TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3202.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:45): As I was saying before the lunch break, the apprenticeship system was certainly seen as a way forward in my family. My older brother became an electrician and I ended up in the furniture industry. I think it is interesting to compare where we who started our lives as tradesmen have ended up today. I started my apprenticeship at a very small family-type business—a business that did not have any union influence. There was no need for that, I imagine, because the boss was working alongside me and everyone knew each other, and it was a great family atmosphere in which to learn a trade and to enjoy the work that we did. And, of course—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Who was that?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: John Ballantyne.

Mr PISONI: John Ballantyne? I don't even know a John Ballantyne. On the other hand, my brother accepted an apprenticeship at the very large organisation of SA Brewing (which is now, of course, Lion Nathan), joining a large workforce where trade union membership was, of course, second nature. So, his views on the world are different from mine. I have a very good understanding of small businesses and family businesses and what affects decision-makers, whereas it would be fair to say that my brother has a good understanding of larger workplaces and the politics that happen within them, and what is required to get results for employees in those situations.

The point I make about this bill is that I do have some concerns about the fact that we have introduced matters into the Industrial Relations Commission, involving a situation where there is a breakdown in the relationship between the trainee, if you like, or the apprentice and the boss. I am concerned that our biggest potential for growth in taking on trainees and apprentices involves the sole traders, or the small family husband and wife type of proprietary limited companies out there who are plumbers, electricians, carpenters, brickies, chefs (where the husband might be the chef and the wife is the front-of-house person).These sorts of people are not in the industrial relations system. They may very well be ready and confident now to take on an apprentice but, by doing so, the government has automatically roped them into the Industrial Relations Commission.

My biggest concern about this is that it will have the reverse effect that the minister expects it to have. It may well not affect medium and larger businesses and experienced employers, but it will have a very significant put-off factor for that very target group—that group that is not employing apprentices at the moment but may be thinking about doing so. Often the first employee that a tradesman will take on will be an apprentice.

A classic example could very well be when a tradesman is in his 50s and is thinking about retirement. He has been a sole trader all his life, doing the work and earning a good living, and his wife does the books. I know that one of my clients in my business was a plumber and his taxable income was $250,000 in one particular year. He may have been boasting about that at the time, but he was certainly earning a good living. May not necessarily have a superannuation entitlement. He may not have investment properties. Such a person may have some money in the bank; he has a good business with a loyal clientele that, once he retires, is really only suitable for someone else like him to buy. So, someone like him would walk in, take over the business and work with those clients, but they would need time to build up and understand the culture of that business and its clientele. A perfect way to do that is to have an apprentice, take him on for a four-year apprenticeship period—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Or her.

Mr PISONI: Or her; and I did have a female apprentice in my business for a while. Take them on, get them to learn the trade and the business, and then offer them the sale of that business when the time is right for the boss to retire. It is a perfect scenario for both. An unexperienced young person gets a great trade and also learns a whole lot of life experiences from working side by side with the boss, which he can then develop and use to take that business to the next stage. And who knows, knowing how entrepreneurial young people are today, when he gets hold of that business, he may use that as a basis to grow that business and employ staff and apprentices—and perhaps even one day end up wearing a tie to work instead of the greasy old overalls. That may very well be an aspiration of the new apprentice. I know it certainly was one of my aspirations.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I will put my tie collection up against the Attorney-General's any day. I emphasise the fact that I am very concerned about the introduction of the Industrial Relations Commission. There is a different culture in the training commission compared to the Industrial Relations Commission. In my experience, I have had situations where things have not worked out with apprentices. For instance, they have stopped turning up or, alternatively, they may have gone down the wrong path during their youth. They may have mixed with the wrong crowd and, consequently, started smoking dope in the car park and all sorts of things which are just not suitable to an employer. When those sorts of situations arose in my business, we were able to sort that out with the training commission without any intervention from any heavy-handed Industrial Relations Commission.

No-one had an agenda: all they wanted was to achieve the best result for the employer and the employee. Of course, they understand that, once an employer has a record of regularly training apprentices, they are a valuable person and organisation to keep on side, because they know that, as that business grows and one apprentice completes his apprenticeship, another one will start. They understand what is required because they are very close to the situation. As I say, that is a very strong concern of mine.

The member for Fisher, for example, said that he did not really experience much in the way of union power in the TAFE system, but I remind him of the industrial dispute that happened amongst TAFE teachers when he was minister. I am not sure whether it was about terms or conditions or whether it was about pay. I had an apprentice at trade school at the time. This was after new reforms were introduced by the new Liberal government and it was not compulsory to be a union member in the TAFE system. A group of TAFE lecturers were determined to strike and others were determined to keep working and hold classes for apprentices.

The unfortunate thing about that situation was that my apprentice was told that, if he turned up at trade school the next day, his union member lecturer would fail him. That was the threat. It ended up on page 1 of The Advertiser because it was such an outrageous story. Of course, they had to back down very quickly. I must say that the member for Fisher handled that situation very delicately and very well. It is not right to say that there is not a lot of union influence in the TAFE system. I cannot let this debate go by without reminding the house that it was Mike Rann, the member for Briggs (I think it was then) between 1989 and 1993, who introduced TAFE fees into the South Australian TAFE system. Mike Rann was the minister for further education, training and employment, and the introduction of TAFE fees on apprentices in South Australia is a legacy of Mike Rann.

Mr Goldsworthy: Rann gets results!

Mr PISONI: That is exactly right, as the member for Kavel reminds me. I wrote to the minister at the time to express my concern that this was a disincentive for kids to become apprentices and an initial burden that kids did not need. A first-year apprentice gets paid around 40 per cent of the adult wage and a lot of travel is involved with TAFE. While one is doing an apprenticeship, the on-the-job training might not be far from home, but it is generally always a bus trip to TAFE. For example, I had to travel from Salisbury to Marleston every day when I was at TAFE, so it was quite a burden for apprentices. A lot of apprentices did not live at home. They might have had troubles at home, so decided to move out of home.

This additional burden was a concern to me. I wrote to the then minister and his reply was something along the lines, 'Well, you pay it then. If you don't think the student should pay, you are the employer so you pay it.' That was the amount of interest shown by Mike Rann, the then minister for employment and further education, in that period between 1989 and 1993. He introduced fees and, if it was too hard for the student to pay, then the boss could pay it.

One can understand why there is cynicism in the small business community when a Labor government says that it will improve things and make it easier to take on apprentices. One can understand why people are concerned. I have raised my concerns and there are questions I will probably ask during the committee stage. We support the bill, but we have concerns which the member for Goyder has raised. I have also raised them and, obviously, we will look at the measure between the houses.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:55): I, too, am pleased to make a contribution on the legislation before the house. While I understand the opposition is prepared to support the bill, it has a couple of concerns about it. Our shadow minister has eloquently outlined those concerns in his contribution.

I would like to speak a little more broadly about the training and skills requirements existing in this state. I had the pleasure of attending a business breakfast on Monday at 7.30am in Mount Lofty House, which is a very vice venue overlooking lovely Piccadilly Valley, out to the east of Mount Lofty Ranges. It was, as always, a spectacular panorama to the east. The breakfast was hosted by the Adelaide Hills Regional Development Team, who do a tremendous job in their role developing all those things concerning economic activity throughout the region.

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I will not respond to interjections from the member for Schubert. We had a very interesting guest speaker at that breakfast, and the topic related specifically to this very issue we are debating, namely, training and skills development. The guest speaker was Mr Alan Tidswell, the Human Resources Manager for OneSteel. We are all aware that OneSteel took over BHP's operation in Whyalla in terms of the mining and processing of iron ore and the exporting of product from the ports on the Spencer Gulf. Mr Tidswell communicated some very interesting information to the gathering.

