable. It is such a huge impost on us and it means that we will not be able to pay it out of the small amount of money we make and we will not be able to continue to sell cigarettes. Indeed, we rely on the sale of these cigarettes because that is what brings people into our shop, and while they have come to buy their cigarettes, they will buy the milk, the bread, the paper, the snacks for after dinner and whatever, and so it is an integral part of our business. However, it has been increased to an unreasonable extent. Whereas, Woolworths or Coles can easily meet that licence fee, it will have a huge impact on us.'

Originally, when we requested more information from the committee, part of the response was that the intention was to stop the sale of tobacco products through these small businesses. Now that is an improper use of the regulations; that is entirely inappropriate. If someone wants to stop small businesses from selling tobacco, then the appropriate thing to do is to introduce legislation and appropriately debate it through the parliament and, if it passes, that is the decision of the parliament, but you do not try to go around via the back door.

I can fully understand that the Public Service Association is concerned about the use of regulations. I hope the minister will table the regulations during the debate so that we are fully informed as to the intention, because, as I said—and I know I have expressed it in previous debates in this place—I have an ongoing concern when we pass legislation and all we are doing is putting a very bare framework in place and allowing for great detail in regulations without having the ability to consider the impact that such regulations might have when they are put into practice in whatever marketplace it might be.

I indicate that I support the bill and I wish it good speed through both this chamber and the other place. I hope that the government achieves the beneficial outcomes of the bill. I do express some misgivings about some aspects and certainly support for some of the suggestions made by the PSA in terms of the way in which the bill might be improved to provide better protections within the public sector without lessening the ability of the government to achieve its desired outcomes.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:47): I also support this bill. I think it is an important bill in comparison with some that come through this place. Given that it affects the lives of some 98,000 people in South Australia who have full or part-time positions in the Public Service, it is critical that we get it right. Indeed, my colleague, the member for Goyder, has produced a list of amendments in an effort to improve the bill as, indeed, has the member for Mitchell. I note in reading the amendments that many of them are similar, which is quite interesting and, no doubt—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I don't know minister; perhaps great minds think alike. It is absolutely critical that we have an efficient, progressive, industrious Public Service in South Australia: it is vital to the future of the state. I note with interest that successive waves of members of the PSA have gathered in the gallery during the day to take note of what was being said. We are very fortunate in this country to have the system we have. Being colonised by the British did a number of things for us—not all of them all that smart. In inheriting the British system of Public Service (or, as they call it, the Civil Service), along with other countries such as India, we have been incredibly well served. That system has served the United Kingdom so well for so long. I think it has multiplied, tripled and God knows what else in India, but it has become a highly regulated Public Service.

I make a comparison with what happened in the United States of America a couple of years ago when New Orleans was flooded. It was an absolute debacle because of the lack of any organised system to get in there and assist. I do not know whether or not they call it the Public Service in the United States, but the reality is that they did not have the systems in place.

The president at the time was put in a terribly awkward position. Things were not happening, and it became apparent one or two weeks later that there was nothing on the ground. If you compare that to the situation in Victoria, about which much has been said today, and with the Port Lincoln and the Wangary fires a few short years ago, our systems worked exceptionally well and that was due, in no small part, to the efficiency and the professionalism of our Public Service and its ability to move quickly and put the correct mechanisms in place to assist the state.

The traineeship program, which I regard as incredibly important to the future of South Australia and its workforce, is not mentioned in the bill. I think that is a wonderful program in South Australia. To the best of my knowledge, all the members of this house have trainees. I think some 13 or 14 have gone through the Finniss electorate office over the years with my predecessor and, latterly, with me.

I sincerely hope that the trainee system gets through what is going to be, I suggest, an extremely radical system of cuts in the forthcoming state budget. I hope that the PSA and members will join with me in maintaining that traineeship program for a long time to come because it generates a great workforce for the future. Whether trainees stay in the public system or go into the private system, the program is ideal and the training that goes on in traineeships around the state is very important.

There are some important highlights in the bill. Its aims are to ensure that the public sector delivers high quality service to the community across departments, attracts and retains talented staff and provides the ability for open, impartial advice to government without fear of repercussion. I am not sure that that has always occurred in the past. I am not sure that it is happening today, and there is an inherent fear with some members of the Public Service that they cannot say what they really think for fear that they will get themselves into terrible strife. That is unfortunate and leads to situations that are not in the best interests of the state.

The fact that the bill requires public sector agencies to have an effective performance management system is critical. Public sector agencies cannot be seen as separate from the private sphere, and they must have these things in place. Attracting people to work in the public sector means that there must be an attractive career structure. It is no longer a job for life. I am sure that there are so many who have come out early or chosen not to stay there.

I am told that a young person today who is 19 or 20 years old may well have up to six jobs over the course of their working life. In the past, many people have gone into the Public Service and stayed there for all their working career, and in private employment as well. We must make it attractive to have a career in the Public Service.

On this side of the house, I listened to the leader with interest when he espoused his views on what the Liberal Party stands for in relation to the Public Service and what we will do on coming into government. I thought that that provided a great deal of security in the minds of the members of the Public Service Association who were here and who will no doubt translate that back to their membership at large.

The issue of a South Australian executive service of about 500 people is going to be interesting. It remains to be seen just how that pans out, but I am sure that that is going to be a challenge and that the Public Service will have to rise to the occasion. We look forward to seeing what happens.

The bill does not refer to a reduction or expansion of the Public Service but does provide an opportunity for CEOs to get rid of staff seen to be in excess of requirements. That is going to be interesting, isn't it? However, the department is required to make every effort to find alternative work in another department. I do not know how that will pan out, and I am sure that those charged with adjudicating on that will have some fairly challenging times.

I know that much of what I have said has been said already, but I thought it was worth making a small contribution on this bill. I join with some of my colleagues in wishing it a speedy passage through both houses. However, the Liberal Party, through the member for Goyder, is proposing some amendments, which I hope will be taken in the spirit of the situation. I look forward to seeing those amendments in committee and this bill progressing during the evening—and I understand it could be a long evening.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (17:56): I thank all members for their contributions. I will speak briefly and seek leave to continue my remarks after the dinner break. The reforms set out in the bill are far reaching, and despite a bit of fanfare that has occurred we really do have bipartisan support for most of them.

I will remind people of the reforms. They include: a principle-based approach, and the principles we have chosen are all supported; an emphasis on one government; an emphasis on collaboration and information sharing between agencies; greater flexibility; performance management and development requirements; and a South Australian executive service. I welcome that support.

It would be remiss of me if I did not begin by making some remarks about the general context in which these contributions were made. This side of politics has always valued the state public sector. Indeed, much of our philosophy is based on the capacity of the state to take steps to intervene on behalf of citizens to make a better life for them. That is the essence of what it means to be part of this party.

However, what we have consistently had at election campaigns, when it counts, is campaigns by those opposite who have sought to characterise the public sector as a burden that needs to be minimised. Let's be completely clear. For those who are perhaps witnessing the debate, let's be clear about the so-called new friends they think they might have in this chamber. I exclude from that the member for Mitchell, who is an old friend, but I am referring to the new friends that they may think they are gaining in this debate.

Some of the people who made contributions in this debate—and I exclude from this the member for Goyder—have been some of the greatest offenders in singling out individual public servants and vilifying them. I have always made it my practice, when there have been vicious attacks on individual public servants, to defend them and take my ministerial responsibilities seriously.

Some of our public servants—and I know many of them would be interested in the fate of this bill—are at the coalface, and they are the ones who take the greatest risks, and they are the ones who have to make the courageous decisions. I believe it is wrong to criticise them when all they are doing is seeking to help our sometimes most vulnerable citizens. I will explore this theme in more detail after the break.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think I was speaking about new friends when we broke for dinner. What needs to be emphasised is that the Labor Party has always understood that the Public Service is one of our most precious assets and whose value we must realise, to be contrasted with our opponents, who have always seen it as a burden to be minimised.

