TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 November 2010.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:05): I would like to inform the house that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I am here in my capacity, not just as the member for Unley but, of course, as the opposition spokesperson on Employment, Training and Further Education. I was going to be at the SACE celebration at Government House this morning representing the opposition, with the education minister but, unfortunately, that was not to be. Some last minute arrangements meant that the member for Adelaide went in my place. I am a little bit disappointed, just as a personal matter, because my niece was going to be receiving two merit awards there this morning and I would have loved to have been there representing the opposition, but it was not to be. However, I am raring and ready to go in the chamber here this morning to debate the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010.

Of course, the Liberal opposition supports any measure that will positively contribute to the activities of students, both local and overseas, studying here in South Australia. Any legislation that seeks to protect their interests and ensure a satisfactory standard of vocational education and better standards of regulation of services provided is worthy of our backing. The Liberal Party is also fully supportive of educational institutions and private registered training organisations promoting employment opportunity through improved skills and creating wealth for our state. After all, it was the Liberal Party in November 1988, under the Public Corporations Act, that established Education Adelaide. That, of course, has grown to be a very worthwhile organisation here in South Australia; itself building on the national growth that we have seen in Australia in the international student education business here in Australia.

Of course, South Australia has struggled to keep its share. In the 2003 Strategic Plan the Premier's very ambitious goal was to double the national growth of foreign students in South Australia, but the latest report of the Strategic Plan tells us that that approach is not going to happen. I think the terms that is used is 'unlikely to succeed'. I remember that, at one stage, the previous minister for further education and training—because there have been a few under this government—said that he was putting a cap of 60,000 students for South Australia because, as I think he told Estimates at that time, we didn't want to be like Melbourne. I am not quite sure if I know what that means but that was the view at the time.

I think we are well short of that 60,000 and rather than a cap we probably need a bit of a bullet to get it moving along a bit more. It is interesting that the latest piece from the Education Adelaide website includes some members of its program: 42 participating institutions including Carnegie Mellon University from the United States and Cranfield University from the United Kingdom. I wonder if Cranfield is still registered, because before the summer break Isobel Redmond, the opposition leader, and I visited the Cranfield University campus and the door was locked and there was nobody there. First of all, we emailed the inquiries number for Cranfield University for course inquiries and we got a message back saying that that person was no longer available on that email address and the email address was no longer valid.

We then tried to call Cranfield University and immediately went to a message bank. We were then very shocked, of course, to get a return call from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet who explained that it was, in fact, managing Cranfield University at that time and that there were not any courses at Cranfield University. We are not sure whether there will be any courses in the future. Remember when Cranfield University came to South Australia and there was a big opening? His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent was here to open it. Remember the plaque on the wall and the curtain? There was no building, of course; there was a plaque.

The Premier, on two occasions almost 12 months apart, told this parliament that Cranfield University would be offering degrees, yet when we questioned the Premier on how many students had graduated with degrees at Cranfield University, he said, 'Ah hah, I've got you. I've caught you out. It was never going to offer degrees.' However, he told the parliament, on two separate occasions, that it would offer degrees.

So, one has to ask oneself just where are we heading with these pet projects? I know they are not the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, but it may very well fall within his responsibility as the Treasurer because, from what we can establish, close to $50 million of taxpayers' money has already gone into Carnegie Mellon. Carnegie Mellon does not report to the state parliament. Adelaide University, University of South Australia and Flinders University report to the state parliament, but Carnegie Mellon and Cranfield do not report to the state parliament.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The minister interjects as if it is not an important issue—$50 million! You're the Treasurer now, minister; $50 million is a lot of money. Tell that to the students out at Para West College, who have been told that they can no longer attend as adults after the age of 25—tell them that $50 million is not a lot of money and that it is not relevant in the parliament's bill. This bill is all about protecting international students.

In relation to Cranfield University, if you read the rhetoric—the over-selling of the Premier about Cranfield University and Carnegie Mellon University—it was all about building our foreign student business here in South Australia. Well, the facts are that Terry Buss from Carnegie Mellon wrote to the Treasurer just last year, stating that in four years 137 students had gone through Carnegie Mellon University. Then, its own internal report, which was published in November last year, from the AQAS, I think, the organisation you hire to report on your own business, showed that there were just over 60 graduations—in four years, $50 million and 60 graduations from Carnegie Mellon University.

The bill we are debating today is about protecting students. What I am saying is, 'How about protecting the taxpayers of South Australia?'—that is what we should be considering on a broader scope. Maybe the Premier needs to let go of the University City Project to enable it to move into the portfolio of the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, just as he did with the Royal Institution, another pet project of the Premier, initiated by Thinker in Residence Susan Greenfield—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Baroness Susan Greenfield, I have been corrected. There were some shocking reports in The Times at about this time last year about Baroness Susan Greenfield's sacking at the Royal Institution of London for her grand plan to revamp the Royal Institution. I think she has left that institution in about £50 million of debt. The unfortunate thing for us is that that same model was used for the Royal Institution.

It might surprise many South Australians to know that $27 million of taxpayers' money has gone into the Royal Institution here in South Australia. It has a very nice menu. I do not know whether any of you have visited the Royal Institution or looked at its menu on line, but it has a very nice menu to choose from. There is breakfast for $35 a head, if you like.

Mr Pengilly: Really?

Mr PISONI: Yes. The former minister for education had a very pleasant evening in November 2009 after COAG one night when a half an hour drinking session for her COAG colleagues cost in excess of $500, plus room hire, at the Royal Institution. The $27 million of taxpayers' money is being well-spent and well-utilised.

Mr Pengilly: What has happened to her? Where is she?

Mr PISONI: She is actually running it now. She is the acting—

An honourable member: She got a job out of it!

Mr PISONI: The member for Finniss says, 'Where is she?'

Mr Pengilly: She gets a parliamentary pension, plus she gets that.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: She is now running the Royal Institution here in Adelaide. I suppose she will get free drinks there; I do not know. There must be some perks. Certainly the taxpayers will not be paying for it any more.

However, I digress and I apologise, minister. I am very passionate about my portfolio, I am very passionate about students in South Australia and I am very passionate about responsibility for taxpayers' money. Consequently, I do get a little carried away in expressing my passion in this place and I thank the Speaker for her tolerance at times when I am expressing a passionate view.

While some stakeholders have questioned the need for certain components of the bill that are already covered by existing legislation, they have cautioned over a potential conflict pending federal legislation. Most are generally supportive of the legislation's direction and are keen to have examples such as APIC weeded out before educational damage and expense is inflicted upon students and harm is done to South Australia's reputation as a centre for quality education.

We can all stand proud in Australia and in South Australia that we have world-quality education. That is something I often discuss with friends and associates interstate and overseas and I am very happy to be a salesman for South Australia's education facilities wherever I go. The wonder is that the unfortunate example of APIC was allowed to develop, but I will return to that a little later. We will go into detail on that, but that was a very unfortunate situation for South Australia. There were warning bells and flashing lights but, unfortunately, there were those within government that were both blind and deaf to those signals.

We have also had feedback from some stakeholders that the consultation prior to the bill entering parliament left a little to be desired. Business SA, for example, found out about it by way of a DFEEST newsletter, which is a bit surprising. I am sure that the minister may explain that in his speech. Business SA is an umbrella group for a lot of RTOs and represents a great chunk of the business community in South Australia.