If you talk to anyone directly involved in the mining industry they will tell you that what the state is experiencing at the moment is a mining exploration boom not, as the government would have us believe, a mining boom. Apart from the existing operations, not a lot of new holes are being dug on the surface of or into the earth in relation to new mining activity. What is taking place is a mining exploration boom. A lot of exploration is taking place in terms of drilling, sampling and the like. However, there is not a lot of actual new mining activity.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Okay, Russia. Don't worry, mate. We'll come to you in a minute.

Mr Bignell: Yes, no worries.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Come on, Russia. You'll be right.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Sure, Russia. No worries, mate. You'll be right. I just want to put that on the record.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Have a listen to it. Who got you in here? The Minister for Infrastructure, that's who got you in, mate. If you want to start throwing dirt, you will get plenty back with interest. So, just settle down, Russia; just settle down. I just want to make the point that it is an exploration boom, not a mining boom. The information the Human Resources Manager for OneSteel provided was that his company has undertaken some quite innovative measures in meeting the company's human resources needs in the skills area. OneSteel has a project called Goal 100, where 100 people are put through a relatively intensive skills training process. The company looked to take people from the Whyalla community, obviously, because that is where its operation is located.

It has had some quite outstanding success in taking 100 people from within the community and training them, and those people have gone onto bigger and better things in terms of their employment opportunities. However, after undertaking that particular initiative, OneSteel was finding it difficult to access people they believed had the skills which they could further develop. So, it looked outside the square, it put on its lateral thinking cap, and, knowing that there is a reasonably high level of unemployment in that region, it went to the unemployed people to provide them with an opportunity to improve their life.

Historically, companies such as OneSteel never touched the long-term unemployed. According to the company, OneSteel never thought about training and upskilling unemployed people. However, it realised that there was a shortage of people accessible for training so it went to the unemployed and, to the company's surprise and to the surprise of the community in general, it has had some success in training those people to take on full-time employment. Obviously, it did not meet everyone's needs. However, it had some quite good success in assisting the long-term unemployed into full-time employment, and that is a benefit for everyone.

It is a benefit to the Treasury, particularly the federal Treasury, so that social security payments do not have to be made. People are earning a wage and they are paying tax. They are making a contribution in that way in terms of benefiting society, and the member for Goyder is quite correct in making that statement. It is a win-win-win. It is a win for unemployed people gaining employment, it is a win for the company and it is a win for the community.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Exactly.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: He was a very successful premier. I think it is important that these issues are highlighted in the house. There are companies out there thinking in an innovative way to meet the skills needs at present and into the future. Those initiatives will be rolled out into the broader regions. They are looking at Port Augusta and Port Pirie, and even embarking on partnerships with smaller businesses in the northern suburbs, which is encouraging.

We have had a fair bit of debate recently about economic activity and, arguably, the depressed socioeconomic situation in the northern suburbs, but companies such as OneSteel, in partnership with smaller businesses, are providing opportunities for people in our community who would not have had those opportunities if that company had not embarked on this activity.

I want to touch on some initiatives that we have seen, particularly in the Mount Lofty Ranges district. I invite the member for Mawson, who was extremely derogatory earlier in his comments in the house, to come to the Adelaide Hills and see what is taking place. I refer, in particular, to the partnership between Mount Barker High School and Mount Barker TAFE College. That partnership has come about because of a situation that arose involving students in years 10, 11 and 12 who, for one reason or another, had disengaged themselves from the mainstream school environment. So, the community, the principal of the high school and the manager of the TAFE college have come up with the innovation of creating the Adelaide Hills Vocational College. I am sure the minister would be aware of that initiative.

The college has achieved outstanding results in re-engaging those teenagers or young adults who would have fallen by the wayside if the initiative had not taken place. I regard it as somewhat of an honour to have been invited to sit on the board of the college, and I obviously accepted. I do not regard it as a conflict of interest. As the local member of parliament, it is a positive thing to sit on that board.

The excellent work that the college has undertaken has seen an increase in demand from people who have disengaged from mainstream education and engaged with the vocational college to a point where we were physically running out of space. We have had to look for additional teaching space and a building has been purchased and located on the TAFE site. So, again, that is a win-win-win outcome: it is a win for those individuals who had disengaged from the education system, a win for the community and a win for the education system as a whole.

I want to talk about vocational education and training programs. A number of years ago under this government we saw a fairly significant restructure of the way in which VET was administered and handled out in the community. I do not know whether any real advantages have been achieved from that restructure. In the Adelaide Hills, in particular, we had a very successful vocational education and training program in which the high schools were all actively engaged. Obviously, students were actively engaged as a consequence of the participation of their schools, and it was working very well. However, under the then minister for further education and training (I think the member for Taylor) a review was undertaken and the region was restructured and expanded; two regions were combined into one.

Reasons were put forward in relation to the benefits of the consolidation of those areas. However, anecdotally, there have not been significant improvements in the outcomes of that restructure. I have a reasonable amount to do with training providers, particularly the private training providers in my district, and I know the people involved quite well. So, change for the sake of change obviously does not bring about successful outcomes. I just wanted to raise the point that restructuring does not necessarily bring advantageous results.

I would like to speak about an issue that was raised by the shadow minister (the member for Goyder) in relation to our concerns about the Industrial Relations Commission as the agency or organisation (whatever you like to call it) for dispute resolution, particularly with respect to apprentices in businesses, and its being the first port of call for the dispute resolution process. We know that, if things track along and cannot be resolved, the IRC may well be the last port of call, but we certainly do not support its being the first port of call. We believe—and it has been articulated by the member for Unley, who has had first-hand experience in this situation—that the Training and Skills Commission provides a more than satisfactory performance in the dispute resolution area. In relation to the fees that are payable and the 100 per cent increase in the charges that are to be levied, we certainly have some concern with that. Obviously, the member for Goyder will expand on that in the committee stage.

By and large, the opposition is prepared to support the legislation. The minister has put forward his reasons for it. If it does not work, obviously we will we will have to come back to revisit it, but, on the basis of the information that the state Liberals have received, we are prepared to support the legislation, keeping in mind the concerns raised.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:16): The Training and Skills Development Bill is an important piece of legislation. I will read a little from the second reading explanation that the minister provided. It states:

The Training and Skills Development Bill 2008 provides a legislative framework for our training system, higher education and community learning, and includes the provision of advice on workforce development, the registration of training providers, course accreditation, arrangements for traineeships and apprenticeships, and protections for students.

It is about this particular emphasis on what the bill is supposed to do that I need to raise a very important issue that has come to my attention. It involves people coming from overseas to Australia, particularly South Australia, to take up opportunities to help fill our skills shortage. This is a very pertinent example of what can happen if things go awry, if people are not given the right information before they embark on what is a life-changing experience in emigrating from, in this case, England to Australia.

This is about the Hobin family. Jeff and Tracey Hobin will not mind my using their names at all; in fact, they are encouraging me to speak today about this issue because it very important. The Hobin family migrated from England in August 2005 after seeing adverts in the paper for opportunities to get new skills in Australia. The company that organised this is called the Immigration Unit. It has a webpage and it is a registered training organisation in Australia but operates out of London. It advertises that it will find jobs, 'You learn a trade, enjoy a good income and become a citizen. Already qualified, we can help you find a job and become self-employed.'

I understand that Mr Ryan Kroonenburg in London is the man behind all this. The information that was given to the Hobins was absolutely atrocious. This man charged ₤5,000 to arrange the migration visas and I am reliably informed by people in South Australia that the fee should be about $A1,500. Not only did this man charge an excessive amount, he also gave the wrong information and completely misled the Hobins. This is not an isolated issue.

The Hobin family with their three young children (14, 12 and 11) came to Australia. They sold their house in England, and we know how expensive it would be for them to go back there. They immigrated in August 2005. This was with all the purported opportunities of doing a training course, in this particular case, as a hairdresser. I do not know a lot about the hairdressing industry, but I would have thought that a training course really would not endear you to many people out there wanting to get their hair cut; it is normally an apprenticeship. This is what I am told, particularly with people who are Mrs Hobin's age.