There is support for the bill, and I do welcome that. Some of the opposition's amendments make sense, and at this stage I can indicate general support for some of them. First, the protection of the employees reasonably engaging in community activities not related to their employment will be supported. It was never intended to use the code of conduct in a way which would undermine this, but an amendment could improve the bill. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that there might be a slightly better way of expressing that, and maybe that is a matter that could be left between houses, but we support the general thrust of it.

Secondly, the preservation of review rights for reclassification is a sensible principle. Indeed, in my letter of yesterday to the PSA and SA Unions I undertook that those review rights would be maintained. It is just a question of what is the appropriate way to preserve that and, once again, that might be something we could look at between houses.

Thirdly, as to the use of regulatory power in the bill, no general points can be made about that because there are some important regulation-making powers that need to be preserved. I have been prepared to reflect upon those cases where the regulation-making power simply adds a further potential ground, say, of termination or some other disciplinary action. In those cases we cannot (presently) think of a basis for using that. It was put there out of an abundance of caution. We would be prepared to remove those particular references, but there are other important references that must remain and we need to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

The issues that are left are of a very narrow compass. They are, nevertheless, significant. I would suggest that some of them betray a misunderstanding of aspects of the bill. I will go to those matters now in an attempt to try to persuade members that those particular concerns are not warranted.

The first is the question of the chief executive devolution of power. The bill does make chief executives fully accountable for human resource management by providing them with the necessary statutory powers and responsibilities. The bill does empower chief executives to appoint, assign, transfer and terminate employment of employees. The current act requires that these powers be exercised by either the Commissioner for Public Employment or in cases of termination by the Governor.

During this government's tenure we have gone a long way towards requiring that chief executives be accountable to the government for performance targets. It is important to understand this, because this is the essence of why we seek these changes: not responding to some management philosophy but, rather, that we are now obliging chief executives to have in their own performance agreements and their own contracts of employment, targets which respond to the South Australian Strategic Plan targets. We expect them to deliver on those targets and we want to hold them to account for those targets. They may be as broad and diverse as responding to targets to reduce business red tape or, at the other end of the spectrum, to drive down homelessness or rough sleeping.

If we want that accountability for chief executives, the means by which to achieve those objectives need to be provided to chief executives. We believe that empowering chief executives to manage their staff without some structural impediments that currently exist is an essential part of this driver for greater accountability.

To this end, over the last five years the Commissioner for Public Employment has delegated to chief executives a number of powers relating to employee management. So, it is already happening in a number of important respects: appointment, assignment, conditions of employment and redeployment. During a period of monitoring of the exercise of powers, no abuse or misuse of these powers has been detected.

In some respects, the provisions of the bill devolving power to chief executives simply reflect existing practice. The termination power, however, is not one that can be delegated under the Public Sector Management Act; it must be exercised by the Governor. The government believes that the power to terminate employment must be exercisable by chief executives if we are to expect them to be accountable for the objectives that we have set for them.

Correspondingly, providing these transactional powers to the Commissioner for Public Employment misunderstands and, indeed, undermines the role that the bill carves out for the Commissioner for Public Employment. Much as this bill seeks to guide decision-making through the adoption of strong principles, we want the commissioner to lead chief executives to themselves adopting better systems and practices, but he does so by operating at a systemic level, not at the individual transaction level.

Enabling chief executives to defer to the commissioner their decision-making powers will be the disincentive for them to adopt better systems and practices. Giving the commissioner a command over chief executives will be inimical to his or her capacity to influence the chief executives in that positive way.

Until we undertook this process of migrating a lot of the powers of the commissioner to the chief executives, we had a situation where the commissioner was getting involved in the day-to-day activities of agencies and, in a sense, there was confusion as to who was actually responsible for managing employees. If employees are indeed our greatest asset then we must have a clear line of sight between the people who have direct responsibilities through to the people who actually make things happen on the ground.

The introduction of someone else who is empowered to make decisions will simply be a disincentive for taking full responsibility for that. It will also prevent the commissioner from actually playing a role that they ought to play, that is, being the arbiter of good practice, sitting there and looking at the way policies are being applied and, indeed, insisting on the consistency that the member for Goyder says he is seeking through these amendments. But, by not having the chief executives involved in this decision making and by insisting that the commissioner involves himself in the day-to-day decision making, he does not have the resources necessary to maintain this oversight role.

We believe that the bill has the balance right in relation to the devolution by creating a strong set of principles to guide decision making and a robust public appeal forum to protect employees from an inappropriate decision. Indeed, for the first time, we are giving public servants the right to access the Industrial Relations Commission for individual matters.

Really, the criticism that streamlining the process for termination diminishes the protections afforded to employees is unsubstantiated. In all other Australian jurisdictions—other than Tasmania—we give the power to terminate employment to chief executives. There is no anecdotal or reported evidence to suggest the misuse of these chief executive powers. We also need to know here that the proper basis for consideration of this particular power of the chief executive is to understand that it is intimately linked to the accountability that we expect of chief executives for results. To deprive them of the tools to achieve those results, we believe, is counterproductive.

The member for Morphett, in a sense, invited me to tell the house what the present Commissioner for Public Employment thinks of all this. He strongly supports it and does not believe that the proposed amendments would assist his role; indeed, they would take his role back to the place where it was before, that is, a policing role. He does not want the policing relationship. He does not want the enforcement and the responsibility: he wants a different relationship with the chief executives. So, I invite the member for Morphett to have a discussion with the Commissioner for Public Employment and satisfy himself about that. But he did invite me to tell him what the commissioner said, and that is what he said.

Suspension without pay is another area where I think the legislation has been misunderstood, and I think I can understand why the misunderstanding has crept in. In the present Public Sector Management Act, one provision deals with suspension, both during investigation and as a disciplinary action; therefore, it refers to suspension with or without remuneration. In this bill, these circumstances are separated. Clause 54 deals with suspension as a disciplinary action, that is, after a finding of misconduct. It is therefore appropriate that it refer to suspension without pay.

It is difficult to imagine a circumstance where you would try to suspend somebody on pay as a punishment; indeed, some people might think that was a reward. I think the way in which the act is set out might have led to this, because the act actually begins with the penalties and then goes to the process. I think the fear—which is unfounded—is that the act provides for people who are suspended in the process of investigation to be suspended without pay. That is not the case. The suspension without pay is a penalty that may apply in a given circumstance.

In relation to review rights, we have strengthened those rights for public servants. As I have said before, for the first time, the Industrial Relations Commission will decide whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Although I understood the member for Goyder's contribution to be that he did not support those changes, I cannot see any amendments presently to disturb that. So, it does not appear that those—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On unfair dismissal rights. There do not seem to be any amendments that go to the question of depriving the Industrial Relations Commission of its jurisdiction to review dismissals. I hope that is the position, because I think it would be, on any view of it, a backward step not to allow the Industrial Relations Commission to review the unfair dismissal rights for public servants.

I note the intention of the amendments is to restore the panel provisions in the proposed public sector grievance commission. Frankly, I do not understand the opposition's attachment to these panels. The matters that will go to this commission will be many and varied. Requiring a panel to be convened for each of them will be time-consuming, cumbersome, expensive and of little, if any, benefit. It also does not really fit in with the scheme. If we believe that the Industrial Relations Commission can, for the most serious matters, have a single person hearing them, why would we require a panel of people in relation to the public sector grievance commission, which would necessarily deal with less serious matters? It really looks like an exercise in going back to an old process, which is unnecessary. The whole idea of convening a three-person panel has, in itself, logistics that would cause delays, and that is a very undesirable situation when we are dealing with matters of this sort.

The member for Mitchell made a point about the politicisation of the Public Service. I must say that I had difficulty in identifying what it is in the legislation that causes him to say that. Contrary to that, for the first time, we have a principle in the legislation—which has never been there—which makes clear that frank advice without fear of reprisal will be protected.

While the differences between us are not wide ranging, I cannot let some of the commentary about the opposition and its attachment to the Public Service and the PSA pass without comment. The leader stated that the opposition was an old dog learning new tricks. I do not find that very persuasive. I would have thought it is more like a leopard frantically trying to rub off its spots, because public sector workers will remember the last election (and that is the test, what you take to an election), where they saw an opposition that thought it was to its political advantage to get rid of 4,000 public sector jobs and it talked about cuts. It did not suggest that these would be achieved through natural attrition, although it did eventually when it got into a bit of trouble.

