HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

South Australian Productivity Commission Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr MULLIGHAN: My question about clause 4 is a fairly broad and general one: what is the purpose of establishing this commission in legislation, given that its functions and objects seem to be able to be conducted via a sole relationship with a minister rather than its annual reporting?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I thank the member for his question. I think there are three reasons why we would ensure that this was put in place by an act of the parliament. The first is transparency. The former minister, the member in his contribution to the parliament earlier today, outlined a range of other methods that a government could use to improve productivity, but one of the critical areas in which I think the people of South Australia were critical of the former government—and certainly we were in opposition—was the lack of transparency. I think one of the reasons why we would establish this as an act of the parliament and to ensure that the objects of the Productivity Commission are very clear is so that the people of South Australia could be assured of what the government specifically was doing. I think that that is absolutely critical.

Some people have made the point: why did we not have a productivity commission previously? The government had an economic development board. The Economic Development Board did a lot of good work, and I agree with that, but not many people in South Australia knew what the Economic Development Board was doing. With the productivity commission, it is exactly the other way around. You can have the productivity commission conducting inquiries—which are mainly conducted in public—and the interim report is published, the final report is published, and the people of South Australia know what is going on. That is very important.

The second thing this does, by setting it up as a separate, stand-alone statutory authority, is that it provides independence to the independent advice. When you have an economic development board that is something not enshrined in legislation, or a committee, or indeed personal advice or advice to the government of the day, it does not necessarily follow that the advice is independent. With a productivity commission we know that the advice is independent because it is provided to the people of South Australia at pretty much exactly the same time it is provided to the government. I think that is important.

The third and final area is that we are setting up a new institution in South Australia, one that we on this side of the chamber are very proud of. We want to see productivity improving. We do not want this to be something that is set up for one, two or three years and then forgotten about. With the previous government, we saw all sorts of committees and government advisory organisations that would shift around like sand on the beach. What we are doing here is setting up an institution that we believe will stand the test of time, an institution that I think those opposite, even those who may be cynical or not appreciative of its true value, will over time come to understand is a fine institution.

It is one that has served our nation well at the federal level with the Australian Productivity Commission, as members opposite acknowledge. It was set up in 1998, but there were plenty of organisations that led to its establishment. In Australia, we have had this sort of independent advice to the federal government for decades and decades, and it has served our nation well. What we are doing here is a similar thing, enshrining in legislation an institution that we think will stand the test of time, provide independent advice to the government and offer the people of South Australia real transparency about the advice being offered to the executive government.

Mr MULLIGHAN: How will the work of this commission differ from the economic advisory council to be established by the new government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In my previous answer, I talked about the difference between this body and the Economic Development Board set up by the previous government, but the honourable member is right that we are going to have a new body that is set up to provide advice. That is advice to the Premier about the economic direction of our state.

The productivity commission will be quite different. It will be a body that will take referral from the government but that will go out and provide an opportunity for all members here in South Australia to give their advice to the commission on particular issues, and then ultimately the productivity commission will form a balanced view from all that advice and provide that to the government of the day. It is quite a different orientation, one which is on the overall productivity of our state, whereas the advisory council we are looking to set up for the Premier will have a broader remit beyond productivity. Productivity is crucial, but it will address other issues related to economic growth and social issues as well.

Clause passed

Clause 5.

Ms BETTISON: My question relates to clause 5(1)(a). One of the objects of the commission is to improve the rate of economic growth and productivity in order to achieve higher living standards for South Australians. How will we benchmark this result? How will it be measured? Is it the increase in gross domestic product, gross state product, the United Nations Human Development Index, for example? Can the Premier talk about our aims for increasing income from this, for employment or unemployment rates? What will be the measure within this?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The member asks a very reasonable and important question about the objects of the commission. She identifies from clause 5 the rate of economic growth and productivity and asks specifically how this will be measured. We do not have gross domestic product at the state level, but the member quite rightly identifies gross state product. This is one measure, but it cannot be limited to that. You might note also that the Australian Productivity Commission publishes each year, usually very early in the year in January or February, the Report on Government Services (RoGS) that provides, if you like, that benchmark across state for the provision of services—this would be another example.

However, let's be very clear: this new commission will take a number of referrals and look into specific areas where we want to effect change and improvement in South Australia, and there will be a different measure for different areas that we are investigating. Some will be just purely economic growth; some might be around employment; some might be around better access to services or better outcomes for services or better cost-benefit ratios for services. We are not stating in this a set of finite key performance indicators but more a reference to the broad objectives of the commission.

I think one of the best things about this commission is that it is a broad commission that can tackle a range of projects, not just one or two narrow areas. I believe it will stand the test of time because there will be different orientations from different governments over a long period of time, and they will want specific things investigated by this body.