They were desperate; they wanted to come out here. They wanted better opportunities for their children. Who can deny them that? They came out here, but before they did they paid $15,000 for the first year of the training course as a hairdresser. They also paid $18,500—this is the bit that really amazes me—for public school education, which they believed covered two years schooling in the South Australian state school system. In the event, this covered only one year, which was $12,500 and the balance of $6,000 was for administration fees. I do not think that that was in DECS; I hope not.

I have spoken to the minister, who has been very cooperative in assisting the Hobin family to cope with the fees that have to be paid under this visa system. This visa system was changed by the former Liberal government. Why, I have no idea. It was a stupid thing that they did then. Chris Evans knows about this because he has been contacted by me and the local federal member, Steve Georganas, who has been very helpful in this episode, and I just hope that he continues. I just hope that Chris Evans does something about correcting the situation. The South Australian connection is Immigration SA. Immigration SA is aware of what is going on. The minister, the Hon. Paul Caica, is now aware of the predicament that people like the Hobins are in, so he can investigate the situation and hopefully get the federal people to change the legislation.

When the Hobins came out here, they paid all this money upfront. They paid the £5,000 to this bloke in England when normally it would be $1,500. They paid a $15,000 upfront fee for one year of a two-year course at a hairdressing academy. They then paid $18,500 to the education department, $6,000 of which is supposed to be administration fees. They are then allowed to work only 20 hours of week between them, and they have three kids.

I would just like to acknowledge a couple of people in my electorate who have bent over backwards to help this guy. One is David Hamilton from Hamilton Holden. That bloke has a heart of gold, and he has helped Mr Hobin, who is a qualified truck driver but who is now working as a car detailer for a few hours a week to try to earn some money for the family because they are desperate to stay here. The other is a real estate agent down there, who does not want to be named, but who has assisted in keeping the rent down for this family.

The principal and staff of St Leonards Primary School and Plympton High School have assisted in making sure that the kids are fitting in well at school. This situation is something that should not have come about. The family should not be in a position where they may not be able to pay the fees to the training academy—some of these have been paid on their behalf by one of the benefactors—or the fees to the state school system. I thank the minister again for allowing some leniency there and not putting too much pressure on the family. If they cannot pay those fees, they will be in breach of the visa and they will be deported back to England.

Here we have a woman who is a qualified childcare worker. That is not on the skills list here; only chef and hairdresser are listed. Her husband is a heavy truck driver, and we need those, but you cannot work for more than 20 hours a week, so he is working as a car detailer at the moment, and I understand that he is very good at his job. Changes need to be made so that these people can get out there, earn a living and be given the opportunity that they expected when they were first introduced to the opportunities here in Australia. It is a disgrace.

The people behind this organisation need to be deregistered. This fellow is registered in Australia. I have spoken to the Migration Agents Registration Association about this and we are working on that. This fellow needs to be thrown out of the association. He is not being honest. People like the Hobin family are being put in a totally untenable situation. Mr Hobin phoned my office yesterday. He is at the end of his tether because he just does not know what to do. They have three children aged 14, 12 and 11 and they have settled here in Australia. They want to work here, and they can work here, but unfortunately what was presented to them has not worked out. It has been nothing like it was presented to them, so it is a complete disappointment.

They are not alone. I am told that numerous families have come in, perhaps with rose-coloured glasses, who did not listen to all the information that was given to them but, at the same time, they wanted to take this opportunity and they wanted to give their kids an opportunity. It has not happened that way. Many obstacles have been put in their way, so I ask the minister, the Hon. Paul Caica, whether he can contact his federal counterpart, the Hon. Chris Evans, to look at this. I ask that he speak to the Premier who is the minister responsible for Immigration SA to see what it can do, and I ask that the Minister for Education and Children's Services continue to be as considerate as she has been in the past.

Never mind all the other families that are involved; to lose this family from Australia would be a disgrace when we are so lacking in young families like this (who are willing to work hard and expect nothing from the government other than a fair go) coming to Australia. Unfortunately, because of the changes that were made by a Liberal federal government last year, they have not been given a fair go. The goal posts were shifted, and I think that it is a travesty that this situation can occur. The Training and Skills Development Bill provides for a stronger role for training schools in establishing a Training and Skills Commission and in consulting with industry. Also, this will help to develop the workforce and look at the registration of training providers.

I hope that the minister can look at this situation. We need to encourage not only our local workforce and students and our local populace to look at training, retraining and staying in the workforce—because we need everybody we can working at the moment—but also people from overseas. If they want to come here, the second verse of the national anthem says it all:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share.

We should be sharing these opportunities, particularly with people like the Hobins. I wish Tracey and Jeff well because they have been put in a situation which should never have happened. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:27): I rise today to make a few comments in regard to this bill. I would like to expand on some concerns that the Liberal Party has with the bill and I also indicate that, although we support the bill, we will clarify certain matters during the committee stage. One of those parts of the bill that we will clarify is the Training and Skills Commission to make sure that we get the right representation across industry, the union movement and others, so that whatever we do we get the right representation on this commission to make sure that we get the outcomes for the people being trained.

We also have some concerns with training contracts. Those employing trainees must ensure that those trainees are under a training contract, but it could be by other means as approved by the minister. This would add a bit more flexibility in regard to future training needs in this state. Due to the skills shortages we have now, and any future shortages, we will certainly need flexibility in this area.

I acknowledge a scheme that has been undertaken at the Australian Zircon mine at Mindarie in my electorate that is just firing up. If it is not at full production, it is very close. Its objective is to put farmers into mining but keep them at home on the farm. There is a lot of potential in this state.

We have already seen in many areas of the state, because of the ravages of drought and other situations, farmers who might have had one son at home on the farm and, when the other one needed to do something when he came home from school or university or other work, he decided to get an occupation in the mining sector, which could be at Roxby Downs.

There are also people in the position where they would like to stay at home and operate the farm but do not have enough income. In light of these trying times over the past five years, I think it would be a positive step to have programs where we can have people in like-minded occupations. I acknowledge that, for quite a long time, Roxby Downs has been labelled 'Kimba North' which symbolises the impact of farmers from the west coast heading to Roxby to make their fortunes, I guess.

It has certainly happened locally in my area. There was a particular case of a bulldozer operator who, with flexibility from the mine operations people, could do his major functions on the farm and then operate one of the D11s when he was able to, and it shows great flexibility. I think we will see more of this flexibility in the future. I think we will have to see it if we are going to not only have a suitable mining workforce (and we do know miners love hiring people from rural areas), but also sustain regional communities. We really need to look at that to ensure that we do not just suck people from one sector into another, and I think it can be done in a balanced way.

It certainly needs some flexibility on all sides and I recognise the difficulty in that. As I have said in this place before, having worked for a couple of years in the mining industry in the fly-in fly-out options, obviously you have to have plenty of flexibility engaged. Also, there are some concerns about the approval of training contracts and the time lines. If you do not get the contracts classified in four weeks, if there is a hold-up in the approval, then the employer can be hit with a fine. In these days of bureaucracy and red tape this can happen. I do not want to see people unduly fined in this process.

I note that employers will have to be registered under guidelines approved by the commission, and I just wonder whether that could be managed in a better way so that we just have a filtering mechanism to ensure that we do not have (let us say) fraudulent employers getting in on the scheme but have people connected in the appropriate way. If there is to be registration, I hope that it is not too rigorous a process because the red tape that employers have to go through is phenomenal, and people have to realise that it is a two-way street out there as far as employing people, whether they be trainees, apprentices, or even full-time workers.

We have seen a boom in people on contracts and this includes people working in government sectors. I have seen ridiculous cases where people have been employed for 12 month contracts because people are worried about all the industrial relations carry-on if they want to get rid of someone. When someone is on a 12 month contract, they spend three months getting into the job, six months doing the job and three months finding the next job. You are basically down to about 50 per cent productivity.