I also need to remind public sector workers that the last time public sector legislation was an election issue those opposite promised the PSA that the then legislation would be kept intact. However, within a year of the election they introduced into this place an extraordinary piece of legislation that radically transformed the act and sought to politicise the public sector, stripping away many effective appeal rights, and I could go on. We see the consistent opposition delight in attacking those described as 'fat cats' earning over $100,000.

There is one aspect with respect to which I really have to challenge the member for Goyder. He sought to say that we budgeted for 3,000 extra people but we got somewhere between 14,000 and 17,000 (he says). However, he said that this was not an attack on the public sector; it was, rather, just an attack on ministers who cannot control their budgets. The opposition has to nail its colours to the mast here. Is 14,000 extra public servants a problem or not? The clear implication is that it was a problem and that it would do something about that.

We cannot mince words here. We are essentially talking about an opposition that routinely campaigns on the size of the public sector. Despite my invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that he supported a position of no forced redundancy, he refused to take up that invitation. I think that speaks more loudly than any of the, I suppose, comforting words that have emerged from some of the members of the opposition who perhaps are regarded as a little more friendly; the friendlier faces of the opposition. I thank members for their contribution and I look forward to a speedy passage through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 7, lines 25 to 27 [clause 3(1), definition of public sector representative organisation]—Delete:

'means an association registered under the Fair Work Act 1994 or the Workplace Relations Act 1996 of the Commonwealth that represents the interests of public sector employees' and substitute:

—see subsections (5) and (6)

Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in my name can be taken together. They reintroduce the concept contained in sections 16 and 24 of the existing act. Section 16 requires an agency chief executive officer to consult with employees and employee organisations, for example, the Public Service Association, before making decisions affecting a significant number of employees. Section 24 allows definition of public sector organisations that would need to be consulted and heard on these occasions. Again, the one we think of foremost is the Public Service Association, otherwise known as the PSA. So, amendments Nos 1 and 2 in my name, in a sense, carry over section 24 and the definition contained there from the current legislation. In a moment we will deal with amendment No. 4 in my name, which carries over the concept contained in the current section 16. So, that would become new clause 9A.

I make those remarks about the three different amendments because, in a sense, they form part of the package. I acknowledge that the source of the inspiration for these amendments is the PSA, but I think it has a good point, and I am heartened to see that the Liberal Party opposition has identical amendments on file. I put this amendment forward as a test. I hope that it is carried. If it is not, I think amendments Nos 2 and 4 in my name would have to be considered consequential.

The CHAIR: The member for Mitchell, we can consider amendments Nos 1 and 2 together.

Mr HANNA: Good idea. I move:

Page 8, after line 29—After subclause (4) insert:

(5) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that an association registered under the Fair Work Act 1994 or the Workplace Relations Act 1996 of the Commonwealth represents the interests of a significant number of public sector employees, the Commissioner must, by notice in the Gazette, declare the association to be a public sector representative organisation for the purposes of this act.

(6) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a public sector representative organisation has ceased to represent the interests of a significant number of public sector employees, the Commissioner must, by notice in the Gazette, revoke the declaration of the organisation under subsection (5).

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is certainly a commonality between the amendments of the opposition, which I note are superseded by those of the member for Mitchell, but this is an important issue that was put to us by the Public Service Association and the opposition has recognised that. For all the reasons espoused by the member for Mitchell, and while recognising what the minister has just said in his summation of his position on some of the amendments that are proposed later, we urge the government to consider its position on this. We think that the amendments are sound and reflect the true needs of members of the Public Service.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This creates a little bit of difficulty. In clause 5 of the bill there is already a provision about consultation. I think the PSA has been a little naughty here because this provision is most likely to favour them, as opposed to other unions. If one looks at it carefully, the effect of the amendment is that it will provide consultation for the PSA but perhaps not other smaller unions; and this is a contested field. It does raise the question about freedom of association and whether one would have a special clause that would have the effect of preferring one organisation over another.

It is certainly the case that consultation is dealt with as part of the obligation as an employer of choice. The public sector agencies are obliged to consult public sector employees and public sector representative organisations on matters that affect public sector employment. This is expressed in terms which are consistent with the present legislation, but the present legislation does have the effect of potentially excluding public sector workers who may not be able to meet this test.

Mr HANNA: I make the point that this set of amendments refers to organisations which represent the interests of a significant number of public sector employees. That is actually what amendment No. 2 provides. Quite clearly, it does not seek to have the PSA cover the field in this area. It is erroneous to suggest that it sets up the PSA as the only public sector representative organisation. That is confirmed by the fact that amendment No. 2 provides that the commissioner may declare an association to be a public sector representative organisation for the purposes of this act. It does not provide that an association would be declared to be the representative organisation but, rather, a public sector representative organisation. It is quite clear. There could be several. It may be that the AWU or some other union might represent a significant number and they could also be declared in that way. I think the minister might have it wrong in that regard.

When the minister tries to reassure us that in the government provisions there is consultation anyway, the question arises, 'If it ain't broke, why try and fix it?' The existing legislation quite clearly provides that where there is an organisation, such as the PSA, it must be consulted and it must be heard. That is the minimum decent thing to do when the interests of a significant number of workers are affected.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I support the member for Mitchell. The amendment is quite specific in its wording: it is not exclusive. It is not a definite certainty for the PSA. The PSA does represent a significant number of public sector employees and, while there is an opportunity for them, we have not been specific in the amendment. We have given flexibility for the commissioner to make a determination as to whom it may be.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are some organisations which have small numbers of employees and which may not be regarded as significant for the purpose of this clause. It is difficult for us to support something that would have that effect. In any event, it is not a question of its being broken and wanting to fix it. What we are doing is changing the way in which this act looks in a fairly substantial way by establishing a set of public sector principles and practices which everyone accepts is a good thing. A number of these measures that were contained in specific clauses have been extracted from where they sit within the act and placed in this context of public sector principles and practices; so that is why we resist that particular clause.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 11, after line 26—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) The commissioner may transfer an employee of a public sector agency to the employment of another public sector agency, on conditions that maintain the substantive remuneration level of the employee or are agreed to by the employee.

(4b) The commissioner is not to transfer employees under this section except in consultation with the public sector agencies directly affected by the transfer.

There is a theme in my amendments which is strengthening the power of the Commissioner for Public Employment or, rather, preventing that role from being watered down by the government legislation. One of the things I seek to do is to leave the power to transfer employees from one agency to another with the commissioner. I referred in my second reading contribution to the commissioner being as close as we can get to the independent umpire. It seems to me that the commissioner with that power will be one step removed from any acrimony or wrongful motive that might exist within a department, if there is tension for some reason. The commissioner stands apart from all that and looks at whether or not a certain transfer is warranted in terms of the objectives of the Public Service as a whole. The point of the amendment is to leave that power of transfer with the commissioner—and I think that is appropriate.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand the intent of the honourable member's amendment, but I note subclause (1) provides that 'the Premier may'. Is it his intention, on the basis of these amendments being supported, to also attempt to alter subclause (1)?

Mr HANNA: No. I acknowledge that there is still the capacity for the Premier, by notice in the gazette, to effect that transfer and, indeed, there will be occasion when perhaps a whole office is being relocated from one agency to another because of changes to administrative structures. The point is that I want to ensure the commissioner retains that power, but it is not exclusive if this amendment is passed.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again we differ in the role we see for the commissioner. The commissioner is not the independent umpire. In the case of termination, the independent umpire is the Industrial Relations Commissioner and, in the case of grievances, it is the new Public Sector Grievance Review Commission. This puts him in the action in terms of facilitating the work of agencies. We would rather he establish guidelines for good employment practices for public sector agencies; that is, playing that, if you like, oversight role, that arbiter of good practice role and not doing the transferring, which is a matter for chief executives, and reviewing it should that go wrong. That belongs to the body which I have just mentioned and which carries out the review. That is how these various things fit together.

Once again, the process of transfer between public sector agencies will be streamlined if it does not involve the commissioner. Once again, this is a process which we have already achieved through delegation. From a practical point of view, it is the status quo, and this legislation just seeks to make that de facto position the de jure position.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

New clause 9A.

