PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: MINING AND ENGINEERING CENTRE TAFE SA

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:16): I move:

That the 458^th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled Mining and Engineering Centre TAFE SA, be noted.

The Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology has proposed the creation of a mining and engineering centre at a total cost of $38.311 million. Located at the TAFE SA Regency campus, this centre will consolidate and integrate programs previously delivered across the metropolitan TAFE network. It is expected that the centre will complement the state's existing industry training centres for business, arts, creative industries and hospitality, as well as the Sustainable Industries Education Centre (SIEC) at Tonsley Park currently under construction.

The mining and engineering centre will address new and emerging industry training needs from certificate I through to the Advanced Diploma, and contain interactive, flexible learning spaces characterised by blended methodologies and responsive modes of delivery. The planned relocation of the electrical, plumbing and refrigeration trades from Regency campus to the SIEC at Tonsley in December 2013 paves the way for the creation of this facility. The vacated space at Recency will accommodate the following programs:

Geoscience and mining (to be relocated from O'Halloran Hill campus);

Surveying and spatial information services (to be relocated from O'Halloran Hill campus);

Heavy vehicle transport and diesel mechanics (again, to be relocated from O'Halloran Hill campus);

Mechanical and civil engineering (to be relocated from Panorama campus and merged with existing engineering and advanced manufacturing at Regency);

Welding and fabrication (to be relocated from Panorama campus and merged with existing at Regency); and

Light automotive (which will be relocated from the Croydon campus).

The significant industry common interests between these programs will allow the mining and engineering centre to provide a focus for the provision of mining, engineering, transport and defence-related skills.

The centre will incorporate the refit of approximately 17,000 square metres of floor space within the existing trade training areas at Regency campus, with the creation of a new, approximately 1,500 square-metre building suitable for the high-bay requirements of heavy transport, as well as a 1,500 square-metre covered open storage area to store vehicles and other teaching aids. The third and final stage of the project is expected to be complete by late 2014.

This is a great project and given this, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends this work.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:18): Following on from the chair of the committee, the opposition members did support this project but I, for the house's benefit, urge a little bit of caution (as I did in committee, where I asked questions about this) from shifting everything from O'Halloran Hill down to Regency Park. It makes it more difficult for young people, particularly, who are going into the TAFE system, travelling from the south.

I am being perfectly parochial talking about young people who are doing skills training at TAFE from my own electorate. It puts another hour on the trip if they are coming up there for the day just to go one way, and then an hour back the other way to get through during peak hour times; that concerns me. It concerns me that the people in the southern suburbs also now have to go down South Road and out to the Regency Park centre. It is a great shame that, despite the fantastic facilities you can have out there—and I have no argument with that whatsoever—everything has been taken out of O'Halloran Hill, which puts a further impediment on young people who want to go to TAFE.

Likewise, it is a concern that the brand-new TAFE we have now in Victor Harbor is not actually catering for many of these skills training that is needed particularly for young men, who I think are being left out of it. It disappoints me as the original TAFE, which was put together down there by Peter Manuel, the former school principal, and the Hon. Dean Brown, my predecessor, called for a vast increase in the number of courses available, which I think is superior to what is there at the moment. It is too restricted and it needs funding to introduce these others.

This new Regency Park TAFE will be good, and we look forward to seeing it up and operational, and I look forward to seeing it when it is eventually opened. However, I do urge caution on shutting other places down to make it more difficult for people to attend TAFE at that location.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:21): I concur with the remarks made by my friend the member for Finniss that this is a worthwhile project. I do note and draw to the parliament's attention, however, the need for the government to continually to look at ways to ensure that TAFE's activities are connected with the private sector. Increasingly, we need to rely on the business sector to conduct its own training, or to interface with TAFE to the point that we can be confident that graduates are job ready.

I fear that we are creating institutions for training which may not produce the sorts of graduates who are immediately employable by the business sector, and that is something that I think needs to be monitored as this project takes shape, but it is an excellent project and that is why it enjoys the fulsome support of the opposition.

I want to take the opportunity of speaking to this matter to raise another important issue to do not only with this project but also with the previous motion and the one that is to follow—that is, my concern that the activities of the Public Works Committee are not sufficiently open and accountable to the public. We have had a discussion about this in the committee this morning, fairly openly and freely, but I want to go over some of the issues now because they are very relevant to this project and the others that are following.

The Public Works Committee's meetings, in my view, are too secretive. Why do I say that? I do not think we give notice to the public, or to the media, or to the people of South Australia adequately prior to every Public Works Committee meeting of what we are doing, what hearings we are to hold, who is appearing to give evidence, and people are not given an opportunity to come and listen. It is too secretive. Every other committee of the parliament, as far as I am aware, advertises their meetings when they have a term of reference and lets people know that they are meeting, what their term of reference is about, and gives them an opportunity to attend. The Public Works Committee does not.