Also, I want to see that compliance is handled effectively and that there is not too much rigorous activity placed on employers. I note that there is some flexibility in the bill for serious misconduct of an apprentice or a trainee and it gives some flexibility for the employer, but obviously they have to report to the commission. I think it is important that employers and employees have the capacity to be represented by their respective associations in industrial hearings. I note that the government believes that the hearings will be a formality and lawyer-free. I believe that we will need some clarification on that.

As far as disputes going before the Industrial Relations Commission, I hope that there is some independence in this and perhaps (whether there is another tribunal before it gets to commission level or whether it is part of the same process—the government can clarify that I guess during a committee hearing) there should be an independent training disputes tribunal, so that we make sure everyone gets the right outcome there.

I just note that there are also some industry organisations concerned with the increase in penalties, the doubling of penalties from a maximum of $2,500 to a maximum of $5,000. We need to outline when these penalties will apply.

I would like to acknowledge some of the training providers that operate in my electorate of Hammond. We have Murraylands Training and Employment Association of South Australia, WorkSkill Recruitment and Training, MADEC Jobs Australia, TAFE (conducting quite a lot of training in my area especially based out at Murray Bridge), the Australian Apprenticeships Centre, MASS National who operate out at Mount Barker, Skilled, Business SA and Statewide Group Training.

With all our training, we need to make sure that local training and apprenticeship agencies get equal opportunity whether they be big or small contracts to supply apprentices or trainees, especially in their own local areas, but even if there is potential to go outside. As I have said before, I am very passionate about regional employment and I acknowledge that we are on the cusp of a mining boom which will take people out of regional communities, and I think we have to make sure that we pair people up from regions with the mining sector. With those few words, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Youth, Minister for Gambling) (16:36): I thank members for their contributions. Debate during the development of the existing act reflected a high degree of bipartisanship, and I am grateful for the indications of support for this bill from the shadow minister and all the speakers of the opposition.

The bill forms part of a significant strategy to strengthen the VET system in South Australia. The shadow minister has quite rightly identified that this bill supports the broader skills strategy that is being implemented to ensure that our state has a 21^st century training system. It meets the skills requirements that will help us achieve our goals of sustained economic growth and social inclusion. The bill contributes to this by allowing a refocusing of the role of the Training and Skills Commission to provide high-level strategic advice about our skills needs and workforce development.

Under the bill, the commission has very broad powers, as opposed to the claim by the shadow minister about its capacity being restricted. The changes in this bill facilitate the injection of high levels of expertise in relation to the skills development and workforce development. The bill also recognises the important role played by ISBs (industry skills boards) in providing industry and enterprise specific advice about skills needs and the kind of training that is required. Importantly, too, the bill ensures that there are adequate protections for participants in our training system, as well as quality assurance processes while, at the same time, allowing for the efficient and effective administration of the system.

The shadow minister is correct in pointing out that an exhaustive consultation process has been held with Business SA, amongst the general processes of consultation, with all key stakeholders. So it is a little surprising to hear the shadow minister focusing much of his contribution on some of the misunderstandings of Business SA, most of which, I believe, were cleared up in the early stages of the consultation process. But I will touch upon a few points raised during the debate, and I will be happy to pick up those points, if not at this stage then when we are dealing with the more detailed aspects during the committee stage.

I note the shadow minister's view about the purpose of laws made in this place, and that is they are intended to target those who choose not to obey them. I have a rather more positive view about the purpose of legislation, although I acknowledge that most legislation does contain provisions directed at people who disregard the law. In my view, legislation can play an even more powerful role by encouraging people and organisations to use initiative and be innovative, to work collaboratively, and to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, and that is what this bill sets out to do.

I will not go into the details of the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and the process in resolving disputes and grievances under this legislation. I, too, along with the member for Mitchell, would like to congratulate the participants and those who have been part of the grievance dispute process and mediation committee, and thank them for their role to date. But, with respect to the Industrial Relations Commission, I point out that the government did listen very carefully—as you would expect it to—to the views of stakeholders about this particular issue.

In fact, it is interesting to note that the position the government has arrived at is not very distant from that view proposed by Business SA in its original submission on the 2003 act, where it asserted its view that disputes and grievances should be referred to an independent training disputes tribunal, chaired by a South Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner, with representation from both employer and employee bodies. That was their position then; I presume it is their position now and, in fact, it is what is in the act.

Far from great concern being expressed about the involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission in dispute resolution under this bill, the process has been one of growing understanding of how this measure will add to the value of our training system. The model that the government is proposing here takes the best elements of the process under the GDMC and uses the resources of the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission to improve aspects which were less effective under the GDMC process.

With respect to disputes—and I know this will come up during the committee stage—this is about a timely way in which disputes can be settled. What we need in place and what we are committed to is having a system that actually prevents disputes from occurring and, indeed, where they do, having early intervention in such a way that they can be resolved through mediation at the very earliest stages, so that there is no breakdown of trust and relationship between employer and employee.

The suggestion of the shadow minister—which was regurgitated by the member for Mitchell (and that is about finding another role for the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission)—I find pretty insulting and a slur against the good work carried out by the SAIRC. It is a comment that might also be construed as perhaps trivialising the need for the key participants in the training system to have a more efficient and effective disputes resolution process—something they, indeed, deserve and have every right to expect.

I thank the shadow minister for noting this government's commitment to reducing red tape and bureaucracy. Indeed, that is a key reason that we have made provision in this bill to draw upon the existing resources and the expertise of the Industrial Relations Commission, rather than establish another body to provide fair outcomes in a timely manner in relation to disputes about training contracts. I also find it rather confusing where the shadow minister has relayed Business SA's apparent concern, as I said, about the stifling effects of that act when, in fact, that was not necessarily the case.

In rejecting some of the suggestions made by the shadow minister, I do want to acknowledge the role that he has played in a bipartisan way in getting us to where we are at today. I acknowledge his willingness to be part of that process to work things out, and I thank him very much for that. But having said that, I certainly reject the view—and I presume it was a view that was expressed to the shadow minister by Business SA—that this bill is driven by ideology. Its development has certainly been driven by strong ideas, ideas about ensuring that South Australians have the opportunity to participate in high quality training and within a high quality training system, and a system that supports employers and employees, as well as all the other participants in the process.

But the assumption underlying the shadow minister's view is that the legislation itself can achieve a strengthening of our training system. That is not so. It can guide and assist processes, but the key responsibility for making it work lies jointly with employers, with industry, with governments, of course, and the learners themselves. It takes a commitment from each and every one of these particular parties. Legislation itself will not achieve this.

The other point that was raised not just by the shadow spokesperson but, indeed, by others is the issue of employer registration under the bill. I will leave a detailed response to the committee stage, but I think it is important for me to point out that this is not an additional step in the process of approving training contracts as claimed.

The bill brings this element of the current system forward to assist employers to better understand their obligations under a training contract, and I note again the shadow minister's quote from Business SA indicating that employers' understanding of the obligations is still a concern and, of course, their lack of understanding is still a concern for me. I will continue to work with all the people involved in the system to ensure that we achieve a far lower attrition rate throughout the training process than that which we have today. This bill sets up mechanisms which, at the very least, we can collectively work towards ensuring that those entering the system come out of the system qualified in the field for which they have been trained.