Mr MULLIGHAN: In clause 5(2) the commission has the following functions further to its objects: to hold inquiries and report to the minister. Is the act to be committed to you as the Premier or is the act to be committed to the Treasurer, to the government?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To me as the Premier.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Further to a previous answer that the Premier provided, the economic advisory council is to be established by the new government, to replace the Economic Development Board, to provide you as Premier with economic advice. The purpose of the productivity commission is also to advise you as minister to which the act is committed. So you have two organisations providing you with economic advice; is that correct?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not really sure what the point of the question is, but as the Premier I have multiple sources of advice. I think that the member opposite would remember his time in government—it was not that long ago—when he would have sought advice from numerous sources. I think this is pretty sensible, quite frankly. Getting as many different pieces of advice as possible will make sure that we get the best results for the people of South Australia.

Just because this bill, and ultimately, if it passes, this act, will be committed to me as the Premier, it does not mean that it does not provide advice to the government as a whole. The referrals will be made from the government to the productivity commission. The productivity commission will conduct its inquiries and make its report to the government but, as I have previously stated, it will also be making its report public. There will be a lot of transparency around this measure so that all the people of South Australia can benefit from the advice of this new body that we are establishing.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I noticed that in the course of the answer the Premier was receiving no doubt the wise counsel of the member for Morialta. Shortly after receiving such wise counsel, the Premier pivoted to another part of his answer where he said that the commission will be receiving commissions from the government as well as the minister. Could the Premier perhaps explain how those two different processes of commissioning inquiries will work?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Could you just clarify your question?

Mr MULLIGHAN: Sure. You have advised us that the minister, which is you, is able to commission an inquiry and, upon counsel from the member for Morialta, also advised us that the government can commission inquiries. How will the cabinet, as well as the minister, commission these inquiries?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will be making a referral. Of course, as we have stated many times in parliament recently, we are adopting a new approach, and that is a cabinet government. I know that previous governments have said that they are cabinet governments. We are genuinely a cabinet government, so I think it would be very appropriate for me to take suggestions through cabinet before the referrals are made to the productivity commission. I think it is a very sensible way to go and one that we will be putting in place.

Ms COOK: How will the referrals actually be made by the minister? How will that happen? What is the process?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not trying to be difficult, but are you just asking how do we convey it?

Ms COOK: What is the process?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not think we have covered that off in here, whether it is going to be a telephone call, whether it is going to be a letter, an email or a pigeon, but I feel pretty capable in conveying a message and a referral. If the member opposite would like to move an amendment to seek greater clarification, whether it be an email or a letter, she can feel very free to do so—I would not be supporting it—but I do not have any doubt in my ability to convey a referral to the productivity commission.

Ms COOK: I just want you to clarify this for us: are there options for the referral to be made by any means? There is no specific process. Can it be a phone call, an email, a note or a conversation? Is there going to be an actual procedure for this?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have answered that in my previous answer.

Ms BETTISON: When you considered this, and how it would function, did you consider that there would be a role for the parliament to initiate inquiries to the productivity commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr MULLIGHAN: With regard to the clause regarding independence, in an earlier response the Premier said that the commission will be providing interim as well as final reports to the minister. Is there a capacity for the minister or, indeed, the government, as the entity seems to be interpreted as the same, to provide feedback to the commission on those interim reports?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think those interim reports will be made publicly available, and I would encourage anybody who reads an interim report to provide feedback to the productivity commission.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Will the interim report be made public at the same time that it is provided to the minister?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would envisage that it would, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Could the Premier perhaps provide some examples of the type of statements, other reports—and I am not referring to interim or final reports as a result of inquiries commissioned by the minister—and other guidelines that might be published from time to time by the commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This clause really deals with how the productivity commission will go about interacting with the broader population here in South Australia, and how they would go about publishing statements. For example, you could imagine that an inquiry was instigated by the Premier to the productivity commission. The commission would probably do an issues paper, which would be published for the people of South Australia and flesh out a range of issues that may have been considered in other jurisdictions, or maybe some desktop research that is provided to the people of South Australia. That is an example of how it would go about publishing a statement. It may also outline how it seeks to receive feedback from the people of South Australia. That is what I think is envisaged in clause 7.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I thank the Premier for providing that answer. One of the reasons for my asking that question, other than to seek his counsel, was that in some of his previous statements he alluded to the fact that the federal Productivity Commission provides its annual report on government services, for example, and my understanding is that it also, from time to time, provides reports on various aspects of Australian economic performance. Are similar types of reports envisaged by this commission and, if so, what would they be?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: They could be, but that would be on discussion between the Premier and the productivity commissioner. There is nothing specifically envisaged that we would incorporate into the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Premier, in your comments to the house earlier today you alluded to the fact that the membership has already been settled. Who are the members of the commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I certainly did not.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Have any members been confirmed for the commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not something that we wish to highlight at the moment. We have a bill before us, and I cannot see that the make-up of the people, whether or not they have been appointed, has anything whatsoever to do with the clauses in the bill. The member opposite might like to check the Hansard before he makes an allegation that I had previously indicated that it had been settled. I think he might find that it says that it may have been settled.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It was an interjection, so it probably was not recorded at all, for the Premier's benefit. The reason I ask is that, if the Premier said that it was or may have been settled, then of course it would be a matter of interest to the parliament if the government has sought and locked in membership before the bill has provided for the establishment of the membership of the commission. Has it been agreed by the government that anyone should be a member or chair of this commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My answer to the previous question stands.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Hear, hear!