I have pushed this issue in the committee, and I must say that I am quite startled by the response from one government member in particular, resisting initiatives to put an ad in The Advertiser orthe Sunday Mail, onAdelaidenow, each weekend prior to a Wednesday meeting, telling the people of South Australia that we are going to hold a meeting. The Public Works Committee has a budget, I understand, of around $30,000 a year. Characteristically, we never use it. I think anything as little as $5,000 is spent. That money goes back into the parliament's kitty. The money is there to make sure that the committee does its work properly.

The executive officer of the committee has done an excellent job researching this and deduced that, based on the 2012 hearing schedule, we could have advertised in the paper quite comfortably for around $14,700 and told people that we were having a meeting, for example, to discuss the Port Pirie hospital redevelopment, the Queensbury wastewater treatment plant or, for that matter, the matter we are discussing right now, the mining and engineering centre at TAFE, so that local government, local community members, or anyone who has an interest, at least knows that this hearing is coming up. It is not enough in my view to put it out on Twitter. Not everyone is on Twitter. It is not enough to just put it out in the airspace. That is fine for people who might be looking for the hearing; they might have had a head's up. My understanding is that if it goes in the Sunday Mail or The Advertiser, then it is likely to go on their website or be electronically googleable, so to speak, in some form or another.

If the people of Mount Gambier are looking at a rebuild of the district health service redevelopment or if the people of Port Lincoln are going to have a Public Works Committee hearing about their new hospital or the people of Port Pirie have some important matter coming up or the people in the seat of Stuart have some major road development to be approved, I just think the public, as a matter of decency, have a right to know about it.

I was astounded when the member for Croydon came down and said—and he can speak for himself—that he thought advertising in The Advertiser was a complete and utter waste of time, that no-one reads it. He basically inferred that The Advertiser was a media source not worth advertising in or reading. I put to him: why is it full of advertising if it is ineffective? Because obviously commercial advertisers feel that it is worth advertising in The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail. He said that it is a complete and utter waste of time and he refers to the $14,000 as a complete and utter waste of money.

I just make the point that the government is employing and paying ministerial staffers 10 times that amount. Have a look at the list. Some of them are getting more than $140,000. This is one-tenth of what it costs this government to employ one chief of staff—one-tenth of what the government's spin doctors are being paid. I think it is a sensible investment to ensure that each hearing of the Public Works Committee is advertised so that the people of South Australia are aware of what the committee is doing.

I refer this to your attention in particular, Madam Speaker, because I think there is also an inconsistency here with how the parliament is doing business. My understanding is that the protocol adhered to by most committees, if not all committees, other than the Public Works Committee, is that they advertise their terms of reference in the paper. It seems that the Public Works Committee is the only one that is out of step. I find that very disappointing. There should be consistency.

I am delighted to see that the member for Croydon has awoken from his slumber and is now going to come down and argue and present the case that The Advertiser is a cheap rag that is not worth advertising in, that any advertisement in The Advertiser is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. He is going to justify why it is more important to spend $140,000 on a spin doctor in a ministerial office than it is to spend $14,000 advertising each meeting of the Public Works Committee so that his and everybody else's constituents can know what is coming up before the committee. He is into secrecy and it seems that the government, to a degree, is into secrecy. The parliament should be into openness.

These are public hearings, but if people do not know that they are on, how can they possibly take an interest. To think that people just magically know, because they might be sitting at home over breakfast twittering, that there is going to be a Public Works Committee and that that is all we need to do I think is silly. It is such an important issue that I feel compelled to bring it into the parliament.

I am shocked that the member for Croydon would be so critical of The Advertiser. It is the public record. He disagrees with that. He thinks it is a rag. He says that it is not the public record at all. He says that it is a completely ineffective means of communication. I do not agree. I think The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail are important flag posts for the media. Advertising in them is important; every other committee thinks so and the parliament thinks so and regularly advertises what it is doing in the paper. I do not agree that it is a rag. I do not agree that it is ineffective advertising. I feel that the Public Works Committee has a right to keep people informed as to what it is doing. We need to do things more professionally, and, for that reason, I think the cost of an ad is an investment well made. Every other parliamentary committee seems to agree and does just that.

Once again, I will leave it to the member for Croydon to convince the press gallery that The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail are worthless rags that do not warrant any advertising space and no-one reads them. That is fairly consistent with the member for Croydon's general view of the world, but let it be known that members on this side do not agree and that members on this side feel that the Public Works Committee which, after all, is approving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money each year, has a very important job to do and that should be a public process.

