Mr BAYLEY (Clark) - Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2023. The context for this bill, as the minister has stated, is that this bill has come about following the Auditor-General and Integrity Commission's reports. Namely, the report of the Auditor-General no. 2 of 2021 22, Council General Manager Recruit Appointment and Performance Assessment, and the Misconduct Risk Report of Investigation with Smithies, a review of systemic misconduct risks in recruiting local government employees in Tasmania as identified in an investigation into alleged misconduct in eight recruitments at a council.
The Integrity Commission recommended a model policy for recruitment to be drafted that outlines recruitment procedures, detailed record keeping requirements and conflict of interest declaration requirements. It is my understanding that the Government does not intend to develop a model policy. Minister, in your second reading you make the claim that:
I do not anticipate this will represent substantial change for most councils, which I expect use recruitment practices reflective of merit principle, even if that principle is not embedded exclusively in policy.
Respectfully, the Auditor-General found that, and I quote:
For all councils there was an absence of documentation to support either short listing or preferred applicant decisions.
The Integrity Commission also emphasised that this was emphatically not the case for eight recruitments in one particular council. It also concluded that, I quote:
Given the lack of legislative support and model policy, it is probable that there is misconduct. Risks are not isolated to one council.
The Integrity Commission recommended a model policy for recruitment be drafted that outlines recruitment procedures, detailed record keeping requirements and conflict of interest declaration requirements. This is quite significant as the Audit Office found that not a single council had documentation to support either short listing of preferred applicant decisions.
These matters, conflict of interest management and documentation of recruitment processes, are standard practice in the State Service. They should not be too onerous. I believe the community would, rightfully, expect a similar level of merit-based assessment, accountability, and documentation in all levels of government.
Minister, are you able to provide some detail of the Government's policy on these matters? Is it your expectation that the introduction of merit-based assessment will intrinsically require proper documentation to occur or is this a matter you are leaving for individual councils to resolve?
The Greens have some amendments, as has been discussed. We welcome Labor and the minister's signalling that they are prepared to accept them. They are amendments in relation to the proposed new provisions introducing a requirement for merit-based employment decisions. As the minister notes, these proposed provisions are very similar but not identical to those in the State Service Act.
A distinction that struck me as odd is that the State Service Act 2000 requires an assessment of work-related qualities 'genuinely' required for the duties. whereas, the proposal in front of us is for an assessment of work-related qualities 'generally' required for the duties. 'Genuinely' versus 'generally'. One assumes the use of the word 'genuinely' in the State Service Act 2000 is purposeful. It suggests to me that the assessment must be a sincere exercise and it is not appropriate to fabricate duties that realistically are not a requirement of the role in order to steer a decision in a particular way. As such, the omission of the word 'genuinely' in this bill is a concern.
On the other hand, the qualifier 'generally' suggests that only regular daily duties can be assessed at all and any irregular requirements of the role cannot. A role that [inaudible 6:46:39} requirements that are, nonetheless, requirements of the role certainly appropriate weighting should be given to duties but excluding irregular duties from assessment seems inappropriately restrictive.
The first amendment we have is to replace the word 'generally' with the word 'genuinely' so it is consistent with the State Service Act. It is the Greens' view that this phrasing has more merit and there is also merit in harmonising the State Service Act and the Local Government Act. We believe that was the intent.
Our second proposed amendment is in relation to the proposed requirements in respect of general manager recruitment. This amendment goes less to the substance of the clause and is more about the phrasing. The current proposed subsection 1A and paragraph (b) together read:
A decision to appoint a person as general manager of the council under subsection (1) must be made -
(b) on the basis that a merit assessment of the person is the primary consideration in making a decision.
Although the intent is clear, grammatically it makes no sense. In plain English, it means something like: 'A decision to appoint a general manager must be made due to a merit assessment being the main consideration of the decision'. Our proposed amendment is to replace paragraph (b) with a simpler paragraph that reads:
(b) primarily on the basis of a merit assessment of the person.
We believe this is far more decipherable phrasing that reflects the intention of the Government. In combination with subsection 1(a), this would read:
A decision to appoint a person as general manager of the council under subsection (1) must be made -
(b) primarily on the basis of a merit assessment of the person.
Our final amendment is to clause 6 which relates to the application of the merit assessment to other council employees. As it currently stands, the proposed paragraph (b) reads:
(b) the appointment and promotion of a person as an employee of the council is based on a merit assessment of the person having been undertaken.
We have two issues with this. The first is that, unlike the State Service Act and the proposal in this bill for general managers, there is not a requirement that the merit assessment be the primary consideration. The second issue is that the appointment or promotion does not have to be based on the merit assessment itself but based on the merit assessment having been undertaken. This is at best ambiguous as to whether or not a council or general manager would be complying with the requirements of the act by simply conducting a merit assessment, even if that assessment is not used as the basis of an appointment or promotion. Our amendment would replace the proposed paragraph with the following:
(b) the appointment or promotion of a person as an employee of the council is based primarily on a merit assessment of the person.
We discussed these matters in the briefing we had on this bill. I thank the minister and the minister's office for both the briefing and their receptiveness regarding amendments we have proposed. I note the Labor Party's support as well. I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward and I look forward to the minister's response.