Some would argue Business SA could even be described as the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association of the private sector and the business community—the dominant faction or the dominant group within the business sector. There are many others, but they all really stand in line behind Business SA in many instances, just as the many factions and unions within the Labor Party stand behind the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association as they push their way through with their reshuffles and those sorts of things.

I am grateful to the minister, his staff and representatives from the department for their briefing that was offered to us, I think, about two months after the second reading of the bill. We did contact the office prior to the offer being made and we were very pleased that our offer to be available for a briefing was taken up. Obviously, the minister has had other things on his mind in the last few months, and we understand that. We are very forgiving on this side of the house. We know it is a big change for the minister and we do whatever we can and, if that means waiting a while for a briefing, we are more than happy to do that. If that means initiating a briefing, we are happy to do that also. That is not a problem. We are very flexible on this side.

Education is a major industry and generator of economic activity in South Australia. Last week's review of the Adelaide City Council's Student Growth Plan revealed that, while education provision will continue to grow and there will be continued investment, the VET sector outlook, particularly for RTOs, is bleaker. I have spent some time with the yellow highlighter looking at that report, which was presented just last week by the City of Adelaide, where some of the challenges, if you like, for RTOs and our international student market in South Australia were highlighted.

While the education system for international students here in South Australia has undergone a major growth spike in each sector as a result of growth in the international market, changes in the marketplace are presenting a number of challenges for future growth. They have been exacerbated by difficulties in the commercial environment after the GFC, which has severely impacted upon investment, and other issues, such as increased competition in the international marketplace.

I think it is important that we recognise that. You cannot do anything about the GFC. That happens. When you are in business you realise that there are things you can deal with and things you cannot deal with. In other words, you are dealt the hand that you are dealt and you play with those cards. But, of course, competition is something that you can deal with and it should be seen as a challenge for South Australia and an incentive to improve business here in South Australia, that is, to change the way we are doing things to ensure we get our fair share.

We do not have our fair share of international students in South Australia. We have about 7.5 per cent of the country's population but only about 5.4 per cent of the international student market, so South Australia has a long way to go in the international student business, as I like to call it. The report goes on to say that we have had brand damage as a result of student violence—mostly interstate—and college closures, including the very infamous APIC closure here in South Australia. Also, there has been diminished developer interest in the student housing market.

This has been around for some time. I mentioned earlier that I had a conversation—it was a series of questions and answers—with the former training minister about this very issue of student housing, and he said that it is an issue; and certainly, in conversations I have had with those involved who are aware of education in Adelaide, they have raised the fact that student housing is an issue in South Australia.

It is interesting that it has also been raised in the City of Adelaide report but, of course, it has been an issue for the last nine years. We have not seen any solutions being developed by the government, and I think that is a concern. We know that the mining industry needs infrastructure and the defence industry needs infrastructure. We saw the ship lift at Osborne built for the defence industry but we also need to understand that infrastructure is needed for our third biggest business in South Australia, that is, the international student business.

That infrastructure obviously needs to be facilitated by the private sector. I am a strong advocate of the private sector. I have to say that I am a product of the private sector after seeing an opportunity as a young man and grasping hold of that opportunity by starting my own business at the very young age of 21 years. I grew and learnt along the way about the private sector. The private sector is something we really do need to encourage here in South Australia.

We are a small business state and there are many small businesses in the non-government and private RTO area in South Australia. It would be nice if we could have some of those small businesses turning into national and even multinational companies with their head offices right here in Adelaide. That is one of the advantages we can have here in Adelaide, if we play it well, namely, encouraging new industries and new businesses.

It is fair to say that the education sector is a growing new business. There are new areas of education, new areas in the economy that need different degrees, new degrees, new criteria, new training, and they are becoming more popular, particularly as we move more into the service sector. We used to be a very strong manufacturing state. I see the painting up of there of Sir Thomas Playford, and in his 27 years as premier we saw this state turn from an agricultural base to a very mixed economy that included a very strong manufacturing sector.

Victoria has also been a strong manufacturing state. In my other role as part of this portfolio, as the employment spokesperson for the Liberal Party, I find it distressing—it is a strong word to use, I know—to see that we have fared very badly in maintaining manufacturing jobs in this state compared with Victoria, for example. We have seen here virtually a 20 per cent drop in manufacturing jobs in the last five years, and in Victoria we have only seen about a 5 per cent drop. Manufacturing is difficult. I was in manufacturing for 22 years and, even before we saw a flood of imported products into Australia, manufacturing was still very difficult, very competitive, because particularly in the small business field and certainly in my area of furniture manufacturing there is no protection, just like for our farmers. Our farmers are very efficient, they are not protected out there in the marketplace and are forced to make efficiencies and forced to make savings so that their businesses can survive and they can compete on the world market.

They have factors they have to deal with, just like Education Adelaide, just like our universities and RTOs that offer products to foreign students, as they also have to deal with the rise in the dollar, which is as a result of how strong our mining industry is in Western Australia and Queensland in particular. We are told about a mining boom in South Australia, but the figures do not tell us there is one. In fact, there are fewer people working in mining now than there were five years ago and even fewer than there were 10 years ago here in South Australia.

We have a number of exploration projects going on. We have a number of consortiums working in new technology to turn our coal, for example, into diesel and those sorts of things are happening. I am pleased to see that we are encouraging or enabling those industries to exploit the assets of South Australians that we have here and we can hope those assets are turned into benefits for taxpayers in South Australia.

The report also goes on to say that the industry experts agree that Adelaide and South Australia remain well placed for growth, albeit that there will be a lot of structural change within the industry. We hope that part of this bill will help us manage that structural change and, if there are issues that need to be dealt with, like we saw with the APIC situation, that occurs. My sources tell me we are not alone, that APIC was not a lone college that was questionable, and I hope the minister is aware of any other examples and will approach those examples with far more enthusiasm than the initial response to the concerns raised by the MTA, for example, and others about APIC.

It is has been very evident in the lack of interest from smaller, independent, largely VET RTO providers in expansion or local opportunities in the city and minimal interest in the development market for student housing. We want students to come to South Australia. The former minister has told us there is a cap of 60,000. We are at about 32,000 to 34,000 at the moment. We do not know what the next year or the year after will bring with changes that we have seen implemented federally. We know that a lot of our institutions, both private and universities, have relied very heavily on funding that they have received from foreign students, and a lot of the growth that our educational institutions have seen has been funded by foreign students.

In Victoria, for example, they have had very large growth. Latrobe University is very concerned about funding issues and income because of its drop-off in international students. We know that a lot of the income that came in from international students was used to offset government money to replace government money and other forms of income. It is a bit like land tax. It is an unexpected windfall, and you get reliant on it, and you hire more public servants because of it, and then you are hooked, and you do not know what to do to get rid of it or to reduce it. I suppose that is one of the reasons why, here in South Australia, that this government has fallen into a similar trap with its taxing.

It is another challenge for the new role of the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education as the Treasurer in dealing with the fact that we reside in the highest taxing state in the nation here in South Australia. That, of course, affects every business. Every business is affected by state government taxes, but more so small businesses, because small businesses pay a higher proportion of their turnover in state taxes than bigger businesses. So, state taxes are a bigger burden for small businesses than they are for, say, companies like GMH or others to operate in South Australia.