Ms BEDFORD: You do not know what I am going to say yet. I am still worried about the pigeon. Can the Premier advise us how the Governor will receive names as recommendations for commissioner?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is fair to say that there is a huge amount of interest in this. Whilst there is a Productivity Commission at the federal level, and there has been a Productivity Commission in Queensland, this is the next cab off the rank and people are looking at this very carefully. We have had some discussions with people who have recommended names of people who would be suitable, and when we have an announcement to make we will make it for the people of South Australia.

However, it is fair to say that the bill has not passed yet. I think it will pass because people recognise it is a good contribution to improving the productivity of our state. So I think it will pass, and soon thereafter we will make an announcement regarding the inaugural chair and the composition of the productivity commission.

Ms COOK: What sort of remuneration is envisaged for the chair of the committee?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is not something that is covered by this bill, and it is not something I am canvassing in the public domain. I am sure it will be, once it is decided, something that will be known to the people of South Australia, but I will not be passing on that information at the moment.

Ms BETTISON: Is it your expectation that the commissioner will be here on a full-time basis?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This legislation, as you would envisage, goes beyond the initial appointment. We have created an opportunity to consider that somebody may be here as a full-time chair taking on some of the, if you like, CE role as well, and also a situation where we may have a part-time chair here in South Australia, who may be employed doing other work. Both models can operate under the legislation that is provided.

Ms COOK: Is there an anticipated budget for the whole commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, there is. Can I just say that in our campaign costing document, we had a figure of $1.5 million per annum indexed over the forward estimates. Since then, we have decided to also take the resources currently allocated to the Simpler Regulation Unit, which currently sits within the Department of Treasury and Finance, and they will be relocated into the commission. There may be some additional cost to the establishment of the commission. If that is the case, then that will be included in the September budget.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Just to refresh the memory of us all, several of the objects of the commission were, how can I politely put it, borrowed from the federal act. I am wondering for the purposes of clause 9—Commissioners, why similarly requirements that are outlined in the federal act in terms of the experience or the knowledge of commissioners was not replicated in the South Australian bill before us now?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have the federal bill before me so it is difficult for me to make a comparison. We have arrived at this after consultation looking at not only the legislation which exists at the federal level but also in other state jurisdictions, and we believe that this is the legislation which best serves the needs of the people of South Australia. Again, I just say to those opposite, if they have any suggestions for improvement: please feel free to move an amendment.

Mr MULLIGHAN: For the benefit of the Premier, the federal act specifies a fairly general clause up-front that a person must not be appointed as a commissioner unless he or she has in the opinion of the Governor General—obviously the federal equivalent—the qualifications and experience relevant to the commission's functions. That is fair enough, but the subsequent sections then go into specific skills:

At least one Commissioner must have extensive skills and experience in applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development and environmental conservation.

The next one is:

At least one Commissioner must have extensive skills and experience in dealing with the social effects of economic adjustment and social welfare service delivery.

And:

At least one Commissioner must have extensive skills and experience acquired in working in Australian industry.

I note that in clause 9(1) a person may be appointed as a commissioner who is qualified for appointment because of a person's knowledge of, or experience in, only one or more of the fields and then it lists the fields. The concern I raise is that all commissioners may come from one of the following fields: industry, commerce, economics, law or public administration, and ignore those areas that the federal act pays particular attention to, particularly those areas of social effects of economic adjustment, social welfare service delivery, sustainable development and environmental conservation. How will the Premier perhaps assuage the fears of the parliament that there will be a broad representation of the skills of the commissioners?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is not the parliament that is appointing the commissioners; it is actually the Premier that is appointing the commissioners. I have no such fears. It will be appointed by the Governor of South Australia on the recommendation of the cabinet, but I have no such fears that we will not be able to get a very complete set of skills represented on that commission.

