HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SECTOR CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2009. Page 4255.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): It is my pleasure to have this opportunity to contribute to the Statutes Amendment (Public Sector Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009. Several months ago I had the responsibility for the Public Sector Bill when that was debated, and that background has been quite advantageous when considering this matter. Even though this bill rests, from a shadow ministry responsibility, with the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place, I indicate that I will be the lead speaker in the House of Assembly on this bill.

We recognise that the bill was introduced by the minister on 14 October. The opposition is generally quite supportive of the bill, but we will be asking some questions. There are a couple of points I will be asking the minister to clarify towards the end, and that, in fact, may prompt us to consider some amendment opportunities, but we will see what sort of answers the minister provides.

We recognise that this bill amends some 170 acts and comes about as a result of the passing of the Public Sector Act 2009 several months ago and the resulting provisions of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

I think it is fair to say that the Public Sector Act 2009 was the result of a considerable level of negotiation. The government put a draft of the bill out for consultation in late 2007, I believe, and it received feedback from that. When the bill eventually came up for debate I was very pleased at the level of opportunity provided to speak to the minister's chief of staff, Mr Simon Blewett, and the support and cooperation that he gave the opposition.

It was also pleasing to note the debate that occurred in the House of Assembly, where the member for Mitchell contributed quite strongly, with amendments proposed by us, some of those eventually being accepted by the government. I think that in the other place, with the support of minority and crossbenchers, it resulted in a bill that should, we believe, serve collectively the members of the Public Service in South Australia very well into the future.

This is certainly an opportunity to pay tribute to the Public Service, a collection of some 79,000 full-time equivalent people who have a very challenging role, in many cases, to provide services to South Australians, often in difficult situations, often with a challenge involved, but overwhelmingly with a dedication to the role that they have undertaken, a role that they actually perform for South Australia. So, I would put on the record again the level of respect that we hold for them.

The intention of the act is to ensure that the public sector, as I understand it, is governed by a comprehensive set of principles, with greater emphasis on one government. I think that is important because the public sector is very diverse—it is certainly across many departments and many physical locations—but importantly, the principles have to be uniform throughout. So, the intention of this bill is an appropriate one and a good one.

The principles for the public sector include becoming an employer of choice. There is no doubt that the public sector, as with all industries, in future years will be faced with an increasing number of baby boomers who will retire. There will be a challenge for South Australia to actually provide the labour force that it needs, and the public sector will find it difficult in many cases to recruit staff.

Comments provided during estimates sessions a few months ago indicate that there are, I think, something like 12,000 members of the public sector each year who decide to move on, and recruiting their replacement is an enormous challenge. The principle espoused in the act to encourage the development of staff is, again, important. People who work in a rewarding situation and have the opportunity to develop careers are certainly more inclined to stay within an organisation. The public sector needs the continuation of that corporate knowledge. Yes, while it is great and energising to have new people coming in all the time who see things from a different perspective, corporate knowledge and the understanding of how to deal with issues are important.

We have a couple of questions. An obvious one from the start has been why these amendments were not considered as part of the bill debated several months ago. In hindsight, I understand that doing that at the same time as considering quite a few amendments moved by a variety of members (the opposition, Independents and cross-bench parties) would have been a bit challenging. There is some understanding of the need to let that act consolidate, then let it settle down, look at the statute book and determine what level of change needs to be considered and then to do it across all acts of parliament. That is why we have something today that is considering an amendment to 170 different acts. That, in itself, would be quite significant.

As I understand it, the review of the statute book has looked at areas such as bringing immunity provisions affecting the public sector into line with section 74 of the Public Sector Act 2009; resolving inconsistencies in conflicts of interest and similar duties affecting the public sector; substituting references to a repealed public sector legislation; resolving references to particular departments and offices; and updating terminology to reflect the Public Sector Act of 2009 and removing duplication.

No doubt, there is a need constantly for acts of parliament to be renewed to some level and that has been the history of the parliament to look at where it needs to be improved. By supporting this bill, even though we might give consideration to some amendments in the other place, and amending the 170 acts is an appropriate step.

We note the removal of reference relating to the conflict of interest for public sector administrators and others to ensure consistency through the reliance on the public sector honesty and accountability act. I have some questions about that in the conflict of interest and immunity provisions that are proposed for this. We also note the fact that the exceptions for the immunity include the police and the courts, but I suppose the question we would like the minister to consider relates to using a template for conflict of interest and a template for immunity provisions across all of these acts. Presumably, all these acts were written at different stages of the parliament and different stages of South Australian history and reflect the drafting principles that were in place at that time. Some different thoughts were in use—some quite strong in basis, some not quite so.