I recommend the report from the Adelaide City Council to members. It certainly is an interesting read. As with the Adelaide Pacific International College (APIC), stricter regulatory guidelines may expose further quality programs which, while good for educational standards, will obviously present challenges for RTOs and providers, many of which in the private education sector have undergone rapid expansion. I have a copy of the McCann report here, and I might at some stage enlighten the parliament with some extracts from the McCann report. I know that the minister's department's legislation was partly a response to the McCann report and, of course, the very public deregistration of the Adelaide Pacific International College.

The McCann report recommended that a greater proportion of the regulator's resources be dedicated to identifying levels of risk and noncompliance by individual RTOs. That is a challenge for the minister, because this government has form on dealing with a situation—whether it be law and order, or whether it be industrial relations, or whether it be training—of increasing penalties and increasing fines but then not following through with the resourcing and enforcement. I think that will be the challenge, because it can be expensive to resource and enforce the regulatory process.

One of the things that I think can work really well in having a reliable system of enforcement in this area in particular is that, if it is reliable and trustworthy and people understand that you are serious and not afraid to act, just that in itself is a deterrent from doing the wrong thing. So, although you may need to put in some resources very early on to let people know that you are serious and that you are fully resourced to deal with such issues, it may very well be that sometime in the future you have changed the culture in the system for fear of retribution.

People have tightened up the way they run their training organisations and they have a better understanding of their obligations. Consequently, you will find that simply the threat of a visit from the regulatory authority may very well be enough to ensure high standards within our higher education system and our VET system.

The APIC incident has illustrated that it is probably less a matter of quality and quantity, as with many things, and that this quality with regard to auditing will need to be analysed as the new national regulator looks to take on elements of the state-based assessment organ when setting up his SA office. In other words, my understanding is that when the national regulations come in we are likely to see that subbied out—if you will forgive me for using an old tradesman's term, being an old tradesman myself—to DFEEST. My understanding is that they were the ones responsible for the 12 or so audits that APIC had passed.

It was interesting to note from the reports and the evidence we had about APIC that there were no chairs in classrooms and no machinery at the workshops. One must wonder just what the audit process involved when such crucial requirements—what I would have thought an automotive training college would have—were lacking. You would expect to see more than just a car door leaning against the garage—perhaps an engine lift, a jack, perhaps even a toolbox, and the odd differential around the place—but there was not a lot of evidence of that from the photographs I have seen and the eyewitness accounts I have heard about the goings-on at APIC.

In that part of the higher education area, where perhaps the business planning has been less robust and where taxpayers' subsidies have been needed to ensure enrolments, there is also, unfortunately, the potential for future closures—Carnegie Mellon, for example. Carnegie Mellon here in Adelaide continues to struggle to attract overseas enrolments, although public sector employees are enjoying the opportunity to study for $65,000 degrees paid for by South Australian taxpayers. Cranfield University's Adelaide campus, as I mentioned earlier, was nothing more than a closed door and an unattended room.

This bill predates the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill 2010 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2010 introduced into federal parliament at the end of November last year and yet to be debated. The federal legislation, of course, results from the 2009 COAG agreement on the national approach to VET regulation.

While this bill, to an extent, mirrors the provisions and aims of the national bill, the minister has proposed this bill on the basis that safeguards are necessary for 12 months or longer, until the national regulator commences regular activity. Again, is 12 months optimistic? I am not sure. I can remember the urgency of the Rudd Labor government putting a price on carbon to do with the greatest moral challenge of our time. Then, of course, the disastrous Copenhagen meeting and it was off the agenda, and it was off the agenda during the election campaign. I think Julia Gillard said—she's the one who replaced Rudd; remember that? Again, the right-wing unions came in and said, 'No more Mr Rudd, you've had your turn.' They brought in Julia Gillard.

I do not know whether anyone saw Four Corners last night, but I think it was Jennie George, former ACTU president and former Labor member of parliament, who thought that Julia Gillard was not quite ready, it was a bit early. It was an interesting insight into the situation at the federal level. Of course, a lot of distractions have happened at the federal level. It is almost a mirror of what has been happening here in South Australia, with changes of leadership and changes of ministries. I like to be an optimistic sort of fellow; I would like to think that we will only be relying on this bill for about 12 months before the national regulator bill comes into place.

On that basis, we think it is important to deal with this now and deal with it so that our Education Adelaide and other education facilities (private companies) can go to the marketplace and say, 'We've got the quality tick. We're abiding by these more stringent requirements. We understand that we're being watched and we've behaved very well, so please come to Adelaide and buy our education facilities—senior kids here—and spend your money here in Adelaide. We love it and we need it, and we would certainly like to have more students visiting.'

As we have seen in many areas of legislation and administration, there is an alarming lack of coordination and, indeed, cooperation between the state and federal governments; so we perhaps need to indulge them with regards to this public benefit. So, that is, of course, why we are looking at doing this now. I suppose that is an admission by association that the minister agrees with me that there is probably not quite the coordination there should be between state and federal governments on issues such as this.

Of note, while this legislation is in many ways a reaction to the McCann report, commissioned post the deregistration of APIC, this report concentrated on the providers of VET services to overseas students. While this legislation, including increased penalties, applies to all VET providers, the deregistration of APIC followed a series of federally initiated audits by the state's RTOs with foreign students.

As I said earlier, it is difficult to understand how these same state-based audit teams had previously missed the glaring faults in training, documentation and general poor management standards highlighted by the MTA to staff and to the minister at the time, Michael O'Brien, who has now gone on to be the world's greatest agricultural minister. For example, in the automotive courses the college operated for a long period without basic equipment needed for training, even without chairs for students to sit on.

The course in itself was of a standard inadequate to be accepted as a basis for employment by the MTA. I think this is an important point. The MTA did in fact write to the minister concerned about the APIC operation. I think the concerns, from what I understand, were broader than just whether or not it would pass an audit but the fact that Indian students were coming to Australia expecting to get these qualifications in a course that did not require on-the-job training, and its members were telling it that they will not employ mechanics who have this qualification. The MTA is a very successful training organisation. I think it is about 25 years old now, and 500 apprentices—

Mr Griffiths: And 250 different employers.

Mr PISONI: It has 250 different employers. It has been a very successful scheme that has been industry-driven. Industry knows the training outcomes that it needs, and is very heavily involved in the development of training, even to the extent that when it takes on a new apprentice they spend six months in the classroom at the MTA training facility. It starts by teaching trade-based maths and literacy skills, the sorts of things that you would expect they would have got from the education system. I can empathise with those students because I too went through the high school system under a Labor government, so I do understand the issues they may have had.

However, the MTA has seen that that is an area it needs to take up with the students to get them ready for the workshop floor. They then go on to do a four-year apprenticeship which, of course, involves on-the-job training. Now, I am a bit of a traditionalist; on-the-job training was a great part of my apprenticeship. I remember going to the storeroom for the 'long weight' and, after a while, thought, 'Yes, I think I have probably waited long enough!' Of course, a 'long weight' was not, in fact, a tool. It was a very good lesson. The left-handed screwdriver was another; it takes ages to find a left-handed screwdriver.

Mr Whetstone: What about the metric shifter?