Mr HANNA: The minister has stated the government's position in relation to the current requirements for the PSA or other unions to be consulted and heard when decisions are made about a significant number of employees. In light of the government's stated position and the decision in respect of my earlier amendments, I will not be proceeding with my amendment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 11, after line 38—After clause 9 insert:

9A—Consultation with employees and representative organisations

(1) Before making a decision, or taking action, that will affect a significant number of public sector employees, a public sector agency must, so far as is practicable—

(a) give notice of the proposed decision or action—

(i) to the employees; and

(ii) if a significant number of the members of a public sector representative organisation will be affected by the proposed decision or action—to the organisation; and.

(b) hear any representations or argument that representatives of the employees or the organisation may wish to present in relation to the proposed decision or action.

(2) Nothing in this section limits or restricts the carrying out of a function or exercise of a power by the public sector agency under this act.

Given that is an identical amendment to the one proposed by the member for Mitchell, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak to it. I am happy to accept the result of the committee's deliberation.

New clause negatived.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Will the minister comment on the fact that, within the financial requirements for auditing in the previous financial year, as I understood it, two departments—the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the department for primary industries—were unable to present audited financial statements within the required period, preventing the Auditor-General from submitting them as part of the Auditor-General's Report to this house? Are the financial requirements also included in the annual report and, if so, how was the minister intending to ensure that they are presented within three months of the end of that financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I understand that those matters are dealt with in the regulations, and there is no intention to change those obligations that exist in the regulations.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 14, line 6 [clause 13(1)(f)]—After "Minister" insert:

or on the Commissioner's own initiative.

One of the measures adopted by the government in limiting the role of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment is to cut out those matters that previously could have been pursued by the commissioner on the commissioner's own initiative. I believe it is important to retain the capacity for the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment—as the position is known in this legislation—to initiate reviews, to provide advice and even to undertake investigations.

The government clearly seeks to greatly limit the commissioner's role. I am somewhat reminded of the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who wants to keep fighting after his arms and legs are chopped off. The commissioner is left with a couple of fairly routine administrative functions.

The commissioner may give advice if asked, but it seems to me that there will be matters that become apparent to the commissioner where some sort of investigation or elaboration of the solution should be pursued at the commissioner's own initiative. This first of three amendments seeks to allow the commissioner to provide advice on public sector employment matters at the request of public sector agencies or on the commissioner's own initiative.

In other words, if the commissioner sees a problem, the commissioner does not have to wait for the agency—and that normally will come from the chief executive officer—to seek advice. The commissioner can simply step in and say, 'I see an issue here. I think this is what you ought to be doing in light of the principles set out in our new legislation.'

So, it is not really a radical step to try to retain this aspect of the commissioner's work. I cannot imagine that we are going to have a commissioner who wants to get involved in micro-management of every department. That has not happened in the past and it is not going to happen in the future. Nonetheless, if there are those gaps where advice has not been sought and, yet, it is obvious to the commissioner that there is a problem, why not let the commissioner provide advice to solve that problem?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Mitchell in moving these amendments under his name, which are identical to amendments proposed by the opposition. In our review of this bill, we have identified quite strongly the fact that we believe that the commissioner should actually have the flexibility, where an issue becomes apparent, to undertake an investigation on their own initiative.

I note that the minister has indicated that his position is that the commissioner should operate at a higher level and I do not disagree with that, but I think that this is actually a demonstration of an opportunity for the commissioner to work at a higher level. If the commissioner has an issue come before him or her which he or she feels is important enough for a review to be undertaken, it is important that the bill that the parliament considers today actually provides that flexibility.

I have no doubt that it will not be a common occurrence. It will no doubt be a relatively rare event, but inserting these amendments into the bill now provides that flexibility, and I think it is an important step forward.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is just one of those fundamental areas of disagreement about how we see the relationship between the commissioner and the chief executives. If we want a high-performing and agile public sector, the quality assurance role of the commissioner needs to be employed with a light touch matched by an increased capacity for monitoring and reporting upon the performance of public sector agencies to make it clear that their increased flexibility comes with an increased obligation to perform.

We believe that, in terms of the relationship between the commissioner and the chief executives, this amendment will have the opposite effect. It would continue to involve the commissioner in individual employee matters, and the commissioner would continue to have the capacity to intrude into the affairs of the public sector agencies. That can happen on advice or on direction from a minister or, indeed, a chief executive, but we believe it sets up the wrong sort of relationship, and that view is shared by the Commissioner for Public Employment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In regard to the minister's comments, I think there is a reasonable degree of agreement between us. It is certainly not the opposition's position, in proposing these amendments and supporting the member for Mitchell, that the commissioner would actually undertake investigations on every matter that comes before them.

There may be issues that are reported to the commissioner but, surely, that is where an informed position will determine if it is necessary to undertake an investigation, and, again, I reinforce the fact that, it will only be at a higher level. So, I do not think there is such a great level of disagreement between us here, and it is something that is worthy of very serious consideration, if not in this chamber, certainly between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: The next two amendments in my name are not strictly consequential although the same principle is involved. I move:

Page 14, line 8 [clause 13(1)(f)]—After "Minister" insert:

or on the Commissioner's own initiative.

This relates to the commissioner's initiative in relation to industrial relations matters, or reviews of public sector employment. Consider an example: if there was a particular agency where there were a number of claims taken to the Industrial Relations Commission, where there seemed to be some sort of hotbed of disputes, that may be an area where that particular agency does not want to publicise the fact and wants to keep a low profile.

That may be the very sort of issue where the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment should become aware and look closely at the issues which are leading to some sort of pattern of dispute within a particular agency. That is the sort of thing where the commissioner should have the power to initiate some review and provide advice on how to improve matters. It may not come from the agency itself, especially if there is some fault in the higher levels of the agency. That is why it is essential to move this amendment and retain the commissioner's initiative in that respect.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 14, line 11 [clause 13(1)(g)]—After 'agency' insert:

and investigate such matters on the commissioner's own initiative.

As the minister has acknowledged in his lack of response to the last amendment, it is the same principle involved, and I understand why he feels that he has already made the point in relation to the earlier amendment. However, this is another area where I believe it needs to be explained that the commissioner should have the capacity to intervene on his or her own initiative.

These are matters in relation to public sector employee conduct or discipline. This is a particular area which creates controversy. It often creates a high level of passion, where a public servant or a group of public servants have been disciplined, or where there is a new standard of discipline or behaviour imposed from above. A particular example might be in relation to transmission of information to the media or the public, perhaps where the public servant concerned has a role totally outside of nine to five employment in a community group, or the like.

This, again, is an area where, if there was a pattern of conduct, or a series of issues which might be potentially embarrassing to the executive or the management of a particular agency, that agency will probably not ask for intervention by the commissioner, but they are the very cases in which the commissioner should have the power to investigate.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Mitchell makes an important point. While the wording of the amendments is quite similar in terms of the power provided to the commissioner, the areas under which they are intended to operate are very distinct. The opposition feels that it is important to argue the case that the commissioner, in cases identified by paragraph (g), should be provided with the opportunity to undertake investigations on his own initiative. It ensures, for the public's confidence, that there is an opportunity for the impartial umpire to become involved if the commissioner feels there is a need for it. The opposition acknowledges this amendment and supports it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is probably worth going back over the fact that the commissioner is not the impartial umpire for these purposes. He has no independent decision-making capacity, even with the amendments that are being proposed. Therefore, I think it misunderstands the position that the commissioner occupies, and it does drag him back into the question of individual matters, which is not where we want him to sit in the hierarchy. It does not mean that these matters should not be attended to, but this is not the mechanism to do so. If there is a grievance on behalf of an individual, review processes are set out in the act.

Mr HANNA: I will respond to the minister's remarks. If the government has its way with this legislation, the commissioner will be able to get into quite detailed investigation of a particular public servant. Under section 17, the commissioner can obtain certain documents, examine individual public servants, and so on. Therefore, the very sort of thing that the minister says we are trying to promote and the government is trying to avoid is set out in the legislation.