In finishing, I make the general assurance that in developing most of the processes around the administration of the provisions of this bill, key stakeholders will be engaged (as they have been). I can confirm that the acting chief executive of DFEEST and other officers met with Business SA on 29 April to work through this process and communications have been ongoing. In concluding my remarks, I again thank the opposition for its support of this bill. I thank each of the members for their contribution and, indeed, thank them for any future involvement in undertaking work that still needs to be done in the areas which I highlighted during my remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 5, line 29—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Page 6—

After line 22—After the definition of declared institution insert:

declared vocation means an occupation declared under section 6 to be a declared vocation for the purposes of this act;

Lines 35 and 36—Delete the definition

Page 8—

Lines 3 and 4—Delete the definition and substitute:

trade means an occupation declared under section 6 to be a trade for the purposes of this act;

This matter certainly created a great degree of debate amongst the people with whom we consulted. The purpose of the amendments is to delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute it with 'or declared vocation'. The point which won me over is that we want people training within the system to train towards a vocation; that is, a vocation that will give them ongoing employment and sustain them for the rest of their life. In fact, while it might seem just a small word, there is a significant difference between 'occupation' and 'declared vocation' in this context because it is training towards a career and a vocation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will discuss amendment No. 1, given that it sets the tone for everything which occurs later. I note that in the 2003 bill under the interpretation of 'apprentice' or 'trainee', it uses the term 'trade declared vocation or other occupation under a contract of training'. In the bill it talks about 'trade occupation or non-trade occupation', but the amendment deletes 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and uses the term 'declared vocation' again. I appreciate the fact that the minister has just given some reasons for that, but I know that, in the submissions I received, the advice was that Business SA had lobbied for the exclusion of 'declared vocation' as it bears no real benefit and requires no effort or time to process.

They believe that there is already an established list of occupations endorsed by the industry at the national level that could be used in lieu of declared vocations to ensure national consistency exists. I am certain that the minister would like to see consistency across all the states. Although we are not moving an amendment, the suggestion is that national consistency takes place. I do acknowledge the fact that the government has been prepared to consider this. However, it is highlighted in the information that I have received that discussions were continuing. I am seeking a very firm explanation, which, hopefully, I can understand, concerning the choice of terms.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I reinforced the point earlier about the declared vocation, and I acknowledge the understanding of the opposition in that regard. That particular focus of the honourable member's question was removed following a fairly significant consultation. The other occupations component, in essence, was the opportunity to set up a second tier of alternative pathways for training. We believe that this best covers the areas in which people will be trained and stand by these particular amendments.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is interesting that the original bill uses the term 'occupation' and 'non-trade occupation', but within six weeks of its being introduced there has been a change of focus back to the original terminology used in the 2003 bill. Can the minister explain that?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is specifically about traineeships, which is the other area about which you are inquiring. While there is, and will continue to be, a place for traineeships within our particular system, this bill will focus on the skill needs of the state. There is a mechanism for traineeships to continue and, indeed, we will be broadening the relationship between vocational education and the continuum that exists. A person cannot and should not necessarily commence vocational education after leaving school; it is embedded within the system. The revision back to that occurred as a result of the consultative process, to which I was won over, based on the focus of orientation for the individuals within the training system. The focus was to be on giving the person who completes that training course the opportunity to uptake into that vocation and, indeed, sustain themselves in related employment.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question, which relates to a lot of clauses throughout the bill, concerns the inclusion of maximum penalties and expiation costs. In reviewing the 2003 act, I noted that the maximum penalty was $2,500 but I cannot remember an expiation fee being provided for in the 2003 act. I would like to hear the reasoning behind the increase and whether the minister has any statistics that indicate the number of times where successful action has been taken under the 2003 act against any person (be it an employer or employee) which has resulted in penalties being imposed upon people.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The purpose of this clause is to give effect to the national protocols for a higher education approval process, which was agreed at the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in mid-2006. The authority to declare the range of institutions introduced under the revised national protocols—that is, the Australian universities, university colleges and specialised universities—is not contained in the 2003 act.

With respect to the specific question, I do not have any information about institutions that have been subject to the penalty that existed previously, or indeed the expiation fees under the process, bearing in mind this protocol was not in place under the previous legislation. While I expect that the matter of expiation fees and penalties will be the subject of discussion during the committee stage, certainly the purpose behind this is to ensure that all learning institutions—and I will be more general in this sense—and all those providing education and training to people in South Australia (whether that be universities or other private and vocational providers) actually provide what they purport to provide.

We heard the example given by the member for Morphett earlier about what was more than a tale of woe for those individuals, but I expect that when we drill down into some of the fees and costs and take into account those things involved in the delivery of certain aspects of training that are not providing what they are purported to provide, it ought to be the subject of penalties. That is a more general remark in the context of questions I am sure the honourable member will raise.

Specifically, in answer to the question, I do not have any information relating to any penalties imposed previously on higher education institutions in the context of the 2003 act, and not in the context of the new protocols which have been introduced to bring the act into line with what are the Australian protocols in this area.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 10—

Line 5—Delete 'occupation'

Line 6—Delete 'non-trade occupation' and substitute 'declared vocation'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 10, line 25—Delete 'functions (if any) contemplated by' and substitute:

as the State Training Authority under

Mr GRIFFITHS: I indicate our support for the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 11—

Line 13—after 'associations' insert:

, including the South Australian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc (Business SA)

Line 15—after 'Council' insert:

(SA Unions)

This clause deals with the establishment of the Training and Skills Commission. A question was raised by the member for Mitchell earlier about taking membership of the commission up to 11 members. I pointed out to the honourable member during the luncheon break that it would consist of not more than 11 members, and he was happy with that. These two amendments are about ensuring that we have in place a minimum representation of one from an employer association and one from an employee association. The amendments make specific mention of the SA Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Business SA. We have added SA Unions after 'UTLC', and assurances were provided to SA Unions and Business SA that the nominated representatives would reflect the nature of those organisations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know there has been considerable debate amongst various groups about the make-up of the Training and Skills Commission. Certainly, I respect the fact that the nine members who have made up the Training and Skills Commission to this time have done a good job, and I am sure the minister would commend them also. I know that in my discussions with him, the minister has given me some details about who he may appoint to make up the 11 members. I know that the representative bodies were rather concerned about the fact that they are now down to one representative from the previous two representatives; and, in discussions with me, they indicated that they would have liked to have a greater guarantee on that matter.

It was certainly part of my comments in the briefing paper to the Liberal joint party room that, like the minister, I feel it is important that the absolute best people are appointed. On that basis, I indicate that the opposition is prepared to accept both amendments and, indeed, the clause.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I know that the shadow minister is aware that this is not an industrial representative body, because we have discussed it and we have also discussed it with SA Unions and Business SA. What we hope to have, without breaking any confidence about who might be the representatives, are the peaks of the peaks, so to speak. Certainly, it is our view that if those people from Business SA or SA Unions cannot represent their broader constituency, perhaps they should not be there in the first place. It is about a commission that will be able to provide strategic advice and direction through to government, via me, on the training and skills needs of this great state of ours.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given the skills strategy the minister has released and the requirements with respect to the Training and Skills Commission, it is critical that we develop a training plan for the state which will be in place for the next five years—was it not the purchasing plan as it relates to contestability and VET training opportunities? Once appointed, the new Training and Skills Commission will have many challenges. In many ways probably the next five years will be the crunch time in terms of skills development needs within South Australia as it goes forward into the next decade. I look forward to a positive relationship with them also. I hope that, if I continue to have the opportunity to represent this portfolio area in whatever level of responsibility, I can work with that group, too.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 12—

Line 14 [clause 10(2)(b)(iv)]—Delete 'trade occupations' and substitute:

trades

Line 15 [clause 10(2)(b)(iv)]—Delete 'non-trade occupations' and substitute:

declared vocations

Amendments carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 12, after line 17 [clause 10(2)(b)]—After subparagraph (v) insert:

(vi) on the minister's role as the State Training Authority; and

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 13, line 13 [clause 10(6)(a)]—After 'industry' second occurring insert:

Skills board and other

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to make a statement of support. This is an important inclusion and it was probably an oversight in the original drafting. I know that, in his briefing to me, the minister talked about the review that was undertaken of the industry skills boards and the fact that he is supportive of their future and, subject to budgetary constraints, his intention is to support them financially—to a greater degree, we would hope. I met with each of the nine industry skills boards about six months ago, and I was very impressed by the dedication of the executive officers in the roles they undertake. I recognise the important role they take in providing support to the specific industries they represent.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the member for Goyder for his comments. One can see from the amendments that, in essence, they are recognising the industry skills boards in this legislation. It was no drama whatsoever.