Mr PISONI: The member for Chaffey, another tradesman, tells me of the metric shifter. What I liked was the first time I had to pass a couple of hundred, I think, chair legs over the buzzer; I got to the last chair leg and the foreman ran over to me and said 'David, you should have done that one first.' In a panic, as a new apprentice, I asked, 'Why should I have done that one first?' He said, 'If you'd done that one first you wouldn't have to do it now.' Boom boom! It is that sort of on-the-job experience that you have as an apprentice that is character building, and I owe a debt to those who trained me in those four years as an apprentice.

I think it would be great if our training organisations here in South Australia could contribute to the richness of the broad education that we all need as we move on through different stages of our life. I think the types of qualifications you get—whether it be through an RTO or the university sector—are a major step to where you will end up 10, 15, 20 years down the track, and I think it is fair to say that we will see many of the newer generation moving on from one career to another. They may very well move into training organisations as adults, whether they be 30, 40 or even 50 years of age.

The thing I find amazing is that with so many of the jobs that are available to my kids—who are now getting towards the end of their high school years—those career options simply were not invented when I was in school or even 10 years ago. I think training institutions, being industry driven, will certainly reflect that, and I think that is what is very important about our training institutions: they need to be industry driven, they need to reflect what the industry needs and its training requirements.

Unfortunately that is not what APIC had. APIC was bringing in a system of training that was not accepted by the vast majority of those in the automotive industry, whether they ran panel shops or were mechanics or vehicle dealers. All of them who employed tradesmen in that area were simply not interested in employing somebody who had gone through a classroom-based course without the on-the-job training in a condensed period. I think that is a debate that we will continue to have. Some are saying that one of the ways that we can deal with our trades shortage is to reduce the time it takes to do an apprenticeship. That is an area where I think there will be quite fierce debate for those who truly understand the benefits of the traditional apprenticeship system.

It is not just the MTA that raises concerns about one specific college, the APIC college. I would like to refer to an excerpt of an email I received from Professor Freda Briggs:

Dear David, I was pleased to see you expose the scam relating to the Indian students/migration. I brought this to the notice of my then Labor MP for Morialta—

who, incidentally, was Lindsay Simmons—

who advised the minister, who said he was conducting an inquiry.

That was back in October 2009, I think, when she advised her Labor MP, who advised the Minister for Transport. The email continued:

For the last two years or more, Indian cab drivers have been telling me that they enrol in a community welfare certificate course. They don't have to attend. They will never work in community welfare here or in India and they openly tell you that it is the cheapest way of getting permanent residence. Second, I was told that the Indian cab owner does not pay them. They pay him. As a result they make their money by cheating.

This story came up because her husband, who was a regular user of taxis because of his health, was often asked for double the fare. When he questioned why he had to pay double the fare that appeared on the meter, the Indian taxidriver would say: ‘Because I don't get paid. The boss gets all the money and I don't make any money unless I charge you extra.' That was reported to the Minister for Transport and yet, when the training minister received concerns from a major employer and training organisation in South Australia, the pennies did not drop to say, ‘What is going on here?'

We have since learnt that one of the directors of APIC had many taxi licences in South Australia. A former course coordinator who resigned in disgust at APIC came to see me and explained that many students were not turning up to class because they had been driving taxis all night for the boss, and the threat was, ‘If you don't drive this taxi, you will fail your class and you will then have to go back to India and you will have no chance of getting Australian citizenship or residency.' That was very concerning, because we do not want to see those types of scams here in South Australia.

I have heard very little from the government. I just wonder whether the government's investigation, which it has refused to hand on through the FOI process, has raised concerns about immigration scams with federal authorities. This bill is all about protecting our reputation, and protecting international students, so if we are serious about doing that we are going to think it is important that other authorities, where this government does not have a direct role, are advised. This is what we were told would be one of the benefits of nationwide Labor governments—a sense of cooperation. I think the Premier was very excited about that: reduction in red tape, the ability to do things quicker, stop the blame game. I would be very happy for the minister to put on record any other action he may have taken in regard to advising federal immigration and other areas, and whether the investigation was handed on for further investigation outside the scope of the minister's department.

While this bill is a stopgap measure, it is also a spontaneous reaction to address the recommendations of the McCann report, which in turn arose from the deregistration of the Adelaide Pacific International College in July last year. The amendments cover all RTOs, not just those with international students which were the focus of the McCann inquiry. Interestingly, the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) has 1,262 registered providers on their books around Australia; only 47 of them are in South Australia, and that is straight from the McCann report. What is the percentage there, member for Goyder?

Mr Griffiths: Four per cent.

Mr PISONI: Four per cent of colleges (7 per cent of the population); so again, we have the question of the over-spruiking of the Rann government on this issue. It is a pattern, and I think there could be a chapter about this in the Hawker Britton 'vote for me' book about how you do this. I think it is something about repeating numbers: say them often enough, say it loud enough and say it with somebody famous, and they will believe you. I thank the member for Goyder for this: 3.7 per cent is the exact figure—3.7 per cent of RTOs in this state.

The Hawker Britton model tells you just to keep repeating things and, generally, people will not bother checking. It is very hard to be heard against a head of government like a premier or a high profile minister to rebut what they are saying. But we do know that the government has form on mining, defence and education. If I just stick with education, we know the over-spruiking of the University City Project with Carnegie Mellon, Cranfield and the University College London. It was an enormous over-spruiking effort by the Premier.

Roxby Downs is another example—the very project he was the architect of opposing when he was working for John Bannon in 1982. I think it is close on nine years now that the Premier has been promising 23,000 additional jobs simply from that mine alone. I am just waiting for the release this week at the start of a new parliamentary term. It is somewhere there in the Hawker Britton book about a new parliamentary term: repeat another promise that was made or another statistic that was made the year before at the same time in the same rotation on the calendar.

I think it is interesting that people have really stopped listening. That is going to be difficult for South Australia in the next three years because people really have stopped listening. The Premier said that, despite his reshuffle here today, he will be here until 2014. I think the problem that we have for South Australia is that the Premier has lost his credibility. He has been promising things for nine years and not delivering.

We all remember the mini turbines on top of the State Administration Centre and how they were going to power parts of the state administration building. They were pulled down about 12 months ago because they did not work. Then of course, there was the announcement with his good friend, the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, about wind turbines on schools. Not long after that announcement, the Public Works Committee discovered that they never really worked and they were not going to go on schools, but, of course, there was no announcement that they were not going to go on schools.

As a matter of fact, I think there is still a shed somewhere where there are about $300,000 worth of these mini turbines just sitting there. I do not know whether they are waiting for new technology to make them work or whether they are waiting for the warranty. Maybe they are having trouble cashing in on the warranty. Often you buy something from a very convenient store, but with the warranty process, you have to go to some back street behind a manufacturing plant down at Lonsdale that is only open between 1pm and 2pm on Saturdays to honour your warranty. I wonder if that is the problem they have got with the wind turbines. Maybe that is why they are still in storage somewhere.

Again, I apologise; I do digress. The necessity of this bill, with such a short period before the national legislation is finalised and further amendment to our act is again necessary, could probably be questioned. We will be required to make amendments to the state act to align with the national legislation in New South Wales, where the referral bill was passed on 30 November last year. So, basically, I think that we accept that that may very well need to happen. I think again, in the interests of sending a message out there that we are serious about protecting our investment here in international students, we are supporting this bill so we can, in actual fact, ensure that foreign students can rest assured that they are in safe hands here in South Australia.