The only question is whether the commissioner should have the power to instigate these investigations on his or her own accord, or whether it must be left to the agencies. When I say 'the agencies', that really means the chief executive officer or the minister at the top of the hierarchy. I like the idea that there is somebody who has some independence in looking at problems that arise in agencies, somebody who may on occasion need to stand up to a chief executive or a minister to say, 'There's a problem here and I am going to investigate it whether or not you like it, whether or not it is embarrassing to the government.' I think that is an important safeguard. That is why I have been persisting with these amendments.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 14, after line 22—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) 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.

I believe, Madam Chair, that the minister has indicated government support for this amendment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Rather than supporting it and having it go through, we would like to look at it between houses. We may accept these terms, but I am advised that there might be a clearer way of expressing it. One way or another, we will certainly come to a conclusion in the spirit of this amendment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for supporting the intent of the amendment, and I understand the need for some deliberation to occur between the houses. Certainly, in our consultation, and in the representations made to us, this was an important area where it was believed very strongly that there must be the opportunity for staff members, in their own time, to undertake activities that would not reflect upon their role within the public sector. The consideration by the government of this amendment is a very positive step.

The CHAIR: By way of clarification, member for Goyder, you have spoken to the amendment so, in effect, you have moved it. Do you seek leave to withdraw it, as you have spoken to it, or do you wish it to be put to a vote?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given the commitment by the minister to consider its wording between the houses, the opposition is quite happy to accept that intent and for an amendment to be moved in the government's name when it goes to the other place.

The CHAIR: Do you seek leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do.

The CHAIR: Leave is sought. Is leave granted?

Mr HANNA: No, because I—

The CHAIR: That is what you had the opportunity to do, member for Mitchell, and that is why I asked whether leave was granted.

Mr HANNA: I said no because it means that I lose the opportunity to speak on it.

The CHAIR: You were a little late; however, I will go back. Leave has not been granted; therefore, you may make a contribution, member for Mitchell.

Mr HANNA: Thank you. I simply make a general point. In relation to the amendments I have moved, by no means are they my entire wish list in relation to the legislation. I am very glad that the Liberal Party has picked up this point because it is one I am passionate about. I believe that public servants who have community activities unrelated to their employment ought to be able to continue with them unfettered by the fear of reprimand and detriment at their workplace. I am very glad that the minister has undertaken to look at this, and I accept that in good faith. I am sure that the government will bring something into the Legislative Council that will be along these lines; if it is not, I am sure that the council will see fit to have something like this brought into the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In relation to clause 14, many areas in this measure talk about regulations. In this case, it states, 'The public sector code of conduct may contain...' Is a version of the code of conduct available?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is not really a code of conduct, but we will review the various codes and regulations. There will be time between the assent and the proclamation of the operation of the act to assist with that process.

Mr HANNA: I have a question for the minister in relation to subclause (2). We are dealing with a clause that talks about the public sector code of conduct. The minister acknowledged that there already is such a code of conduct and, in general terms, I do not have a problem with such a creature. However, I find subclause (2) curious. It provides:

(2) The regulations may preserve employee rights relating to the disclosure of information and the making of public comment and impose other limitations on the contents of the code.

I am intrigued by the fact that the code is presumably there to limit the right of public servants to speak about policy matters and perhaps to criticise the government from time to time, yet there is this capacity in the regulations, which are ultimately issued by a minister, to reset the balance. I just wonder why you have a code of conduct on the one hand, which is published by the commissioner (but after consultation with the relevant minister or ministers, I am sure) and, on the other hand, the right of a minister to make regulations that alter that balance contained in the code. Why not just have some appropriate wording that sets out the right of public servants to make public comment in the code, and then you do not have to play with it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think it is really just the way in which it is expressed. The use of the word 'limitation' is directed at the proposition that the code cannot limit these particular rights. For instance, these are some rights: employees' rights relating to the disclosure of information and the making of public comment. The code cannot have the effect of limiting those things.

You need to know what is in the regulations. These rights are already provided for under the public sector management regulations. So, there are regulations that go to the question of rights to disclose information and making public comment. They are positive rights that are enjoyed by public servants.

What is stated here is that the code cannot impose limitations on those rights. You have to know that the regulations already create those rights to make sense of that clause there. What this states is that the code cannot limit rights that employees have by virtue of regulations that are contained within the public sector management regulations at present. It is not beautifully expressed but it does not have the effect that the member fears. It is seeking to protect employees' rights.

Mr HANNA: I offer some food for thought for the members of the Legislative Council when they deal with this issue. If I take the minister's answer, it is essentially stating that the government is trying to have the code limited in what it can do by way of restriction of public servants and their public comments because there are rights in the regulations, and the code should not supersede the regulations in that respect.

If that is the case, my question is: why not set the code so that it cannot do the wrong thing, and then, in a sense, you do not need to worry about those regulations. As it is, if we want to know what is in the code, or what may be in the code, we look to clause 14(1), which states:

...may contain—

(a) provisions directed towards advancement of the objects of this act and observance of the public sector principles; and

(b) provisions governing the conduct of public [servants]...that are expressed to be disciplinary provisions.

If we consider what those public sector principles are, clause 5 has the answer to that. It sets out the public sector principles. I draw members' attention to the part which is headed, 'Ethical behaviour and professional integrity', which states, in part:

Public sector employees are to avoid conduct that will reflect adversely on the public sector.

What that makes me think of is the public servant who goes into a rally against a government decision. It may be about a pay dispute with teachers, nurses or police officers. It may be speaking at a rally to that effect, or on any matter of government policy. It might be to do with the Lower Lakes, the lack of a bushfire prevention strategy, or whatever.

Not only do these public sector principles upon which the code is based allow for restriction on public servants as to what they do outside their employment, but the code can specifically be expressed in terms of disciplinary provisions. Quite clearly, according to the legislation, the code can say to the public servant, 'If you do something outside of your work, or in your work, that reflects adversely on the government effectively you can be disciplined.'

My challenge to the minister is: if you are going to say that all of that potential restriction of the public servant is rendered harmless by the regulations that the nice minister is going to make from time to time; then I am saying why not have the protection of the public servant built in to the code of conduct so that they cannot be disciplined for something which basically amounts to their right of free speech?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not accept that the clause has the effect that the member complains of. All that the relevant clause is seeking to do is to suggest that the code cannot limit a couple of regulations that go to the question of rights relating to disclosure of information and the making of public comment.

To pick one of the principles and take it out of context is not appropriate. The code can draw on all of the principles and obviously they will be incorporated into the code in a balanced fashion. I do not see that this particular clause does anything other than protect employees.

The balance of the member's concern is that we are going to publish a code which somehow distorts one of the principles that are contained as an employer of choice suggesting that somehow those employees will have any conduct that they engage in outside of their employment used against them. I think we adequately dealt with that in the debate that we just had, where you secured a commitment that we will ensure that those principles are not traversed in the code of practice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 and 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to subclause (2)(b), which states that, 'The commissioner may require a public sector employee or former public sector employee to answer truthfully questions'. My question is: how do you define 'former'? Is it forever? If someone worked within the Public Service until the age of 25 and then an issue comes to a head 20 years later, are they still deemed to be a former Public Service employee and therefore able to be demanded to appear before the commissioner, and if they do not guilty of a maximum penalty of $5,000? I think there needs to be some form of time limit in relation to this clause.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It amounts to the same provision that is in the current act. The difficulty is that, if someone resigns, you lose the capacity to carry out an investigation which might be required by that provision. That is the difficulty that would otherwise arise if we did not use the word 'former'. It is difficult to place a time limit on that. It certainly does not imply a time limit.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand the position of the minister and recognise the fact that there will be occasions in the future where it will be deemed important for a former public sector employee to appear to provide evidence, but surely there has to be some statutory time limit in place. Corporate knowledge is important and, no doubt, knowledge of an incident is important but, in the fullness of time, issues are forgotten, too. So, where a lengthy period of time has elapsed, and someone deliberately chooses to move on with their life, and has not been an employee of the public sector for a number of years, to be threatened with a penalty of up to $5,000 is somewhat draconian.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think those investigative powers are conditioned by subclause (1), which talks about them being exercised as reasonably required. So, they are limited by the process of reasonableness and they are limited by the fact that they are required for a review or investigation, as referred to in section 13. So, if you went too far back, they would become irrelevant for the purposes of an investigation under section 13, so they would be robbed of their statutory power.