We have kept ourselves with a maximum amount of flexibility, as you will see from the legislation that we have put forward to the parliament. There is a chair and then up to four commissioners. It might not be that we appoint all four immediately. We might appoint two, or one, or three, and give ourselves some flexibility so that, if there is a referral to the productivity commissioner, and they do not have the requisite skill set, we will be able to appoint a new productivity commissioner who does have the skills. We have very deliberately kept this as broad as possible and we as a party much prefer the term 'may' rather than 'must'.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Regarding clause 9(5):

A Commissioner must not engage, without the consent of the Minister, in any other remunerated employment.

Given not just the potential conflict in time allocation to duties, how can the parliament or the public of South Australia understand what other remunerated employment a commissioner might be engaged in?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is regarding clause 9, is it?

The CHAIR: Clause 9.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It provides:

A Commissioner must not engage, without the consent of the Minister, in any other remunerated employment.

This is to make sure that we understand what other work the commissioners do to avoid any conflicts. I think it is a pretty reasonable request. For example, a productivity commissioner in South Australia could in fact simultaneously be a productivity commissioner at the federal level, or they could be a deputy secretary within federal Treasury. They could have another role which would be complementary, but we would like to know what 'any other' role is to make sure that we can manage any conflicts.

Mr MULLIGHAN: My question is: how would everybody else know what that other work is?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know that that is envisaged in the legislation. As I keep saying, this is not something which is not a parliamentary appointment. It is an appointment by the Governor, which is on the recommendation of the Premier and the cabinet.

Ms BETTISON: Given your previous answer, it strikes me that we are hearing a difference between stability and flexibility for who will be on the commission. Can you elaborate further on how you will achieve that balance?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Between?

Ms BETTISON: The stability of a commissioner, who you said can be up to five years, and the potential that we might have people come in and out of the commission from time to time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think the honourable member explained it pretty well herself. It is a balance between stability, so we can appoint for up to five years, but in some instances there will be shorter terms. As I said in my previous answer, it is not necessary, but a full complement of commissioners needs to be in place the entire time, which does maximise the amount of flexibility that we have. If you contrast that with what we have the moment, if a government of any political persuasion wants to have an inquiry done in South Australia, they have to go and find one single person to do that.

You have to establish an office, put the researchers in place and put the back office, if you like, in place of every single inquiry, which can take a long time and also cost a lot of money. By having this body in place, the government now has an alternative, where it can direct or make a referral for an inquiry to the productivity commission where there is a body already established, where there is an office, protocols, a back office and a research capability established.

We believe that by doing this there will be a number of advantages: (1) that the inquiries will be more timely; (2) that we will get greater economies from the inquiries; and, (3) one of the advantages of having a productivity commission is that the person who is doing the inquiry is not doing it by themselves. The inquiry is done by the commission and there is, if you like, a review within the commission that I think would add to the quality of the ultimate report.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It is just a request for some information. The Premier alluded to the staff of the department's better economic regulation unit, I think it is called, being transferred from the Department of Treasury and Finance to the commission. You do not have to provide it right now but perhaps before it heads upstairs. Is the Premier able to advise the committee how many staff, what the remuneration cost is and whether that is a part of the $1.5 million budget that was alluded to earlier?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not have that number with me at the moment, but it is called the Simpler Regulation Unit, which sits within the Department of Treasury and Finance. The cost associated with the personnel who will be transferred from the Department of Treasury and Finance to the productivity commission will be in addition to the $1.5 million envisaged in our campaign costing document. We think that this will significantly help the smooth and efficient operation of the productivity commission. If the honourable member would like details of the exact cost, I am more than happy to provide that between the houses.

Ms BEDFORD: Premier, are you anticipating any savings, perhaps, in persons already employed by the Public Service being reassigned to the productivity commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No. The Simpler Regulation Unit has, I am reliably informed, around six people, and we would envisage that that be continued and augmented with other staff in the productivity commission. The real efficiency of this, as I said a couple of answers ago, would be when the government wants to make an inquiry. All governments want to make inquiries, and this just gives another option.

That is not to say that the government will always and only use the productivity commission to conduct all inquiries, but it does give an option for, I believe, more timely, cost-effective, better referenced and internally workshopped reports because there is not just one author for an inquiry but multiple people who can review interim results. I think that by doing that we will get a better result. I think that methodology will provide some efficiencies to the government and some cost savings.

Ms BEDFORD: Apart from the roughly six people we are talking about in the unit you have mentioned, would there be no other public servants, from anywhere in the Public Service, ever called upon to advise the productivity commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is envisaged that, from time to time when there is a specific inquiry, some public servants could be seconded into the productivity commission. I imagine that if there was a specific inquiry into a detailed area where there is a lot of experience in the Public Service, which does not reside within the Public Service but within departmental staffing arrangements, those staff, or some of those staff, could be seconded to the productivity commission for expert advice during the life of that inquiry.