It was not necessarily, in the first instance, reluctance about the role they might play; it was just in the context that, in the ever-changing system (and we are changing it this time around), the ITABs changed their name. So, it was really more about how to create terminology that has more life beyond what that terminology might refer to.

Certainly, I am very pleased to hear the shadow spokesperson's recognition of the role and function of the industry skills boards. We have announced that they will have an ongoing role, and the resources required by those boards are currently being reviewed to ensure that they have that enhanced role into the future.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 11 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This clause relates to the staff who will work under the Training and Skills Commission. As part of the consultation that I undertook I received a comment that I would like to discuss to determine the minister's position. It related to the fact that it does not appear as though external consultants can be appointed. The clause certainly talks about staff and public servants and new employees not being members of the Public Service. I have not done a lot of work on this, but one of the comments that came back to me was that it appears as though the clause no longer allows external consultants to be engaged by the commission. I seek some comment from the minister in that respect.

The Hon. P. CAICA: From my perspective, it was to provide whatever resources were necessary for the very important task to be discharged by the Training and Skills Commission. In regard to the specific question that relates to external consultancies, budget permitting, they can engage external consultants.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 15(4) provides:

The terms and conditions of a person appointed under subclause (3) will be determined by the Governor and such a person will not be a Public Service employee.

I am intrigued as to why they are not a Public Service employee.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Clause 15(4) needs to be read in the context of clause 15(3), which provides:

The Commission may, with the consent of the minister, appoint staff for the purposes of this act.

That means those outside the Public Service, if it makes that approach to me and if I wish to consider that request. However, the terms and conditions of the person who will be employed under that subclause will be determined by the Governor, and such a person will not be a Public Service employee. It seems to me to be some form of contractual arrangement that might be entered into by the commission so that it has the ability to engage people with skills that might not necessarily be provided by the staff who will be available throughout the Public Service.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 17, line 28 [clause 21(2)(f)]—After 'on behalf of' insert:

an employer or

Amendment carried.

Mr PISONI: Clause 21(2)(e) relates to the functions of the training advocate to speak for and negotiate on behalf of education and training providers and clients of education and training providers in the resolution of a matter. In the case of an apprenticeship, would the training provider be the employer or would it be, for example, Marleston college?

The Hon. P. CAICA: That would relate to a registered training provider (RTO).

Mr PISONI: It has nothing to do with on-the-job training?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No.

Mr PISONI: So, the training advocate cannot speak for the employer in that instance?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I understand that it would be speaking on behalf of the registered training provider, and not necessarily the employer. Clause 21(2)(f) allows for the training advocate to speak for and negotiate on behalf of an apprentice/trainee in the resolution of matters arising under part 4. However, as I understand it, that refers to training providers and that is specifically those registered training providers that exist.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question, and again this is based on consultation that I have undertaken. I have had only good feedback about the training advocate and the role it has undertaken, but there was a concern that the training advocate role has been relegated to a somewhat token function, and I hope that that is not correct. I would like to hear from the minister on this. Clause 21(2), paragraphs (b), (e) and (f), provides that the training advocate's responsibility is to consider grievances. Subclause (2) provides, 'The charter may (but need not)', and I think the concern arises from inclusion of the words 'but need not'. Is it the charter of the training advocate to be involved in that or is it not? I am wondering if the minister can give a determination.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I would certainly advocate that the charter include those particular words, because the charter will be a living, breathing document, to a great extent, that may need to be varied from time to time, given the circumstances of the changing world in which we live. Before answering the question, I will just go back to David's question about employers. Paragraph (f) was amended it to include 'employer', so that the training advocate could negotiate and attempt to settle on behalf of the employer in that circumstance.

In regard to the honourable member's specific question, I will deal with the matter of tokenism. I would like to know who said that, but, be that as it may, there is certainly no intention of that. This is actually a strengthening of the role of the training advocate in the areas that are detailed within this particular clause.

Certainly, our view to give it a statutory authority is certainly something that has been supported across the board. I have heard no adverse reaction to this whatsoever. It is far more a formalisation of the role. I see the role of the training advocate as being extremely important in a variety of areas, not simply in the resolution of disputes. Certainly, I spoke earlier about the success of the skill strategy, and this particular bill is a component of that strategy to minimise the amount of disputes through mediation, education in the first instance, and conciliation at the very earliest stage when disputes arise.

The training advocate will be a body through which we can assist that particular process. The success of the training advocate of the day will be dependent upon the early antenna that exists out there, so that disputes can be nipped in the bud. The other very important role of the training advocate that we see is that it actually fills a bit of a vacuum that exists in the area of international students and, indeed, relating to matters that were raised by the member for Morphett earlier about people from overseas who are here on training and study visas; so, we see a prominent role there.

Certainly, by no means could it be construed as some form of tokenism. The training advocate and the office of the training advocate have a significant role to play in our way forward with respect to the skills strategy upon which we are embarking, and, indeed, under the Training and Skills Development Act in which it is brought up.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think it is fair to say that in the information provided to me the word 'token' was a poor choice. However, I can confirm, even though I will not advise the minister as to who made the comment, that it is a person who has had substantial involvement in the industry and just wanted to make sure that the recognition of the need for the training advocate was still there. So it was well intentioned but poorly expressed.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 22 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As with the member for Morphett's contribution, in which he gave an example of a disgraceful arrangement that appears to have been in place for a family with very good intentions of emigrating to South Australia but who were disadvantaged, in my own office a staff member of another Liberal member of parliament spoke to me about a concern about a taxi driver of Indian descent, who was convinced to come to South Australia to undertake accounting studies in a second-storey room in the Rundle Mall somewhere, I think. I must admit that this chap was very hard to understand, so it was quite difficult to understand his real concern.

This, however, has been a concern of mine, too, because I know that there are 280 private RTOs out there in the field. The overwhelming majority of those RTOs are reputable people who are very focused on ensuring that there is a quality training outcome, but there is, unfortunately, a minority who ruin it for everybody else. In that regard, I must admit that the requirement for registration for training providers does have some bad examples that enforce the need for the registration to ensure that there are some controls on it. In that regard, I want to confirm that the opposition is supportive of clause 26.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I certainly acknowledge and thank the opposition for its support. This is about ensuring that we have the highest quality vocational education and training and higher education available not only to our people in South Australia but also to overseas students, and that there are obligations to deliver at a high standard. Certainly, I am pleased to have bipartisan support from the opposition on this particular clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Again, in consultation that I have undertaken, a concern was raised about whether the commission will actually have appropriately qualified staff who would be able to assess competence and issue a qualification or statement of attainment when required.

If a person's current provider is in a position where they are unable to issue the qualification or statement of attainment, the commission should refer that person to another training provider. But really it is about the appropriate number of skilled and qualified people out there, and I would like some comments from the minister on this matter.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The purpose of this is to empower the commission to issue a qualification or statement of attainment under the Australian qualifications framework in a specified higher education or VET course, provided that the commission is satisfied that the learning outcomes and competencies have been met and that the current provider is unable to issue the qualifications or a statement of attainment. That refers, as much as anything, to a registered training organisation becoming insolvent. It is about protection of the persons within the system should something untoward happen in that area and the ability to be able to issue that certificate of attainment or qualification, irrespective of the demise of that RTO.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 and 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This causes a bit of concern and it relates to a comment I received from a very informed person I spoke to about a week ago. The intention of the bill is in some ways to increase competition in the sector with the intention of increasing the quality of service and reducing the cost to users. In a competitive environment, intellectual property and processes can be (and usually are) a very competitive advantage.

The comment I received was that it is not reasonable for training providers to be open to being required to provide the commission with unrestricted information and then allowing the commission unrestricted rights to share that information. I asked the minister to consider the situation where a private RTO and TAFE were each awarded a contract to provide a training service. If the private provider is more successful than TAFE in delivering the contracted outcomes, or vice-versa—and I know that TAFE is very competitive—because they have developed a better process for the achievement of set outcomes, it can be assumed that they have developed a competitive advantage.