Mr HANNA: I note that the provisions in new clause 17 are substantially the same as old section 25, leaving aside the issue of whether the commissioner has been asked to investigate or takes it on his or her own initiative. Given the significant financial penalty, I am curious as to the extent to which the powers have been used under section 25 of the current act, in terms of summoning people, questioning them and also issuing a demand for documents. Is that something that has been used more than rarely?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not aware of when these powers have been used—at least in the corporate memory of the people who are with me, which is substantial.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This clause refers to the South Australian executive service and its charter. Again, I am interested in the fact that we are considering legislation here that, as I understand it, refers to documentation that does not yet exist. Can the minister just clarify if, in fact, a charter is available, and is it available for review?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. That fits into the same category as the other document to which I referred earlier. So, it is something that will be produced once the act is passed, but it can be available for discussion before the operation of the act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 23 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In his second reading contribution, the minister referred to the attached offices. In the briefing I had with his chief of staff, I was given information to the effect that the attached offices will relate to policy areas, but I am interested in some specific details. I hope the minister can provide us with an example of where, in his mind, an attached office will be created; what the staffing numbers associated with that attached office may be; indeed, what the cost implications are and if the cost of the staff and those attached offices is required to be made within departmental budgets or whether, in fact, they come from another area of the finances.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The whole point of the attached office is actually to provide a mechanism to assign a title and attach it to a department or departments that have their own chief executive. The chief executive of an attached office will report directly to the relevant minister on matters of policy and to the chief executive of the department on administrative matters. The new measure will not replace current arrangements for offices or sections within a department: it will provide flexibility in relation to portfolio structures and relationships between units within a portfolio. It is modelled on a provision in the Victorian Public Administration Act and it is meant to improve whole-of-government performance.

When you think about it, in a way, if you wanted a new department every time you wanted to create a new focus on a particular issue, one of the difficulties is that you have to have all the bells and whistles that go with the new department, whereas it may be that you want to create an attached office to an existing department without having to replicate all the corporate management, all the requirements and obligations under the act for an annual report and all the reporting requirements that go with the department. So, it provides you with that flexibility for a somewhat smaller organisation that you might want to create. It might be created out of an existing agency.

I hesitate to give an example, because I will create fear amongst my colleagues. So, I will not give an example. However, you can imagine that you might want to carve out a part of government that is part of an existing agency and have it separate, with its chief executive reporting directly to the minister, rather than having to come up through, for example, a series of deputy chief executives and executive directors. It is particularly the case when there are portfolios that may cover discrete little areas that may not neatly line up with a department: so, a subset, if you like, of a department.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I certainly appreciate the fact that, in this very rapidly changing world in which we live, there is a necessity for flexibility. So, it is not the concept of attached offices to which I am opposed. The minister has given the example of the fact that they are able to be established within Victorian legislation. Therefore, can the minister recount some of the Victorian experiences that have influenced the inclusion of this measure? Does the minister have within the information available to him an indication of the number of people who might be involved, or does that depend upon the policy initiative (I presume that it may), and is there an indication of the cost potential?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In a sense it should save money because, to use the jargon of the Public Service, you have a particular organisation that reports to another organisation for food and rations but it may report directly to a minister in terms of accountability and departmental structure. So, it is creating another form of departmental structure, which might suit the circumstances. It is not about creating new departments: it may be a subset of an existing department. If anything, it would be a more efficient and a speedier way of managing those changed arrangements.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given that chief executives certainly were a portion of the focus of my initial contribution on this bill, I am somewhat interested in clause 30(1)(b), referring to 'the attainment of the performance objectives set from time to time by the Premier and the department's minister under the contract relating to the chief executive's employment'. Can the minister provide me with some examples of what these performance objectives would be? Given the current economic climate, do they in fact purely revolve around cost savings? Are they related to efficiency opportunities within the department? Are they related to staff turnover? Some comments on that would be helpful.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It involves things such as the ones I mentioned in my opening: the South Australian Strategic Plan targets, like halving the number of rough sleepers, which cuts across health, education and families and communities; red tape reduction, which can go across a range of different economic and regulatory portfolios—the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, DTED and the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Often it will be those whole of government targets that require those sorts of directions to be given and, indeed, presently they find their expression in performance agreements with individual chief executives.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to the next subclause, which uses the words 'the effective management of the department'. 'Effective' is a very vague word; it all depends on a person's interpretation of it. Is the review of a chief executive's performance carried out (and I would like some information on this) by an independent panel or by consultants who are engaged, or is it based personally upon the minister's experience of the performance of the CEO?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The chief executive performance management arrangements have been the subject of extensive reform. They involve all those elements—the input of ministers and external input and, indeed, the committee of cabinet that considers the performance of chief executives, the executive committee of cabinet, which has non-cabinet members sitting on it, is engaged in that process.

Clause passed.

Clauses 31 to 36 passed.

Clause 37.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I seek some clarification—and I apologise for my ignorance with respect to this fact; I should have considered how it relates to previous acts. Subclause (4) talks about the termination of a chief executive's employment and states that the termination payment that is required is the equivalent of four months' remuneration for each uncompleted year of the contract up to a maximum of 16 months. Is that level of compensation payment standard and is it currently the level that is in place?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If you are talking about what is standard for a chief executive as opposed to other employees, this brings the clause into line with what is the general position across other jurisdictions in South Australia and the commonwealth.

Mr HANNA: It is better than what we get if we lose an election.

Clause passed.

Clauses 38 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 24, after line 23—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) Despite subsection (3), a person who has been engaged as a term employee under paragraph (c) or (d) of that subsection following a selection process conducted on the basis of merit may continue to be employed in the same or similar duties beyond the period allowed under that subsection, but in that event the basis of engagement of the person changes to that of an ongoing employee.

This amendment and the following amendment in my name seek to create more certainty for employees, in particular. The scheme of employment in the legislation reflects three categories: first, a permanent public servant; secondly, someone employed for a term; or, thirdly, someone employed on a casual basis. One would expect that the more significant and enduring the work, the higher up the scale one would be. Perhaps for some temporary data processing to catch up at the end of the financial year, one might expect to be a temporary employee.

Clause 44(3) deals with term employees. There are a couple of categories whereby a person may be engaged for a term not exceeding five years in cases of a special or exceptional kind, and the engagement may be extended but not so that the term extends beyond a total of five years. There is also a category where the duties are of a temporary nature and the contract is for a term not exceeding two years. There is a place for these sorts of agreements with people. There might be particular projects—perhaps rolling out a housing project on the APY lands or something of that sort—where everyone knows it will be hard work for a few years but, basically, the project will be undertaken and completed.

What I am seeking is that, if those people are kept on beyond that term, they must be considered permanent employees from that point. The way in which the legislation is framed sets an absolute limit on the term. What I am doing is saying that, where there has been a selection process on the basis of merit—and that is a significant point—if the person is to be kept on, and, obviously, that is something which suits both the agency and the employee, then they automatically become permanent members of the Public Service.

I realise that even under the current situation a term employee could have their period of employment come to an end and at that point a negotiation could be made for entry into the Public Service on an ongoing basis, for a different sort of term or contract or, perhaps, for employment on a casual basis. The hierarchy is there to reflect the fact that there are some ongoing projects, which the Public Service has in terms of service delivery, and there are some temporary projects, which might take a few years, and there are some jobs of a relatively menial nature.

The fact is that, if there is a job which is being carried out for more than five years, we ought to consider that it will probably be a permanent matter of service delivery, or whatever the work is. I want to give the employee the security of knowing that, if the work is to be extended beyond the period of two years or five years, as the case may be, they can be accepted as an ongoing member of the Public Service.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This clause is one that attempts to tighten up the circumstances in which these other forms of employment can be used and to make it clear that the usual form of engagement is ongoing employment. The difficulty is that the honourable member's proposition undermines that clarity about when term employments become something other than that. It may introduce some degree of inequity, where people, who would not apply for a job because they wanted permanent employment, did not apply for a term employment yet term employment was converted into ongoing employment through this process. We think that creates an unfortunate blurring and potentially a poor incentive.