Ms BEDFORD: Finally, would those positions be backfilled from their departments?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I would envisage that would be the case.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I refer to subclause (1)(b):

persons appointed by the Commission on terms and conditions determined by the Commission.

Will those employment conditions and remuneration arrangements be consistent with like positions in other areas of the Public Service?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, absolutely.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I will take a question mischievously grouping a reference to both clauses 11 and 12, and that is the employment arrangements in general and the use of consultants. Will the details of those two be disclosed in the commission's annual report?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is envisaged that the productivity commission would have exactly the same compliance requirements as other government-controlled entities, so the answer to that is, yes, it will be disclosed. That sort of expenditure will be disclosed in the annual report as per other government-controlled entities.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I can understand that, if the commission was conducting an inquiry that required some particular research or economic modelling, for example, that task might be carried out by someone external to the commission and particularly expert in that. Are there any types of delegation, beyond that sort of arrangement, that are envisaged by this clause?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am advised that clause 13 was really one that was suggested as an administrative clause by parliamentary counsel, but there is nothing specifically envisaged that I would be able to report from this. I think the example that you give is a very reasonable example to give, but there is nothing else over and above that that I envisage from clause 13.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that and I suspected that may be the case, but it is just that the manner in which this clause has been drafted and also one of the last clauses of the bill about the making of regulations is a very, very broad catch-all. There are some functions of the commission that are required of it, as per this bill, that seem able to be unconditionally delegated on whatever terms and conditions the commission sees fit. It just seems a fairly broad capacity for otherwise statutory responsibilities to be carried out by somebody who might otherwise have no connection to the commission or the Public Service.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My previous answer stands, quite frankly. There is nothing that is specifically envisaged with this clause. It is the advice of parliamentary counsel that we put it in because there may be some extenuating circumstances. It is not something that we would be using in the normal course, but with the drafting of this legislation, it is better to provide for all and any possibilities and this is the advice that we have received.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Very briefly, will any delegations, if they do occur, be publicly reported or declared, for example in the agency's annual report?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I believe they would be.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Obviously, the potential for a conflict of interest for a commissioner or the chair of the commission, if it were perceived to occur, would give rise to great concern amongst some people. I appreciate that clause 14(1) requires that the person who may have the conflict declare it to the minister and take those appropriate steps, which of course is appropriate, but my first question was really about clause 2 and that is the resolution of that conflict. Perhaps the Premier and his adviser could give some examples as to how that would be managed.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The clause that the honourable member is referring to is really there to ensure that we seek advice from a commissioner of any potential conflict so that it can be resolved before any work is done so that we can be assured that there is no bias in the final report. If there is, of course, this is a matter for the chair of the commission and then ultimately it could be resolved by going for advice to the Premier. I think that early acknowledgement of any potential conflicts would allow the early resolution of any of those conflicts, to make sure that they do not end up the subject of any concern once the final report is published.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I have a question about subclause (3):

This section does not apply if the interest is as a result of the supply of goods or services that are available to members of the public on the same terms and conditions.

My understanding is that a similar clause is provided for in the Queensland Productivity Commission Act. Could you perhaps try to advise the parliament why that clause is appropriate for this circumstance and what it captures?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is a similar clause to the one that exists within the ESCOSA Act in South Australia. I can imagine that some people could say, 'Well, I'm not going to do it. Am I precluded from doing an inquiry into the wine industry because I drink wine?' There would not be too many people who could do that inquiry, of course.

Ms Bedford: I could do it.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The member for Florey would be happy to do that inquiry. She is not envisaged to become a commissioner in the early days of the productivity commission, but I would not like to rule out further opportunities for the member for Florey post her 30 or 40 years in this house. This is really mirroring the provision in the ESCOSA Act, and I hope that my example is useful to the member.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I guess my concern was not about whether you might consume a product that is manufactured by an industry—for example, wine—but whether somebody might hold shares that are available to members of the public. My more substantive question was: will there be a register of the chair's and commissioners' pecuniary interests and will that be made publicly available somehow, either through the annual report or by other means?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, I do not envisage a register, but, as I said, all potential conflicts should be disclosed and discussed with the chair, and ultimately any conflict should be resolved in discussion with the minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr MULLIGHAN: The last subclause, subclause (6), states: 'Subject to this Act, the Commission may regulate its own procedures.' Will there be any formal records kept of meetings of the commission, either in taking advice or evidence from people who appear before it or in deliberative meetings?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What I am advised is that the commission will establish its own framework for taking and recording evidence from people. It will, of course, have records which it keeps, and those records will be subject to all the various legislation that other public corporations or government-controlled entities in South Australia are required to abide by.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Referring to subclause (2), is it usual that any other person who is not an employee of the commission or a commissioner be able to execute documents on behalf of an agency like the commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know whether it is usual, but this is certainly what has been provided to us by parliamentary counsel. Again, I invite those opposite if they have an alternative to put it forward now.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Ms BETTISON: Based on annual performance plan and budget, subclause (1) states:

The Commission must, from time to time, prepare and submit to the Minister a performance plan and budget for the next financial year…

When we were given our briefing, I suggested that there did not appear to be a commitment to a certain case load of inquiries. I understand that the federal Productivity Commission commits to six inquiries per year. Is there a reason why you did not give a particular figure for the number of inquiries that you would undertake?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The federal Productivity Commission has operated for many decades and that is what they have settled on. This is a brand-new instrument of the people of South Australia and we are not prepared to commit to a number. What we are looking for in the first instance is quality and outcomes, rather than just a number of actual inquiries. All I can do is assure this house and the honourable member opposite that this will be a very hardworking group—I am absolutely sure of it. From the people I have spoken to so far, there is a lot of interest, as I said, in joining the South Australia productivity commission. People are excited about the opportunity to improve the overall productivity of this state.

Ms BETTISON: I know that you envisage that the productivity commission will be around for some time to come. Looking forward to this financial year, would you put a number on the inquiries you expect—one, two, three inquiries? Obviously, you are very excited about this new commission and very committed to it. I am just keen to understand what the workload will be during the initial period.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Of course, as the member would be more than aware, we have not appointed a chair. I think that it is sensible to discuss that with the inaugural chair to see what their capacities are. We would, of course, discuss the topics that we would be looking to make early referrals and they would then, in discussion with the government, look at the workload and the resources that they have been provided with by the government and then we would work on a plan, which will be made clear to the people of South Australia at the time.

Ms BETTISON: What do you think your first inquiry might be?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That will be a very exciting day and I am sure those opposite are very excited about the opportunity when we make that announcement. I hope they will be there. There are lots of things that we can look at; however, tonight in this chamber we are looking at the overall framework, rather than at the specific referrals that will go to this body, so I would prefer if we could just stay on the individual clauses.

Mr MULLIGHAN: In approaching the potential commissioners, has the government canvassed any potential inquiry subjects?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As you would be aware, sir, this is a policy position that the Liberal Party in South Australia has held for I think at least five years. We have had many discussions with Australian productivity commissioners, past and present, about the opportunities for improving productivity in this state and the likely referrals that we could make—referrals that would give us good quality outcomes, outcomes that would improve the lives of the people of South Australia.

So the answer is, yes, we have had many discussions with many people over a long period of time. We have read, with much interest, the work which has been published by various other similar entities right around the country. We read the RoGS with much interest every single year and, yes, there are many things that we are contemplating.

What we will do, though, if this legislation passes, is make the appointment of the chair of the commission. We will then, jointly with the chair, make the appointments for the individual commissioners and work through that proposed work plan for the next 12 months. We will make that very clear to the people of South Australia. We want this to be open and transparent. It is not something that we are hiding or trying to be particularly difficult about at the moment, but it really will depend on the appointment of the chair, their level of interest, the resources and how quickly we can get underway with the various inquiries.

As you would be aware, it is not like there is just one or maybe two things that we are choosing between. Let me tell you, this is a target-rich environment after 16 years of being in opposition. We believe there are many opportunities that we could focus this new productivity commission on, and we are looking forward to the opportunity of making those early referrals.

Ms BETTISON: Looking at clause 18(1) again, when you look at the performance plan and budget, is it your consideration that we will have South Australians on this commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Absolutely. I certainly envisage that there will be South Australians represented on the productivity commission.

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, you have already had four questions; I might rule the next one out of order.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Clause 20(3) says 'the Minister may', rather than 'must'—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: We like 'may' rather than 'must'.

Mr MULLIGHAN: —indeed—'require the Commission to make a draft report publicly available'. In the Premier's earlier comments he certainly gave the commitment that an interim report or a draft report would be provided and that it would be made publicly available when it was provided to the minister. Does that commitment stand?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I cannot think of any instance where we would not want the interim report to go out, because, of course, the nature of this is really that we want to have as much input into the process as possible, and, rather than get through to a final report and then have people say, 'By the way, there were things that should have been inputs to this process. You've got it completely wrong,' we would much rather keep it open and transparent. We are not hiding any of this from the public. We are holding public hearings. We are calling for public submissions. There is nothing about this model that we are looking to keep from the people of South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Regarding the notices that are required to be published by the commission, clause 20 specifies the manner in which a minister can require an inquiry, a written notice, rather than a telephone call or an email, and also provides for the ability for the minister to make further additional requirements or refinements to those initial instructions. I just want to be clear that clause 21 provides for all of that to be made public and posted publicly by the commission in the course of its inquiry.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Does that also extend to any feedback that might come from the minister back to the commission in the event that an interim or draft report has been provided?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I am not sure that there will be a formal process from feedback from the government to the commission on the interim report. That is not something that I have contemplated. I do not envisage that there is going to be a huge time frame between the publication of the interim report and the final report.