In order to discover what process was used, TAFE, if it was successful, would only need to lodge a complaint with the commission which could request that all information be provided by the competitor and that information could be passed on to TAFE or any other provider and, therefore, the competitive advantage is lost. Obviously, this would stifle innovation. Organisations will not invest in improved processes if that investment cannot be protected in any way. Training providers and employers may be required to supply the commission with very sensitive and confidential information about their business operations, and it would not be appropriate for this information to be compromised.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The effect of this provision, as has been indicated, is for the commission to provide information to another registering body or course accrediting body as it sees fit. I inform the committee that there has been no change from the 2003 training skills development act in this area. It is not an area that has come to notice during the consultative process. The clause protects the integrity of national modifications systems and employers who rely on qualifications as evidence of competence. I am advised that we have provisions in place in the system that protect commercial sensitive information. In respect of the government, we have a code of conduct relating to that matter.

Clause passed.

Clauses 42 to 44 passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 28—

Lines 24 and 25 [clause 45(1), definition of probationary period]— Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Lines 27 and 28 [clause 45(1), definition of standard conditions]— Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Line 34 [clause 45 (2)(b)]— Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Line 36 [clause 45(2)(c)]—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Page 29, lines 2 and 3 [clause 45(2)(c)(ii)]—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 46.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 29—

Line 9 [clause 46(1)]—Delete 'occupation'

Line 16 [clause 46(3)]—Delete 'non-trade occupation' and substitute:

declared vocation

Line 34 [clause 46(6)(b)(ii)]—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Line 36 [clause 46(6)(b)(iii)]—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Page 30—

Lines 10 and 11 [clause 46(7), penalty provision and expiation fee]—Delete the penalty provision and expiation fee

Lines 16 and 17 [clause 46(9), penalty provision and expiation fee]—Delete the penalty provision and expiation fee

Amendments carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I wish to raise a few points relating to this clause based upon comments received from Business SA. Concerns have been expressed that it is an offence not to train a person in a trade occupation except under a training contract. This excludes the ability to train in a trade through alternative pathways. At a time of critical skills shortages, when accelerated skill development is crucial to survival and sustainability of major projects in the state, as part of its consultation with the minister, Business SA suggested that the inclusion of the words 'or by other means as approved by the minister' be included here. My understanding is that the minister was not supportive of that. I am wondering whether the minister believes there will ever be a scenario where it is important to have some degree of flexibility that may require him to have the inclusion of those words.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am reluctant, as a minister, to determine outside of the current arrangements what level of flexibility ought to occur within training. It is my view that there is still a bit of water to go under the bridge. I think it is important that, if we say that training is a whole of community, whole of state, in fact, whole of nation responsibility, it is critical that the unions, training providers, those masters to apprentices, the group training schemes, Business SA and SA Unions to agree on that level of flexibility. I do not think that it is right for any single individual to determine that.

In fact, we are moving towards more flexible arrangements of delivery of training. We only need to look at the advent of school-based apprenticeships, and there is still some discussion to occur in a couple of those areas on school-based apprenticeships about the award provisions and the protections that need to be in place for them to be successful. But, yes, in answer to your question, I can see that day, but at this time it would be premature to put that in there because I want that to be developed collectively by those who are collectively responsible for the training and the upskilling of people in this state.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 47 passed.

Clause 48.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 30, line 38—Delete 'occupation'

Page 31, line 33—Delete 'occupation'

Amendments carried.

Mr PISONI: Regarding approval of training contracts, there is a penalty of $5,000 for an employer who does not within four weeks apply to the commission for approval of a contract. Can the minister explain how big a problem that has been in the past and why it is necessary to have a $5,000 penalty? My understanding is that generally, particularly with smaller employers, when they have decided to take on an apprentice, they tend to get things done quite quickly because they want the financial incentives that come with it. Why does the minister feel it is necessary to have a $5,000 fine, and what sort of history is there in employers not actually doing this?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Unley is quite right, as was the member for Goyder, in indicating that employers did not particularly support the range of penalty, the expiation fee or the very need for there to be registration before entering into a training contract.

There have been significant delays in the process of registering training contracts. That has created some problems in the past because, as the member knows, not everyone got on as well as he indicated earlier that he did with his apprentices. We want this to be an understanding and an education process about the obligations that are imposed upon each party when entering into a contract of training. We see the registration process as significantly important.

Certainly in regard to the honourable member's specific question, the department has always taken a flexible approach to the administration of this section of the act, and it will continue to do so. However, there have been exceedingly lengthy delays in the lodgment of training contracts and that poses a risk to all parties in my view. We want people to finish their contract of training, and one mechanism by which we can improve that retention and completion rate is to ensure that there is an understanding of the obligations of each other upon entering that training contract, so that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed and we understand what is required of each other.

The four-week lodgment is designed to reduce the time taken to identify what training contract issues might exist, and to minimise the potential impact on the employer and the apprentice or trainee should these issues result in a declined contract. We want people to be sure that the decision that they are making is correct before they enter into that contract of training, and, the longer the time taken to lodge a training contract for approval, the greater the wages entitlements impact upon the parties.

What I would say to the member for Unley is that we view this as a very important component of this bill. We have increased the penalty from $2,500 to $5,000 and we have introduced expiation fees, but it is also going to be the case that a process of education will need to be undertaken. From my perspective, we have given an assurance to Business SA that, in the explanatory notes and guidelines, it will be suggested that employers be the last person to sign the training contracts. My department, DFEEST, has a representative on the national officers group that deals with the nature of training contracts and they will raise that matter in that forum.

I support all employers who want to take on apprentices and trainees, and I encourage them to do that, as I have many times before, but we also want to ensure that this process is not a disadvantage or a deterrent for anyone to take on a trainee or apprentice; in fact, it is part of an integrated system that results in better outcomes than would otherwise be the case. I have given Business SA an undertaking that, with respect to the four-week time frame, if there is any delay from any other area before that documentation is sent through, the employer has to be the last person to sign it. That is a protection, and that will be in the explanatory notes as agreed in my undertaking with Business SA.

Mr PISONI: What have been the delays in the past?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time, but we know, as the honourable member knows—and it has been mentioned—about single person operators, contracts get put in the glove box of the car, there may even be occasions when there have been delays from my department's end, and far be it from me to say that my department is without fault. It is safe to say that the processes can only be documented when that documentation arrives, and in the past there have been significant delays.

It is certainly my view, and the view of others to whom I have spoken, that those delays have often resulted in the verbal contract that had been entered into not necessarily being fulfilled. This is about ensuring that there are protections in place for both the employer and the employee, but more importantly about the ability to undertake an educative process that understands mutual obligation.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 49.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 32, line 3 [clause 49(1)]—Delete 'occupation or non-trade occupation' and substitute:

or declared vocation

Mr PISONI: I require some clarification on subclause (3), which provides:

If a conflict occurs between a determination of the commission under this section and a determination of the Industrial Relations Commission, the determination of the Industrial Relations Commission prevails.

Can you give some examples of where you would expect that to happen?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do not have any specific examples, but I can tell you that there may be occasions in the future when a determination made by the Training and Skills Commission might be challenged by an employer or, indeed, someone else affected by that term of the contract of training, and there needs to be a mechanism by which that can be resolved. Certainly the view is that the best way for that to be resolved is by reference to the Industrial Relations Commission through the processes that we are implementing.

Mr PISONI: Is it then the intention that the emphasis shifts from the matter being a training issue to one involving an industrial relations issue? Is that the intention of the clause?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, it is not.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 50 passed.