The introduction of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill into the Senate on 26 November last year will have it being considered in the autumn sitting, so we are told. Anticipating it being passed quite early, the national VET regulator may be set up and running as planned in April with similar clauses and penalties to our amended state act. The interim chair and CEO of the national VET regulator has, in fact, already been appointed. So, that is interesting, isn't it? We have not got it yet, but we are paying somebody to run it. Again, I suppose we are getting used to that under both federal and state Labor.

I remember the Stormwater Management Authority. Board fees were being paid and here we are, six years later, and the only action we have seen from the Stormwater Management Authority is a direction to councils to have a plan by April this year. Gee, they move fast on those committees.

There have also been amendments to education services for overseas students in the ESOS Act 2000 that regulates training. ESOS is actually the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and it regulates training providers. So, with overseas students, following the Baird Review, released in March 2010, these amendments include strengthening the provider registration requirements measure for the management of risk in international education and financial penalties for a wider range of noncompliant behaviour. Again, those penalties are only as good as the enforcement.

The re-registration of all providers currently registered with CRICOS by December 2010 was part of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Act 2010, which took effect in March 2010. The draft training and skills development guidelines for RTOs are also out for consultation until 21 February 2011. It seems a little strange to some of the stakeholders, and to the opposition, that will be dealing with this legislation that we will have to deal with it again in the very near future when this consultation is still out.

As I said, we accept that. We accept the minister's argument of urgency and, consequently, that is why we are happy to support this amendment bill. One of the main concerns of stakeholders and, of course, the opposition is that these amendments work smoothly and in synchronisation with existing and future federal legislation pertaining to overseas and domestic students.

I think that something that is often lost to those in our position who regulate and who make laws is that there is always a cost to business and to the private sector. We do have an obligation to minimise that impact and the cost because we know that they are the ones who pay the taxes that pay not just our salaries but salaries of public servants who provide the services in South Australia and the salaries of teachers in our schools. They are the ones who pay the $50,000 bonus for the disengaged teachers. They are the ones who pay the 114 weeks redundancy pay for the 4,000 or so public servants who are no longer required. They are the ones who pay the bills, and we need to be very aware of and respect that, and be very responsible with that responsibility, if I can put it in that manner.

Take for example, clause 16 which amends section 39(1), regarding cancellation of qualification or statement of attainment. While it is obviously important to address the issue of poor quality and fraudulent education activity, it is important to ensure that legitimate students are not put in any disadvantage in the process. I think, unfortunately, we may have seen that. I am aware that, despite the scam that APIC was, at least a couple of students thought it was a genuine organisation and I have heard some reports that they felt a bit let down with the process after that.

It must be ensured that the cancellation of qualifications and statements of attainment does not hinder the operation of the TAS (Tuition Assurance Scheme) in seeking to place students in other colleges. I think that is important—and the McCann report also raises that. It is important that TAS is again like a warranty that we are offering foreign students. You need to have either a very large security bond not to be a member or you must be a member if you are catering for foreign students in South Australia.

Basically, what members do is to minimise the impact of a college closing or a college going out of business for whatever reason, whether it be insolvency, administration, or it simply does a runner. Those members within the Tuition Assurance Scheme come in and coordinate places for those students, as a best fit for what they were actually studying, when their operator or their provider closed their business. It is important that, under this arrangement, no additional fees are charged.

For example, if you had three months to go on a training process—let's use the automotive process—and you had paid up-front for those three months, then the agreement amongst the members of the TAS would be: 'Yes, come into our college, finish it off and we won't charge you until the next lot of fees are due.' In other words, if you only had three months to go and that was paid up-front, there would be no further expense. If you had two years to go and you had paid for one year and you were halfway through, you would complete that year with no additional charge but, of course, then you would pay the new college for the tuition that you had not paid for.

The system itself worked quite well. I witnessed how it worked when I attended a meeting for students of a Japanese-owned English college (I cannot remember its name) that closed down around Australia. It was managed by the membership, but it was also facilitated by the federal department, and it did seem to work well. An area that did cause some concern was those who had paid for homestays but homestays had not been delivered because they had actually paid the operator (the college) for the homestays that would then sub-contract, if you like, that homestay. I am sure there was a margin in it for them. They are businesspeople after all. Those people who had paid up-front for their homestays but who had not actually been delivered somewhere to live had some difficulty, and the TAS did not cover that process.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr PISONI: What time is lunch? Take your time, Jack—eat something while you are out there. So it is hoped that the regulator will work cooperatively with the TAS operator to act appropriately according to individual circumstances and to avoid unnecessary hardship and achieve a fair outcome for students. Once again, it will be important that this is administered consistently with the federal Education Services for Overseas Students Act.

I imagine there is also a role for the Training Advocate, and it is fortuitous that the environment minister is here who still appears on the website of the Training Advocate's page with his message from the minister and a lovely photograph of the Hon. Paul Caica, who was the training minister how many ministers ago?

The Hon. P. Caica: Do I have hair in that photograph?

Mr PISONI: No, no hair in that photograph—1 September 2008, minister. So I wonder just how serious the minister and his department have been in advocating for students—and do not forget that the Training Advocate is also there for providers of training facilities. I think that minister Caica has been the agriculture minister since he was the training minister, and he is now the environment minister. I think you even have that tie, minister. You actually have on the same tie today as the one in this photograph; could that be right? It is a black-and-white photo, but it is very, very similar. It is extraordinary. Change does come at a slow pace in the Labor Party, it appears. I reckon it is the same tie.

The Hon. P. Caica: No, it's not.

Mr PISONI: It isn't?

The Hon. P. Caica: No, because this was given to me by my son.

Mr PISONI: I would like to see this updated. I was just explaining, minister, while the minister for environment was standing in for you, that his photograph and his spiel still appear on the Training Advocate's page as it was not updated for minister O'Brien and obviously has not been updated—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr PISONI: This is very important to those who wish to use it. This is very important for those who are interested in this matter, and I think it sends a message. It sends a message about the amount of interest that you and this government have in training in South Australia; that is what it does. Again, I digress and I apologise for doing so, but these are important matters. These are important training matters.

The minister has told us that this bill is important for restoring faith in our education system, particularly for foreign students here in South Australia. One must wonder just what interest the minister has when the Hon. Paul Caica appears on his behalf with the minister's message on the home page of the Training Advocate's website. I reckon minister Caica finished in that position in about February 2009. So, what is it? Two years and no update. Anyway, the minister says that it is a small issue; so, if he says it is a small issue, he must be right. We will see what other small issues pop up along the way.

Overall, it needs to be ensured that the use of these powers is courteous and appropriate. We do not want heavy-handedness but we do want to encourage industries. There seems to be a perception from those on the other side that those who run businesses and those who run organisations—particularly small business people—seem to have special powers. They know things automatically, and, so, if they do something wrong, we have to clamp down on them really hard, because they must know that they are doing something wrong, because, obviously, they are born with these types of things.