In fact, in some instances the commission might decide to go straight to the final report because they do not think that going to further consultation would be envisaged. I think probably in most cases it would be, but I think in some cases there would be some discretion from the commission to just publish the final report. Hopefully that clarifies the question from the former minister.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Not surprisingly, it does not. Without trying to put too fine a point on it, I am envisaging a circumstance where an inquiry is commenced, the commission proceeds with the inquiry and produces an interim report or a draft report with some draft findings or recommendations, it is received by the minister, the minister's eyes bulge somewhat and there is some sort of communication somehow, saying, 'Come on. What are you doing to me?' How would that be—

Members interjecting:

Mr MULLIGHAN: Perhaps in the federal context, I'm thinking of the final report into horizontal fiscal equalisation. But I am trying to establish, if that sort of report was to be provided to a minister on an interim basis, what mechanism there is for the minister to provide feedback to that draft or interim report and how that ministerial feedback might be made available publicly in the same manner as any other notice or direction provided from the minister to the commission, which is to be provided publicly.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is no requirement on the government to provide feedback to the commission between the interim and final report. That would be something that would be up to the government at the time. I think the entire body is designed to be open and transparent, so if there were a change between the commission's interim report and their final report, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for people to be asking the question, 'Well, why has there been a change?' I think there would need to be quite a lot of transparency around why the commission changed its recommendations or its final report relative to the interim, and all those reasons would need to be outlined and made very clear to the people of South Australia.

Ms BEDFORD: Premier, how will the commission know the period during which the inquiry is to be held? Will there be a ballpark time frame, and then if things become trickier they will extend it?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that will depend very much on the inquiry itself. Obviously, the period of time that public submissions will be sought and public hearings will be held will be very clearly defined. It is difficult to really be too definitive about the other time frames because of course there could be things which come out of those public submissions and public hearings where the commissioner says, 'Well, actually this is a lot broader and a lot more complex and a lot more interesting than what we had originally envisaged.' So we are not putting any absolute time frame on the final reports but, as I said, the notice periods for public consultation initially—for receiving public submissions and for the public hearings—will be made very clear to the people of South Australia.

Ms BEDFORD: What are you envisaging might be a sort of normal, ordinary, average kind of commission inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I do not know the exact answer to that, but I would envisage that it would be very similar to that time frame which is provided in other jurisdictions. I am more than happy to find out, on average, what that has been. There might be a bit of variance on the scope of inquiries. I will try to find out a bit of information on that period of time and provide it to the member before this goes to the Legislative Council.

Ms BEDFORD: How will we know that the Productivity Commission is working productively?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I envisage an inquiry. I think we are going to have to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think this is something for the people of South Australia to judge. This is one of our criticisms of the Economic Development Board. As I said, when we made the decision to lose the Economic Development Board, some people were critical of this. They said, 'Didn't you like the people on the Economic Development Board?' I looked at the list and it is mouth-watering. These are some of the brightest people we have in this state, providing advice to the government, but the reality was that very few people in South Australia knew what was actually going on.

Therefore, I think people can legitimately ask: what advice are you providing? The reality is that the economic performance of this state has been very poor since an economic development board was established. Either of two things has occurred: (1) they were providing very poor advice to the government, or (2) they were providing very good advice to the government that was not being implemented. We do not know which has occurred.

I think that those of us on this side of the chamber probably guess that it was No. 2, that they were providing excellent advice to the government that was not being implemented and therefore we were not progressing as a state, but the reality is that we never knew. What is envisaged with this is that it is open and transparent and people would know the advice given to the government. The government is not compelled to take up and implement everything that is recommended. That is never part of it, but they are giving independent advice to the government.

That is made clear to the people of South Australia at the same time and then the people of South Australia can judge. They can judge whether this is an effective instrument for the people of South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Ms BETTISON: In this new era of transparency, I was a little surprised with clause 22(1)(b), that during the conduct of an inquiry it 'may (but need not) involve public hearings'. Do you not think this is a bit of hypocrisy when you have talked about transparency?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If I am right, your question is really about a component of the legislation that provides that maybe a public hearing is not held; is that correct?