Clause 51.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I might have the wrong end of the stick here, but I know that people to whom we have been speaking are concerned. I hope that all training contracts work out and the completion rates are 100 per cent, but the facts of life are that that is not achievable, and the facts are also that sometimes, for example—through either serious or wilful misconduct, or personality clashes—it is almost impossible for small organisations to continue to have a working relationship between the boss and the staff. If it is necessary for the training contract involving the employee concerned to be terminated, is this applicable in clause 51, and will it suddenly involve the employer in a penalty of $5,000?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No; the legislation is certainly clear about who has the ability to terminate a training contract, and it seems to me that an important step here will involve the timeliness of that suspension in terms of its referral through to the appropriate body in the first instance for some form of conciliation. But certainly resolution will be referenced through to the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

It is certainly the intention that no person other than the commission may terminate the contract of training. As I understand it from my discussions with Business SA, it was more worried about the fact that after a period of time there was a requirement for a trainee or apprentice to return to work. Whilst part of me certainly supports that approach, I know that the resolution of any dispute will not be helped if the relationship is so fractured that it would be difficult for the person concerned to return to the work site that has been at the centre of that particular fracture.

So, the IRC itself has the ability to extend that suspension to a four-week period, to ensure that any delays are dealt with in such a way that it does not require that person to return to work. We have a process in place whereby no-one, other than the commission, may terminate or suspend or purport to terminate or suspend a training contract. It is a contract between the individual employer and the employee and it needs to be dealt with on that basis.

The Industrial Relations Commission does have under section 65 the power to terminate in its own right but, again, the thrust of this legislation is to have built-in mechanisms providing protection for the employer and the employee. It is about protecting each other's rights.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can understand the intent of the legislation and support that, but the facts of life are that people that I know, and presumably you know also, who are employers have very much an old-style attitude to being the boss and to their rights involving an employee. There is a potential there that, while these people may have entered into a contract of training with very good intentions, if they get upset they are just going to crack a wobbly and say, 'You're out of here. Don't come back again.' On behalf of smaller employers who probably are not members of Business SA and, therefore, not able to refer such issues to that organisation, I want to clarify just what would occur there. I hope it does not happen but the odds are that it will.

The Hon. P. CAICA: There would be an educative process because we want to educate people about their collective and individual responsibility. In the first instance, that would include a warning and then we would expect that, irrespective of who that employer might be, as a result of that educative process, they would understand the obligations that exist. Certainly every aspect of this bill is not about whacking people over the head: it is about setting up a system that will deliver better outcomes in the area of training.

Clause passed.

Clause 52.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 33—

Line 27—Delete 'to another' and substitute:

(the former employer) to another (the new employer)

Lines 28 and 29—Delete 'the employer to whom the contract is transferred or assigned' insert:

both the former employer and the new employer

Mr PISONI: I need some clarification in relation to the change of ownership. Is a change of ownership, as outlined in subclause (1), considered a transfer as outlined in subclause (2)?

The Hon. P. CAICA: We have had a significant amount of debate in this particular area. I will give the honourable member one example of where we have been looking at the transfer of training of contracts to a new employer. An example which came to the fore quite recently was that of a hairdresser who bought a business. The 21 year old person who purchased this beauty salon or hairdressing salon—like the honourable member, I am not necessarily in need of hairdressers—did not want to take on the apprentice. I can understand that. Among other things, the amendments which I have just moved make it the responsibility of both the existing employer and the new employer to notify the Training and Skills Commission about a transfer of contract.

In relation to the specific question asked by the honourable member relating to a change of ownership, it is my understanding that subclause (2) refers to change of ownership of a business, or part of a business, that does not result in the termination of a contract. Subclause (2) refers to the process of transferral, bearing in mind that we did move an amendment which takes into account the obligations of the two parties. I do not know whether I have answered the honourable member's question specifically.

Mr PISONI: What I am trying to determine is when the ownership changes. Let us say it is a proprietary limited company and they are buying the business and the brand name. The new company comes in and the apprenticeship is transferred to the new company. If that is not registered as per this clause, are they at risk of a $315 expiation fee or a $5,000 penalty? I am trying to determine whether a change of ownership involving new owners or new employers under the same business will have to go through this process.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Certainly they will have to go through a process of notifying the Training and Skills Commission, and that is why we are putting the obligation on both the buyer and the seller of a business to notify the Training and Skills Commission. Certainly, notification is required and, quite rightly, because the contract of training that was entered into with an employer has changed and there is a new owner, and hence a new employer who is responsible for the training contract. Quite rightly, there is an obligation on them to inform the Training and Skills Commission to ensure that the contract is then ratified and the training requirements of that individual are continued and transferred through to the new employer.

Mr PISONI: I will put another scenario. If it is the same company but different directors, will that require a notification?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do not have the background necessarily in business that the honourable member does, but I am advised that it would be the same company that would be employing the person, so there would not be the requirement.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 53.

Mr PISONI: This is a point of clarification. Subclause (1) provides:

A person must not exert undue influence or pressure on, or use unfair tactics against, a person in relation to entering into a training contract.

Can you define who that person is, minister?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is a person who attempts to exert undue influence and so on in relation to training contracts. Subclause (1) refers to the employer, as I understand it. Of course, it could relate to the apprentice or trainee if, indeed, they were to exert undue influence in relation to the obligations of that training contract.

Mr PISONI: What about a parent who was dead keen for their child to have an apprenticeship but the child could not see the value of that apprenticeship, as often happens with kids of that age? Would that parent be subject to a penalty if that child (whether they be 18 or under) said, 'Look, I have been put under enormous pressure to take on this apprenticeship'? Often parents do know best, despite what their kids think at that age.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The parent would have to be a party to the contract.

Clause passed.

Clause 54 passed.

Clause 55.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 34—

Line 14—Delete 'occupation'

Line 16—Delete 'occupation or specified trade occupations' and substitute:

or specified trades

Line 18—Delete 'non-trade occupation' and substitute:

declared vocation

Lines 20 and 21—Delete 'non-trade occupation or specified non-trade occupations and substitute:

declared vocation or specified declared vocations

Mr GRIFFITHS: The requirement for registration of employers has been a bone of contention for some time. I have received very detailed submissions from Business SA. The need for employers to become registered is an onus which it does not support. However, I recognise that those currently in training contracts will automatically roll over and that the registration contract will be for a period of five years.

As a result of comments made to me by the minister and his staff during briefings, I know that there will be an education exercise to ensure that employers, who do not currently have a training contract in place, are aware of their requirements. I know that there will be electronic opportunities in order for registration to occur.

It is a real concern, and Business SA has been quite strong on this matter. No doubt the minister has had discussion with representatives from Business SA, and the information I have received indicates that it is one of its main focus areas. Its request was that clauses 55 to 62 be removed because they relate to registration. I know the practicalities of the numbers in this place will not allow that to occur.

It is important that we put on the record the fact that the position held by many is that the requirement to register employers is an onus which is not warranted and not required and that they would prefer it not to be in place.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for echoing the well-known views of Business SA in relation to this clause. We have had the debate. In fact, we have discussed in this place my view of the importance of the registration process and what will result from it. Certainly, I have given assurance to Business SA that it, along with other key stakeholders, will be engaged in the development of employer registration processes and that the process will be made as simple as possible.

From a government perspective, I do not favour a 12-month review of the employer registration process, but I have given assurances that the process will be monitored on an ongoing basis and include opportunities for input from all key stakeholders. It also includes a great obligation and responsibility upon my departmental officers to get it right at their end. It would be easy for us to include some transitional arrangements, but we do not intend to do that because we want the department to be working towards getting it right.

Some 8,000 employers will get automatic registration and there are roughly about 2,600 new applications a year. It is about educating those people, and we will not whack them for mistakes made at our end. We will ensure that they, along with all parties to this registration, understand their obligations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I seek clarification on the resources to be devoted to the registration process. Will it be handled by staff currently within the department or is there a need to appoint additional staff? If they are additional staff, does the minister have preliminary budget figures and information on what the cost will be to service that need?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I remind the honourable member that we are not in estimates. Certainly, it has resourcing implications. In the initial stages it will have resource implications. As we transition through to processes that will make it more accessible and flexible for organisations to register, it will have resourcing implications, but those resources will be found within the existing resources.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 56.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 34, lines 35 to 38—Delete subclause (2)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 57 to 62 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:58 the house adjourned until Thursday 8 May 2008 at 10:30.