When the local tradesman goes on to build up his successful air-conditioning business, in his early days, of course, it is a learning process and people do make mistakes, but I think it is important that, when people make mistakes—if it is a genuine mistake—that that business is not damaged, because we want to encourage business here in South Australia. I think that it is important that those mistakes cease, of course, that the error of their ways is corrected and that they do in fact understand. But that, of course, is what the Training Advocate helps them do, because if you read the website, they are there not just for students but also for providers, to offer advice and to help them with sticky situations. It will be very nice when they know who their minister is as well.

It is important that the longstanding quality providers are not unintentionally impacted by these changes and that they do not conflict with existing and pending federal legislative matters. I would be happy to come back to this place and make amendments when the federal processes kick in. We are supporting this bill, and I did promise the minister that I would read some of the highlights of the McCann report as part of this debate.

Ms Chapman: We paid for it, after all.

Mr PISONI: Yes. I mention such things as planning for the transition period itself. This is from the introduction of the bill. Planning for the transition period is not yet complete, adding further uncertainty to the timing issue. Hopefully, we are addressing that today. It would be prudent to sit back and wait to see what happens at the national stage.

There is a point here that I might just like to raise. There are some interesting numbers, because we do hear about students. It mentions the total enrolments by offshore international students from December 2004 until December 2009. We do hear lots of figures from the government, but here we have in 2009 higher education enrolments of 12,715 in the government sector and, in the non-government sector, 794. You would think that Carnegie Mellon would have a big chunk but it has only a very small number of those in the non-government sector.

For the higher education total you are looking at 13,500. Then, of course, in the VET sector (non-government) you are looking at 13,338; and in the non-government sector, 7,581. The non-government sector in the VET area is a very strong sector—much stronger than the government sector—with a total of 8,919. So, 13,500 and 9,000, you are looking at 22,500. We hear figures consistently of around 32,000 and 33,000 people. We hear about the tremendous growth in the area, but, if you go back to 2004, we had 7,880.

So, we had nearly 8,000 in the higher education area, and we had a much smaller number in the VET areas. In the VET areas we had 1,604. We are seeing the bulk of the growth in the VET sector. It is surprising—and that growth has been in the private sector—that six, seven, eight years on we are looking at tightening up that sector. One would argue that it is well overdue, so we cannot have the luxury of waiting for the federal government; we have probably waited too long and could have prevented the embarrassment of APIC in South Australia.

If we look at the minister's own statement, APIC has failed in 12 of the 14 standards of the code: to adequately monitor enrolment of students across the scope of courses and ensure that they complete their courses within a specific duration; to adequately monitor and process students and provide appropriate intervention and support strategies; to systematically and accurately monitor student attendance; to provide training and assessment across the scope of courses; it has also failed to provide training outcomes for its clients, and that was, of course, a warning that the minister had from the Motor Trades Association well in advance; and to have systematic management of records systems which are responsive to the needs of clients, staff and stakeholders.

So, they are some of the issues that we had with APIC, and that and the McCann report have resulted in the amendment bill that we are debating in the house today. I am very pleased to say that we will be supporting this, minister, so that you can get it through as quickly as you can and send a message to those who are seeking places in order to study outside of their own countries, to come to South Australia.

There are, of course, other challenges that I hope the minister will take up with his federal colleagues, such as the size of deposits and other areas. I thought it was interesting that, in briefings I have had from the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, that studying in Adelaide could lead to permanent residency was never a consideration for DFEEST. That is obviously the official line: that we do not have the ability to get permanent residency as a carrot for our training facilities in South Australia. It is interesting that when the criteria for residency were changed—under union pressure, I believe, at a federal level—we saw a dramatic drop-off (particularly with India) around the country. I think that conveniently happened at a time when we saw elements of the GFC and the increase in the Australian dollar, so it gave another angle that the government could cover to say, 'Well, look, this is the reason.'

If you have a good product and an established market then you can manage those types of price fluctuations. The Australian wine industry is a classic example of that. In 2000, when the Australian dollar would only buy $US0.48, it was a great opportunity for Australian wine manufacturers to get into the United States, and a lot of them did; they used the price mechanism to get into the marketplace. What they did once they were in the marketplace is that they built their brand, and their brand continued to build, and as the Australian dollar strengthened against the US dollar the Americans were prepared to pay more for the Australian product. They took advantage of taking a risk and they minimised that risk because when it first came onto the marketplace it was cheap, so people thought, 'Why not spend $12 on a shiraz?' or whatever.

Mr Venning: It would be a bit rough.

Mr PISONI: A $12 shiraz is all that I can afford, member for Schubert. It was at that entry point that Australian wine entered the American market and, of course we have developed the market since then. I see that our education business here in Australia is very similar. We are developing a great reputation and I think the important thing is that we need to build on that reputation.

I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Aussie dollar has got in the way. I think we need to look at other issues that have caused a decline here in Australia, because we are certainly seeing Indian and Chinese students going to Canada and the United States to study and I understand that their bond system is much more reasonable than ours. That could be another issue. It really is a combined effort of state governments and the federal government because, after all, the federal government determines who comes to this country and on what conditions.

I personally am very excited about the prospect of Adelaide, and South Australia, picking up a number of foreign students who decide to stay in South Australia. I think it is something that we should be encouraging. I would love them to start businesses here in South Australia. I would love them to employ people here in South Australia. I would love them to pay taxes here in South Australia and be part of the South Australian community. I think that it is a huge opportunity for us, and let us hope that this bill remedies some of those concerns that were raised in the McCann report and enables us all to be very proud of what we do in fact achieve here in South Australia.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (12:27): I rise to discuss the bill that is before the house today. On 30 September, the government tabled the McCann report on the regulation of vocational education and training services for overseas students in South Australia, and on the 13^th the draft bill to amend the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 was released for public comment, and a fair bit of discussion has been had in this environment since that time.

On 24 November last year, the government introduced the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill to the house with some recommendations for legislative change based on the McCann report, and the government is acting promptly on these recommendations and takes this responsibility very seriously, as the high quality of the vocational education and training sector in South Australia is indeed a very serious matter. The quality of our vocational education and training sector is also pivotal for people in my electorate of Taylor. Entering the labour market and developing skills for participation in our community is very important for people in the northern suburbs and, indeed, it is a heart of economic growth for the future of this state.

The vocational education and training sector is a diverse mix of training providers, including TAFE SA, privately-owned industry-based groups (such as the MTAA; I enthusiastically endorse a lot of the things that it does—it is a great facility and a great training system) and community-based providers. These training providers deliver publicly-funded and privately-funded training to clients seeking to enter the workforce, trainees and apprentices and current workers seeking to upgrade their skills or qualifications.

The bill makes a number of important changes to regulatory arrangements. These measures will increase the regulatory burden on the majority of training providers who are delivering high-quality services to their clients. The bill strengthens regulatory powers by enabling the commission to respond more quickly to apply sanctions where it is warranted by the seriousness and urgency of the matter. The commission will, however, be subject to natural justice requirements and must give the provider an opportunity to respond before action is taken. All training providers need to know that, once registered, they are expected to take their obligations seriously and that not complying with their conditions of registration is in fact an offence.

The bill provides an effective deterrent against contravening the act by raising the level of penalties for these offences. The bill also goes on to outline a number of factors that will affect how this sector is administered. It authorises the commission to cancel a qualification if it is satisfied that the training provider issuing the qualification was not operating in accordance with the standards and the requirements of the qualification have not been met. The bill authorises a person whose qualification has been cancelled to apply to the court for compensation from the training provider for the loss arising from this cancellation. The bill also makes it an offence for a person to use a qualification that has been cancelled by the commission.