We want to maintain the clarity about the separate categories of employment in order to try to force people to make conscious decisions about them rather than bless a bad process of simply someone not getting themselves organised either to have a further term employment or conversion to ongoing employment, so people knew exactly where they stood.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 45.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 24, line 40—Delete 'in accordance with the regulations'

This relates to a desire by the opposition to ensure that the provisions as contained within section 32 of the Public Sector Management Act 1995 are actually available in order to allow for the review tribunal to consider reclassification appeals. I will not speak to the amendment at length. As part of the negotiations we held with the PSA and other people, it was felt that this amendment is quite reasonable.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we support the idea of the employment decisions being reviewable but not by the mechanism that is proposed. I think there are two amendments. It is the second of the honourable member's—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes. I think amendment No. 9 is acceptable, whereas it is my understanding that amendment No. 8 is not. The safest thing to do is to disagree with them, although we agree with the intent of what the honourable member is trying to achieve. The safest thing for us would be to disagree with this amendment at this point, but you need to know that it is certainly our intention to allow reclassifications to be considered by the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission. I think there is a bit of a difference about how we are seeking to achieve that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for his indication of some support. As I understand, amendment No. 8 is necessary for amendment No. 9 on the advice I received from parliamentary counsel, but I will allow that to be considered between the houses.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 46 passed.

Clause 47.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 25, lines 8 to 11—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) A person who is not already in the employment of a public sector agency is, when engaged as an employee of a public sector agency, at first on probation if the public sector agency notified the person in writing, before the person agreed to undertake the employment, that the person would be on probation for a specified period (which may not exceed 12 months).

Again I am about certainty for the worker in this regard. This clause is about the probationary period. I am suggesting that the probationary period essentially will not apply unless the employee has had notice in writing that they are on probation. I think that is a reasonable request. I think it should be in the legislation.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The general point is that we have tended to remove administrative processes from the bill. The choice was whether or not to have a bill flooded with all of the administrivia that accompanies the decision. In essence, there is no difference in the rights here except for the means by which they are communicated, and that is something that we have chosen to shy away from. It is a question of form. It is not a massive issue, but we have decided against it.

Mr HANNA: I actually think that it is more than just a matter of form to require there to be notice in writing if an employee is being taken on with a probation period. Let us consider the situation where a person who applies for a job in the Public Service is accepted and performs their duties as well as they can. Eleven months later, the boss can come in and say, 'Look, you've been on probation all this time, and we don't think you've made it, so don't come in on Monday.'

I think that is unfair. I think that if the person has been on probation, they should have, at some point, been advised in writing. It would be so simple for it to be in the letter of acceptance so that, when the person is taken on, they know where they stand. If we deal with the issue of probation in the legislation, and if we do not have the requirement that it is in writing, inevitably there will be someone taken on somewhere who will not be advised.

Across the Public Service, we are not talking about all professional people or all people with legal knowledge. Some people will be straight out of school, and they are not going to know the ins and outs of employment law. That is why it is not too much to ask that, if people are being accepted on a probationary basis, they ought to be told that in writing.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (13)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. Gunn, G.M.
Hanna, K. (teller) Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M.
Pengilly, M. Redmond, I.M. Venning, I.H.
Williams, M.R.
NOES (26)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Lomax-Smith, J.D. Maywald, K.A.
McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A.
Snelling, J.J. Stevens, L. Weatherill, J.W. (teller)
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (6)
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Rann, M.D.
Pisoni, D.G. Koutsantonis, T.
McFetridge, D. Piccolo, T.

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 48.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 25, after line 29—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) The remuneration level of an employee of a public sector agency may be reclassified by the agency on the initiative of the agency or on application to the agency by the employee.

(4) The regulations may not exclude the right of an employee to apply under Part 7 Division 4 to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission for review of a decision on an application by the employee under subsection (3)

My notes reflect the fact that the minister has indicated some level of support for this amendment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have, but I cannot indicate that we are prepared to support the amendment. But, certainly, it is our intention to provide for that right of review. I do not think that the form in which the member proposes it permits us to support the amendment, but between the houses we will work on those things.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am prepared to support that commitment. I therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Clause passed.

Clauses 49 to 51 passed.

Clause 52.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 26, line 24 [clause 52(1)(f)]—Delete paragraph (f)

Again this relates to my concerns about regulations that the parliament does not have any opportunity to scrutinise. I recognise that the minister has said that he is supportive of some of these issues; so I am just asking him to clarify.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 53.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 27, line 5 [clause53(1)—Delete:

'A public sector agency may not terminate the employment of an employee under subsection (1)(a) or (b) unless the agency' and substitute:

The employment of an employee may not be terminated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) unless the public sector agency

This is part of my series of amendments which maintain the power of the Commissioner for Public Employment to do certain things, and in this case it is leaving the power to terminate with the commissioner rather than the agency itself. The principles have already been canvassed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Mitchell's amendments mirror those proposed by the opposition. It has certainly been a very important issue for us, and it is one area that I focused upon quite strongly in my initial contribution. It is our position that, while good intentions certainly exist, there is concern that occasion may arise where a rash decision may be made in regard to the tenure of an employee and a decision made to terminate that position.

The opposition strongly believes that, instead of making a rash decision, which is then subject to review and appeal, which could be a lengthy and expensive process and very difficult upon the people involved, a preferred option, as espoused in the amendments from the member for Mitchell and myself, is for this agency to be required to present a paper or a submission to the Commissioner for Public Employment, and for the commissioner to then be in a position to consider the reasons as espoused within that submission and then to make a determination on whether it is a valid action to terminate the employment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have already canvassed the arguments.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (13)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. (teller) Gunn, G.M.
Hanna, K. Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M.
Pengilly, M. Redmond, I.M. Venning, I.H.
Williams, M.R.
NOES (26)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Lomax-Smith, J.D. Maywald, K.A.
McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A.
Snelling, J.J. Stevens, L. Weatherill, J.W. (teller)
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (6)
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Rann, M.D.
Pisoni, D.G. Koutsantonis, T.
McFetridge, D. Piccolo, T.

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 27, line 14 [clause 53(1)(f)]—Delete paragraph (f)

I believe this is an area where the minister has indicated some general acceptance of our concerns.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I indicate that we accept the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 54.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Page 27, lines 23 and 24 [clause 54(1)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) 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,

There has been some confirmation by the minister that there could possibly be a misunderstanding from our point of view. In the fullness of the debate that has occurred on this I am not sure I am entirely sure of the comments that the minister made, so he might like to take the opportunity to clarify that again for me.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The way in which the amending bill is set out is to put the penalties first. One of the penalties can be suspension without pay. It is hard to imagine there being a penalty of suspension with pay. You only need to think about that for a few moments to realise that that is sending somebody home while they are on full pay.

The first bit is about the question of penalties, and the second bit goes on to discuss the process. The process can be either suspension—clause 56 deals with the question of the power to suspend from duty, and that can be with or without pay, depending on the severity of the offence. So, with pay is the presumption and, in limited circumstances, without pay. That is the scheme of the act.

The initial reference to being suspended without pay is, in fact, a penalty. It is not part of the investigative process where you could imagine that either suspending with or without pay might be appropriate until you have established what is happening.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason for the amendment is that, while I understand that it is unusual where a disciplinary action is taken for a with-pay option to exist, to me it seems that it is necessary to retain the ability for some form of natural justice to occur.

My question as an extension of that is, therefore, that if a suspension is put in place through a disciplinary action without pay, but it is later found that the reasons for the suspension being put in place were not necessarily appropriate, on the basis of that person being returned to the workforce, are they in fact compensated for that lost pay?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In the relevant review mechanisms under the act there is provision to ensure that somebody who has been suspended without pay can be compensated for any period of time for which they had not received pay.

Mr HANNA: I am not doing this to demonstrate my irrepressible independence, but I have to say that I depart from the view of the Liberal opposition on this one, because I cannot see the value in suspending an employee with remuneration and accrual of leave rights.

