TRAINING ORGANISATIONS

Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:54): I ask a supplementary question. Was the department negligent in providing accreditation to the Adelaide Pacific International College when the major employer organisation in the automotive industry does not recognise the qualification they provide as a legitimate pathway into their industry here in South Australia or around the nation? If the rules are on the website then the minister would know whether they were negligent or not.

The SPEAKER: You have asked the question. Sit down. Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I ask you to rule that that has no bearing on the answer that was given by the minister. It is not supplementary to it because it has no bearing on the answer he gave.

The SPEAKER: I agree with you. I think that was a separate question and I will count that as another question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (14:55): I presume that the member for Unley is referring to the press statement coming from Mr John Chapman of the Motor Trade Association, and that that is the organisation to which he is referring. I have met Mr Chapman several times since becoming minister and he is a great bloke. He is very well informed and has great knowledge about vocational education. I note that Mr Chapman is also a former staffer for the Liberal Party but, unlike members opposite, I am more than happy to meet any stakeholder in my portfolio, regardless of their political affiliations.

Mr Chapman and the MTA's concern with the training model provided at APIC is essentially one of methodology. The Motor Trade Association believes that training for automotive technicians and mechanics has to be on the job, which is the training that the MTA provides under its group training scheme. APIC and other training providers, including TAFE, provide their training methodology in an institutional setting which the MTA disagrees with. The MTA has a fundamental point of disagreement with that training methodology which you would expect, because it provides training on the competing methodology—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Unley!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The last five months have been difficult because I have missed the member for Unley's sunny countenance in this chamber. It has been so difficult—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: Standing Order 98 again, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold that point of order. Minister, can you direct your answer to the question?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I again point out that it sits ill in the mouth of the opposition to insist on standing orders, when they persistently fail to observe them with interjecting loudly and aggressively, I would point out, by the member for Unley.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. The Treasurer did very well in his last response and stuck to the question. However he was constantly fielding interjections and could not help responding to one or two. Minister, I am sure you are not going to be like that; you are going to answer the question.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker; I was sorely provoked. The Motor Trade Association provides a competing methodology in training to that which is provided in an institutional setting. That has been the basis of the MTA's concerns and those have been the concerns that have been looked at by the department and the regulator over the preceding months.