The bill introduces a new measure which will allow the minister, on recommendation from the commission, with the agreement of the training provider, to appoint an administrator to ensure a training provider complies with these regulatory obligations under the act. This would only occur if there are very serious concerns about the provider that it is unable to resolve and it is judged that it is in the students' best interests to maintain the training provider's registration rather than pursuing suspension or cancellation.

It is important to note that an administrator, under this act, will not be given full responsibility for the management of the training provider, in particular, its financial affairs. An administrator would not be appointed under this act in the event of insolvency, when an administrator would be appointed under the proposed commonwealth law.

The bill provides a range of new measures to protect consumers and this will be very welcome both for domestic and overseas students who are involved in this sector. The bill also allows a person to make an application to the court for compensation, as I previously mentioned. This measure complements the offences under the act, thus reinforcing the message that training providers must operate in accordance with the act and their conditions of registration.

The training advocate and commission will make public statements about a training provider and education and training services to inform the public and students quickly of current or potential areas of concern. When a training provider closes or has its registration cancelled by the commission, students need to have ready access to their records so that they can resume their training with an alternative provider. The bill gives powers to authorised officers to inspect, copy and take all relevant records, including student results and, indeed, this helps students to continue their training and ensure that they get out into the workforce with the skills that are required for our state.

In summary, this bill strengthens the regulatory arrangements underpinning the quality of the education and training sector in our state, and I welcome the changes that it proposes. I also look forward to seeing the proposed commonwealth changes introduced in the short term in the first half of this year, as the member for Unley indicated will potentially occur. The bill demonstrates to all providers registered under the Training Skills and Development Act 2008 their clear obligation to operate in accordance with the act and their conditions of registration. If they fail to do so, the government will have the powers it needs to enforce the law, apply the appropriate penalties and support consumers to seek redress through the courts.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:33): I recognise the importance of this bill. Having been a previous shadow minister for employment, training and further education, I have taken an interest in it for some time. I make the observation that there might be some members of the chamber who think that the member for Unley, as the shadow minister, spoke at some length—and, indeed, he did talk for quite some time—but it is because he is passionate about this area. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. He was expansive in his comments—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: He could have spoken to the bill then.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, he did talk about the bill. I looked at it and I think it was about 30 minutes in that he started to talk specifically about the bill. However, he is a man who is committed and it has been demonstrated to me because, every time I talk to David, he is passionate about his portfolios. Indeed, he is committed to ensuring that he gets the best possible outcomes. I did say to him when he sat down that, upon reflection, when the Training and Skills Development Bill came into the chamber originally, it was subject to some debate between the parties. Indeed, I think in my second reading contribution, as a responsible shadow, I spoke for 57 minutes. However, I am amazed that he spoke for one hour and 20 minutes on the amended bill. It shows that he has a far greater knowledge—

Mr Venning: That is your fault.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —than I of the importance of it.

Mr Venning: He had to gazump you!

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, he wanted to demonstrate what he is trying to do for overseas students and, indeed, South Australian students who are studying at institutions here and that parliament has to ensure that every protection is in place to ensure that quality educational outcomes can be achieved by them. It is true that the problems that occurred with APIC last year have really exemplified this. From conversations I have had with the member for Unley, it has really been demonstrated to me that this is an important area. As a state, we have known for some time that education opportunities are an enormous component of the economic driver that occurs here.

The shadow minister has reflected upon the fact that, with the number of overseas students within South Australia (often quoted as being between 32,000 and 34,000), in fact, education is the third biggest business in this state and the fact that a previous minister had put some level of cap on the number of students the state was in a position to accept. Infrastructure is a big component of that. Indeed, with the large number of overseas students who come here, the need to provide safe accommodation options for them close to their education facilities is one of the challenges all of those facilities deal with—and I know that from speaking to people whose role within universities is to develop projects that provide accommodation options close by for those people. So, a multitude of issues are involved in this.

One thing I want to reflect upon briefly, though, is that, within any industry sector or any sporting team or any government or opposition, the weakest component is the one that can bring down the whole thing. We find that, within education, as in many aspects in life, perception can become reality. So, if one area of the sector has problems in the way in which it provides an educational opportunity or the quality of student it ensures is produced at the end, or the way in which it markets itself or the quality of its staff or the facilities it provides—if it is poor in one of those components—it suffers from the risk of failure and, when it fails, by association, I am fearful that it will bring down other really good components of that sector and expose them to some level of risk in attracting students and in marketing themselves because it can be seen that South Australia suddenly has a problem when it comes to the quality of overseas students.

It is appropriate that the government conducted the McCann review, it is appropriate that the minister has introduced this bill to improve things, and it is appropriate that every measure is put in place to ensure the way in which it is managed, that regular inspections and review of the curriculum take place, that the quality of students who graduate is there and that the employability of that student who graduates is there not just for Australia and South Australia but for the international stage because, unless we get it right, we run the risk of this industry—and, again, I enforce the fact that it is the third largest industry in the state, with 34,000 overseas students—could be subject to some criticism and, then, by association, it will be far more difficult to encourage these students to come to Australia.

It is interesting that, in a discussion that occurred just around here, the shadow minister confirmed to me the level of bond that is required for overseas students when they come to Australia. I found this to be frightening in that every student who comes to this state has put in place a bond of $144,000, whereas on an international stage it appears as though it is more in the $25,000 range. I have had many conversations with people who are overseas students in my time (nearly five years) in this parliament. I have had many conversations with these young people at their graduation ceremony or at other events I have attended with them. I have made an effort to try talk to these young people and discovered the sacrifices their families have made to ensure they had the opportunity to come to Australia, and specifically to South Australia, to study.

Those families are not only giving up their child, in essence, for the period they come here to study but they are putting themselves into a position of enormous financial exposure because they want their kids to have a future. We in this chamber are here because we want South Australia to have a future. We do it for our own families and for the constituencies we have the honour to represent. For those who are ministers, they do it for the those portfolio areas they are responsible for. However, these families, at the grassroots level, have made enormous sacrifices. If there is any risk at all of that investment in their child not being returned by an opportunity for their child being a success in life, that is when the serious questions have to be asked.

So, that is why I commend the member for Unley. There is no doubt that he was quite expansive in his comments. He talked about the numerous issues he sees as being of concern when it comes to educational opportunities in South Australia. In some ways, he did reflect upon some history of it, but he was focused on what he thought was important for the future and, indeed, on the fact that the opposition is supportive of this bill and wants to see it come into force, even though legislation was introduced in the federal parliament late last year and delays will occur in that legislation being implemented. So, the opposition wants to ensure that South Australia has a system in place so that we do not have another APIC failure and that an educational opportunity is provided to every student, no matter what facility or educational institution they choose to use, that will ensure that they have some good outcomes.

It is also really important from a local perspective. I have often reflected in the last five years since being in this place that South Australia needs to become a skilled workforce. There are some great people in our older generation of workers who have continued to educate themselves, who have recognised the challenges that their workplace provides and who have continued to upskill themselves and be wonderful contributors to their place of employment. However, there are a lot within our workforce who have, seemingly, gone into a role, accepted that as their lot and not thought that there is a need to continue training. There is, desperately.