There are a number of other criteria and restrictions around suspension of employees—there has to be some reason—but if it is going to be done I would have thought it is generally going to be appropriate to suspend them without pay. That may seem harsh, but I would have thought that it is generally in the context where there is a prima facie case for disciplinary action, and I think the government probably has the better view on this.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In this case I will let the amendment in my name stand and consider what the judgment of the house is.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 55 to 80 passed.

Schedule 1 passed.

Schedule 2.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Clause 1, page 41, lines 26 and 27 [Schedule 2, clause 1(2)]—

Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) The Governor may appoint a presiding commissioner and assistant commissioners to be the commission.

(2a) Before the Governor makes an appointment under subclause (2), the minister must invite representations from public sector representative organisations on the proposed appointment.

(2b) A person appointed as a commissioner must have, in the opinion of the Governor, appropriate knowledge and experience of principles and practices of personnel management in the public sector.

Note—The heading to clause 1 will be altered to 'Establishment of commission and appointment of commissioners'.

This is an important topic which has not been discussed before in this committee, and it relates to the Public Sector Grievance Review Commission. My view is that there should be representation of a union on the commission.

My amendments, taken together, would establish a panel of public sector employees nominated on the one hand by the commissioner and on the other hand by unions representing public servants. There would be a commission of several members to hear these grievances.

Essentially, my amendments relating to this schedule retain the degree of democracy that we have with the current arrangements. There are many examples of fairly detailed and specific issues within agencies where local knowledge could be of value, and the appointments from the panels of public sector employees, to which I have referred, could be very useful in coming to decisions in respect of such matters. There is also the issue of fairness. If an aggrieved public servant wishes to take a matter to the commission, I believe they will have more confidence that there will be a fair outcome—whether or not it favours them—if there is this representation.

I am really therefore addressing amendments Nos 12 and 13 together. I think it is important that we essentially retain the current arrangements in relation to the grievance commission rather than move to the government's model, which runs the risk of giving people less than a fair hearing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I support the member for Mitchell's amendments, which mirror the amendments proposed by the opposition. In his contribution this evening, the minister has commented on the fact that he feels that expanding any review tribunal will only delay the process for a determination to be made.

The basis on which the opposition framed these amendments and eventually deciding to support them, was that, while a single commissioner certainly would have expertise in areas, there was a thought that matters could be brought before the commissioner for a determination which would no doubt involve issues that the commissioner may not have experience in and about which he or she would require additional information to be provided. That, in itself, is a time-consuming process. Using the provisions of the current section 61 of the Public Sector Management Act 1995, which provides for a three-person review commission, it ensures that a wider level of expertise is brought into the one forum, which will ensure that information may not necessarily have to be sought from other sources. Hopefully, determinations can be made far quicker and with a perception of the issues involved, ensuring that there is a fairer and more equitable treatment of the review issue that has been debated so as to ensure that absolutely the right decision is made.

So, while what we are proposing may go back to the 1995 act and not support what the government is trying to do with this bill, we actually believe that it is far fairer and not necessarily a slower way of actually dealing with a complaint.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have really made our points about that before. It is a bit odd that the industrial commission is good enough for the more serious matters, yet we need a three-person tribunal for less serious matters. It does seem a little unwieldy. I do not know whether the point about having people on the tribunal that know about these things and therefore submissions are not needed is well made. To me, that would raise some natural justice points—if there were people who actually knew something that perhaps other people did not know about. That should be out in the open. We are not really talking about matters that should be beyond the ken of some well-credentialled person and personnel management issues of the type that are being raised.

There is, though, one element of what the member for Mitchell raises to which I am prepared to give some consideration, and that is the process of consultation with organisations prior to the appointment of such a person. I think it is proper. Precisely how we achieve that, once again, I would like the opportunity to consider that between the houses.

Mr HANNA: Just to break the issues down a little, the amendment we are currently dealing with does two things. It is not inconsistent with the clause in the government legislation, but it adds two things. It provides that, before making an appointment of a presiding commissioner or an assistant commissioner, the minister must invite representations from public sector representative organisations on the proposed appointment. So, this is the element of consultation to which the minister refers, and I appreciate the minister's offer to consider that further.

The second thing that the amendment does is to stipulate that a commissioner must have appropriate knowledge and experience of principles and practices of personnel management in the public sector. I do not think that is something which anyone would disagree with but, nonetheless, I consider it best to have it stated in the legislation. Perhaps the government will consider incorporating such a requirement when it considers that other matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Clause 2, page 42, lines 5 to 12—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Panels of nominees

(1) For the purposes of proceedings before the Commission there is to be—

(a) a panel of public sector employees nominated by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment; and

(b) a panel of public sector employees nominated by public sector representative organisations.

(2) The minister may, from time to time, invite the public sector representative organisations to nominate employees to constitute a panel.

(3) If a public sector representative organisation fails to make a nomination in response to an invitation within the time allowed in the invitation, the Minister may choose public sector employees instead of nominees of the organisation and any employees are to be taken to have been nominated to the relevant panel.

(4) A person ceases to be a member of the panel if the person—

(a) ceases to be a public sector employee; or

(b) resigned by notice in writing to the Minister; or

(c) is removed from the panel by the Minister on the ground of misconduct, neglect of duty, incompetence or mental or physical incapacity to carry out duties of the member satisfactorily; or

(d) has completed a period of 2 years as a member of the panel since being nominated, or last renominated, as a member of the panel, and is not renominated to the panel.

2A—Proceedings—constitution of Commission and other matters

(1) The Commission will, for the purposes of hearing and determining proceedings, be constituted of—

(a) the presiding commissioner or, at the direction of the presiding commissioner, an assistant commissioner; and

(b) a member of the panel of nominees of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment selected by the presiding commissioner for the purpose of the proceedings; and

(c) a member of the panel of nominees of public sector representative organisations selected for the purpose of the proceedings—

(i) by the applicant for review; or

(ii) if there are 2 or more applicants and they do not agree on the selection of the nominee—by the presiding commissioner.

(2) The Commission may sit contemporaneously to hear separate proceedings.

(3) If proceedings part heard when a person ceases to hold office as a commissioner, or ceases to hold office as a member of a panel on retirement or resignation from public sector employment, on resignation, or on completion of a period of 2 years as a member of the panel, the person may continue to act in the office for the purpose of completing the hearing and determination of the proceedings.

(4) The presiding commissioner or assistant commissioner is to preside at the hearing of any proceedings of the Commission.

(5) A decision in which any 2 or more members of the Commission concurred is a decision of the Commission.

(6) A member of the Commission who is a public sector employee is not subject to direction as an employee in respect of the performance of duties as a member of the Commission.

Although I made some general remarks about both of these amendments together, this is not, in fact, consequential. This amendment has the effect of constituting the commission as three people, namely, the presiding commissioner and two panel members—one from a panel nominated by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and the other from a panel nominated by one of the unions. We have just canvassed the reasons for doing so. I think that the reasons provided by the member for Goyder and myself remain valid, notwithstanding the minister's remarks.

In relation to delay, I point out that there is a provision within the amendment which provides that, if the union does not make a nomination in response to an invitation to constitute a particular commission, then the minister may choose a public servant to take their place. So, there is a failsafe mechanism there to prevent undue delay being caused by tardiness on the part of a union.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I make no remarks.

Amendment negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. P.L. White): Does the member for Goyder wish to proceed?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move that amendment No. 16 in my name be considered.

The ACTING CHAIR: The honourable member can only proceed with subclause (7), and I presume that the member does not wish to proceed with that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, I do. But again it is on the assumption that the amendment is supported. We wish to ensure that these matters can be dealt with quickly and it was felt to put some form of time limit in place other than where an opportunity might exist by application to extend the consideration. I move:

Page 42, after line 5—Insert:

(7) The commission must endeavour to complete any review within three months and must, in any event, proceed as quickly as a proper consideration of the matter allows.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 3 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (21:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members for their contribution. We have made undertakings to consider certain matters between the houses, and I hope that we can ensure a speedy passage of the bill in the other place.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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