The opposition is interested in instances where you might use a template and where a median position has been found which, from the government's perspective, it hopes will cover all these possibilities. Is the minister able to provide any comment (quoting specific acts, if possible, although it might be somewhat difficult in the short term) on areas where instances of using the template approach has enforced the provision of the legislation? Also, it is a key issue for us to identify instances of where using the template has resulted in a diminution of that.

I appreciate the fact that the minister is nodding his head in agreement because he recognises that it is an issue. For us, specifically in the conflict of interest and the immunity areas, we would be interested to get some comment from the minister about where that has had an impact. In the consideration of this bill between the houses, it is those areas that we will examine as to whether there is an opportunity or need for some amendments to be proposed.

My advice is that the Public Sector Association, which was heavily involved in the consideration of the Public Sector Bill some months ago, has offered its support for this bill. It has no substantial concerns and is supportive of the legislation. From the opposition's point of view, we certainly appreciate the fact that the information requested by the shadow minister, the Hon. Rob Lucas, was provided by the minister's staff quite promptly. The opposition party room has considered the amendments that are proposed. Generally, as I confirm again, we support the intent of the legislation and we look forward to a few comments from the minister about those template issues as we progress the bill.

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) (16:34): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the indication of his support for the bill. I look forward to addressing his questions in the committee stage (should he ask them) in relation to conflict of interest provisions. I might just add that the nodding of my head was more to indicate that I understood his question rather than to accept that there was a difficulty or an issue. Nevertheless, we will find out about that when we get to the specific clause in question. I would like to thank the opposition for its support for the bill and look forward to its speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: May I have an indication of areas of interest, please?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is a rather interesting challenge to identify a particular one. In looking through the bill there are quite a few areas where it talks about conflict of interest and immunity. I wonder if the minister is able, more as a general principle, to provide some advice on where the use of the templates might create that issue.

The CHAIR: Perhaps for form's sake we will deal first with clause 1.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

The CHAIR: I note that clause 65 talks about disclosure of interest; clause 57 talks about conflict of interest, as does clause 56. Can you check whether your query can be appropriately dealt with there, or is it earlier?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The first one I can find that relates to conflict of interest is clause 15 on page 20.

Clauses 3 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I just want to re-assert my request for the minister to provide some details as to the use of a template. I apologise for the fact that it might not relate to this particular amendment to the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust Act but, indeed, as more of a general comment where the use of the template will impact in either a positive or negative sense, as to how the provisions of the conflict of interest under this act were previously implemented.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take the answer to the question in two parts; the first is the conflict of interest provisions. The first thing that needs to be said is that the honesty and accountability act to provisions, which are replicated now, have enhanced the conflict provisions so that they are more comprehensive in almost all respects, except for one in some acts, and that is the question of the penalty for the breach of those provisions.

Essentially, we have harmonised the provisions concerning penalties so that there is now only a fine that would be capable of being imposed for a breach of those provisions, instead of a fine or imprisonment, and it is in respect of only a certain element of the conflict of interest provision disclosure, as opposed to dishonesty.

So, what we have is a very narrow part of conflict of interest provisions which, in some acts, provided for a penalty that included imprisonment, and we are now no longer ensuring that that penalty exists. Those acts are: the Economic Development Act, the Independent Gambling Authority Act, the Motor Accident Commission Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act, the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Act, the South Australian Film Corporation Act, the South Australian Tourism Commission Act, the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Zero Waste Act.

A small number of the total number of those acts contained clauses that provided for imprisonment in addition to the penalty of a fine in respect of the breach of certain elements of the conflict of interest provisions. Why did we do that? First, we cannot find an instance of a term of imprisonment being imposed, so it has not been used, and, secondly, it is not regarded as desirable that that be the penalty for conflict of interest provisions.

The latest legislative expression of that policy choice was made by the parliament when it passed the amendments to the Public Sector Management Act in around 2003. In a sense, the last time the parliament considered this matter from a policy perspective, it chose not to use imprisonment as one of the penalties for a breach of conflict of interest provision.

With respect to the question of immunities, they are the immunities that are enjoyed by public servants and which protect them from various legal proceedings. So, it is a benefit. I take the member's question to relate to whether the protections have in any way been diminished by the standard clauses that are applied in the act. The answer is that they are not damaged. The extent of the protections that exist under the various acts for public servants, albeit differently expressed in some acts, are no less than the protections that have been provided for in this act.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 to 387) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

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) (16:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I wish to congratulate all those who have worked on bringing this act to fruition, in particular, Craig Stevens and Jan Ellis. I would particularly like to single out parliamentary counsel Christine Swift for the extraordinary amount of detailed work that needs to go into analysing the incredible number of acts that this bill amends as a consequence of the earlier Public Sector Bill. It is very high quality work and it was done with great precision and care, and I would like to thank her for her work in that regard. I also thank the opposition for its support for the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


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