If our state is to have a vibrant economy, it is important to ensure that we get this right. I congratulate the minister on his new role as Treasurer. I very strongly believe that the strong social conscience that he demonstrates every day will shine through in the policies that this government takes forward and its future direction.

I only want to make some brief comments. I am reflective upon the fact that, as the shadow minister mentioned as part of his contribution, while South Australia has 7.5 per cent of the nation's population, we only represent 5.4 per cent of the international student market. That demonstrates to me that, of the current number of 34,000, there are some challenges in ensuring that it grows to a larger number. However, we have to actually open our eyes and look at every opportunity to ensure that we provide places for those young people, and that we provide places for our own.

My children are 21 and 19. They are part of that generation that recognises that their education and their skill development is critical to them, and all their friends are, too. Many are in the workplace now and are contributing and looking forward to the opportunities that their future presents. However, these young people understand that, for them to achieve the maximum outcome that they can in their lives, their education capacity is a part of that. They are focusing themselves not only on, yes, having some fun, as young people want to, but also on ensuring that they are well placed to have really vibrant, great jobs into the future and that they are able to contribute to the future of South Australia's economy.

There are many challenges indeed if you look at the global picture and the fact that the Australian dollar is high. It makes the challenge of this $144,000 bond (which, as I understand it, is a federal direction) even more difficult for families of overseas students to meet. With the Australian dollar at about US101.3¢ at the moment, it makes it exceptionally difficult for those families in economies around the world that are not quite as strong as Australia's—and we have withstood the global financial crisis amazingly well. That will impact on numbers fractionally.

However, for those families internationally that continue to see Australia, and particularly South Australia, as their preferred option for the education of their child to give them the skills that they need, let us ensure that we have a legislative process in place that ensures that there can be no further failures and that the education outcome they receive is always a positive one.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:43): I rise to support the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I reflect some years ago on when I was an apprentice. I did my apprenticeship down at GMH at Woodville and it was probably one of the most memorable periods of my youth.

We were given the opportunity to do our training in an apprentice training facility that used to take on between 30 and 50 apprentices per year. It was the type of facility that every apprentice today would dream of doing their training and apprenticeship in. We were given the opportunity to be highly skilled in our chosen field and to be part of an up-and-coming workforce in the manufacturing industry.

The opportunity that I was given gave me a platform to stand on for the rest of my working days and, even today, I am using those skills that I was taught as a teenager. I reflect on that whenever I am speaking to any youth groups and my own children; that is, to have an apprenticeship, some training or a certificate behind you is absolutely vital in today's world. Through a controlled environment we gain the experience and the skill set that we need today to be leaders within our field of expertise.

Also, when working as an apprentice, we are given tuition to work safely. One of the things at the forefront of my mind is that, when young students, trainees and apprentices are given the opportunity to learn a trade, they have to work safely. They have to be in a safe work environment and also work safely with other trainees and tradesmen around them so they are not taking off fingers and having pieces of their workplace flinging around the workshop.

I think, more important than anything, to be part of the future skilled workforce is something that is very valuable. It was a great asset for me as an apprentice and is also for young trainees today, and we can teach overseas young people who come into our workforce the great skill set and values the Australian training fraternity offers.

Just as important is that we need employers to embrace the young to train them and take the burdens that come with training, and they are many. The difference I see between when I was an apprentice (which was quite some years ago) and today is that employers have been turned off taking on apprentices and the responsibility of taking the young under their wing and interrupting the progress of what they do as a business. It is about training the apprentice but it is also about that burden—the financial burden and the time burden that employers have to experience. There is the down time when that apprentice who is being paid by an employer has to go to school, whether it is training at trade school or another workplace, to gain a more far-reaching set of work skills.

In my electorate, country apprentices and trainees encounter an extra burden in coming down to do their training and schooling, and it takes its toll. We see the hardships they encounter in travelling distances to Adelaide, which has its expenses. Whether they travel by bus or in their own vehicle, it all costs extra for those young people to be part of the trainee system.

It is also the cost of accommodation. A young trainee or apprentice who comes from the country to the city has to find accommodation, at cost. Not everyone in the country has relatives who live in the city and not everyone on an apprentice's wage is able to afford some of the accommodation expenses. So it really spreads the burden not only to that apprentice but also to the families supporting that young one who is looking to gain the extra skill set and the tuition at the training facilities.

In training overseas students—not versus the local students—one thing that has become evident, especially with country students, is that, when the overseas students are given the opportunity to come to this country at great cost, as the member for Goyder has pointed out, there is also a downside; that is, they are competing with the local population, the local students who want to take on the apprenticeship. The more wealthy overseas students coming into the workplace, competing with the locals with perhaps a little less wealth, really have to compete. It is showing on the statistics, especially within the medical fraternity, that those students are coming over and almost taking away the opportunity for a local—in many cases a regional student—who is having an extra burden put on him to travel to university or to the colleges and take on the traineeship he wants to pursue.

It really is a balance, and I would like to see the government give more or extra support to the regional trainees and apprentices, because they have just as much right as the city trainees and apprentices to be given the opportunity, and for government to step in and give some form of reimbursement or incentive not only to the employees but also to the apprentice to be part of that workforce and lessen that burden.

In the big picture, apprentices are all about research and development. For an apprentice to be put into the workforce, to gain skills, is about the industry he is doing his time with, about the research and development, the long-term picture. That long-term picture is that today the employer invests and puts their faith in training apprentices, the young, for the long-term, for the future. That, sadly, has been lacking over the last decade as we see less focus on apprentices and traineeships and more burden put on employees, and I think that is something that needs to be addressed.

I refer to some of the examples with the young gaining practical experience to be able to step into a traineeship, some of the criteria the young have to have before they can be accepted. I have an example where, in my electorate in Chaffey, a young girl who lives in the country and catches the bus to school suddenly wants to look for experience. She has gone to some employers, one in particular, and asked whether she could do some work after school.

The employer gave her the news that, unless she could give her three hours a night, she was not able to take on that girl to give her the valuable experience she needed. By the time she hopped off the bus it was 4 o'clock, but the business closed at 5 o'clock, so that only gave her one hour her day. The federal government's rules and regulations show that, unless they are given three hours per day they do not get the opportunity to gain that experience. It is outrageous that the federal government can step in and deny the young experience and a stepping stone into the workforce. Again, it reflects the nanny state.

Mr Pederick: No idea of employing people.

Mr WHETSTONE: Exactly. Another example we are seeing at the moment is that the Flinders Medical Training School is operating in Renmark in my electorate. It is a world-class facility, giving the medical fraternity, medical students, an opportunity to perform reality procedures. What we are seeing up there at the moment is that that facility offers regional students an opportunity to work and train within their region. They do not have to travel, they do not have to spend that money on accommodation, they do not have to have that extra burden of living away from home. I think it is a great asset to regional South Australia and, in particular, the Chaffey region.

I would like to see this government support that facility. It is being scrutinised at the moment under the Riverland Futures Taskforce. The Flinders Medical Centre is looking for some funding through the minister for regional infrastructure, and I call on him to support that school as it is a vital piece of infrastructure that could go into supporting regional training. I think apprenticeships and training—whether it be for local or overseas students—are a very affordable and practical investment in our workforce future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.