Ms BETTISON: As I read it, it says:

22—Conduct of inquiry

(1) Subject to any requirement or direction of the Minister under this Part…

(b) may (but need not) involve public hearings.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As per the example I gave before of the Australian Productivity Commission that releases the RoGS reports, they are not subject to public inquiries. So there may be work that is referred to the productivity commission that does not necessarily have a public hearing component to it.

One of the examples that I gave in an earlier answer was about the government using the productivity commission to do some of the work that was previously done through the establishment of independent inquiries. As you could imagine, some of those independent inquiries have public hearing components and some of them do not. A royal commission often has public hearings or hearings in private and some do not.

There are inquiries that are undertaken by a government that do not have public hearings, so I think that this gives us the option. I think that this would be the exception but, again, we are wanting to keep the legislation as broad as possible so that this productivity commission can be as useful to the people of South Australia as possible.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Further to what the member for Ramsay said, I refer to the combination of the wording of subclause (1):

Subject to any requirement or direction of the Minister under this Part…

(b) may (but need not) involve public hearings.

So it is open to a minister to direct the commission that there be no public hearings for an inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that that would be done in consultation with the chair and with the commission.

Mr MULLIGHAN: If that direction was made by the minister, would that be something that, under clauses 20 and 21, needs to be publicly declared or reported by the commission?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Ms BEDFORD: Premier, you said earlier—as we accept—that not all the recommendations will be implemented. What would be the purpose of having a productivity commission present you with recommendations if you do not implement them?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I point the member to the operation of the Productivity Commission at the federal level and to other jurisdictions as well. This is a report for the government but not of the government. So it is not the government's report: it is an independent body's report, and they make recommendations that are not taken up by the government.

We see this a lot with reports and inquiries to government. Only today, when we were acknowledging the 10th anniversary of the apology to the children in state care, which followed on from a report made for the people of South Australia by Mr Mullighan, there were, I think, 54 recommendations in the report, and 52 were taken up. I think it is common practice for the government to have the right to decide which of the recommendations it will be taking up.

The critical thing is the transparency around those recommendations. The recommendations are made. Yes, they are made to the government, but they are also being made to the people of South Australia. Again, this was the problem with the previous regime, because it was quite possible that the Economic Development Board was making recommendations.

Take, for example, their advice to the government around their energy strategy. We will simply never know what the EDB was providing as recommendations to the government. We believe that was unsatisfactory. For all we know, the EDB was providing excellent advice to the government that was being ignored.

What is envisaged in this legislation is that that cannot occur going forward. We are going to have this independent body which is going to be undertaking these inquiries. They will, yes, be providing that report to the government, but they will also be providing that report to the people of South Australia so they can read that report, see what is in the mind of the commissioner conducting the report and understand the recommendations and the rationale for the recommendations. If the government does not accept it, then the people of South Australia know that there was another option that was available to the government that was not taken up.

Ms BEDFORD: Does that mean you would be explaining why you would not accept a recommendation?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes, I think so.

Mr MULLIGHAN: Clause 23(2)(a) states 90 days. It is a long time. Why the specification of 90 days?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Again, I think this is just common practice that the report is provided to the government. There is an opportunity to respond up to 90 days. I think that gives the government the opportunity to consider its response. I do not think that we want kneejerk responses to comprehensive policy recommendations from a body like the productivity commission. This is in line with other jurisdictions, and I think it is a sensible inclusion in the bill.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I thank the Premier. My understanding is that it is not in line with other jurisdictions. I think the commonwealth is 25 days, albeit sitting days, which would obviously be longer than 25 calendar days. Ninety days is obviously a very long period of time, three months. In that time, you could receive the report. Even if it were 30 days, you could comfortably receive the report, perhaps have at least three or four cabinet meetings on a weekly basis or, if you meet twice a week, double that number to consider the report and how best to respond to it. Was any consideration given to a shorter period, either 30 or even 60 days?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I think that what we have provided here is sensible. It provides for flexibility. I reiterate that it is up to 90 days. The government can respond more quickly. This is 90 calendar days. The reference that the honourable member made was to sitting days. That is a piece of string in some jurisdictions. Our parliament did not sit, for example, in South Australia between the end of November last year and, I think, early May this year.

Mr MULLIGHAN: So, if the minister were to specify a shorter period, would that be publicly disclosed by the commission in the course of its public reporting on the conduct of inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sorry what was your question?

Mr MULLIGHAN: I think you said yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, could you repeat the question?

Mr MULLIGHAN: Yes, if the minister specifies a shorter period that the final report is to be made available on the commission's website, would that shorter period specified by the minister have to be publicly acknowledged by the commission as part of its regular acknowledgements of the terms of reference and any directions from the minister in the conduct of its inquiry?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Yes.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (24 and 25 passed) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (21:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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