I note it is not beyond the wit of government ministers to belt the Public Works Committee when it suits them to cover their own backsides. Most recently, we had the minister for water resources getting up and belting the Public Works Committee over a pipeline along the side of the Glenelg jetty and saying, 'Do not blame me, blame the Public Works Committee because they approved it.' Perhaps if the Holdfast Shores council and the members of the local community had known when that meeting was to be held, they might have come along, sat in the gallery at the public hearing, listened and said, 'We do not want that pipeline alongside the Glenelg jetty.'

I can tell you that members of the opposition will be campaigning strong and hard for openness, for accountability and for the Public Works Committee to advertise in the papers that it is having a meeting and what term of reference is going to be listened to at that meeting so that the people who elected us can have their say. It is not a waste of money at all and, if you want some examples of how this government loves to waste money, I will give them to you.

Spin doctors is one. For one-tenth of the cost of one spin doctor, we could advertise every Public Works Committee meeting to the people of South Australia. I would say that the people of South Australia would say that is a very good investment of the taxpayers' money compared to the absolute waffle and waste that we have had from this government over the last years of its sad and bitter reign.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:31): We have just heard some of the most abject toadying to media moguls in the recent history of the parliament. I think I have six witnesses this morning that I did not say The Advertiser and Adelaidenow were rags. Clearly, you cannot use Adelaidenow as a rag because it is electronic.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order: relevance. The issue is the report of the Regency Park TAFE.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, you know there is a ruling on frivolous points of order. I will not accept that point of order. I suggest you go back to your office for a while. Member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I also have six witnesses that I did not say anything about hiring a $140,000 spin doctor. What I did say is that, in a world—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point of order: standing orders deal with personal explanations. If the member feels that he has been misrepresented, he can seek to make a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, I will let the member go for the time being. Did you have a point of order, member for Newland?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Just on that point of order, he is directly entering into debate about what was and what was not said at the meeting, which is perfectly in order.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, I will accept that. Member for Croydon, I will try to allow you to be free to speak now.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What I did say was that, in an age when information of public interest is increasingly supplied to the public through the internet, Twitter and email, at no cost to taxpayers, the default position of the Public Works Committee should be that it advertises its processes through those cost-free means. That does not stop the member for Waite from ingratiating himself with the proprietors of The Advertiser and Adelaidenow by moving to write them a cheque for advertising the meetings of the Public Works Committee. It is my view that very few people, if any, read the advertising in The Advertiser of the Public Works Committee's proceedings and I do not think it is a good use of public money to spend taxpayers' money on advertising that can be done cost free through the internet, Twitter and email.

The member for Waite just said of me, 'He is into secrecy.' I think putting the proceedings of the Public Works Committee on the world wide web is hardly being into secrecy. The member for Waite regaled the Public Works Committee with these two quotes and I confirmed them with him before I left the meeting: 'I don't think in the overall course of government $14,000 is much.' So the member for Waite was telling a proceeding of the parliament, 'Oh, $14,000, why not spend it on my mates at The 'Tiser propping up their enterprise.' I now quote the member for Waite again from less than an hour ago: 'We've got 30 grand. We never spend it.' So the member for Waite, like a drunken sailor, has $30,000 in the Public Works Committee kitty and he says—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, he confirms it. 'We haven't spent it, let's do it. Let's go and spend it.' The member for Waite is single-handedly priming the South Australian economy, boosting gross state product by spending $30,000 on ads that no-one will read. It is a bit like The Beatles' Eleanor Rigby: Father McKenzie writing a sermon that no-one will hear.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: I don't think you'll be getting a Christmas card from The 'Tiser, Michael.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, because I took them to the Press Council and two of their senior officials were disgraced. They are now disgraced journalists owing to the findings of the Australian Press Council on that matter.

Mr Pengilly: It all went downhill when you left their employment, I suppose.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, it did. I must disclose that I did work for three years at The Advertiser as a reporter and subeditor. I worked in the finance section reporting the stock market when Stephen Kernahan was a chalkie when we still wrote the share prices up in chalk at the Stock Exchange. I was the industrial relations reporter at The Advertiser and I was subeditor there. Indeed, when we went on strike, as we did on one occasion—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: I don't think you'll be going back there, Michael.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, I don't think many people will be going back there, member for Waite. In fact, they are due for another round of retrenchments, alas! When we went on strike, the top right hand corner of The Advertiser where the day's projected maximum and minimum temperatures normally appeared on the front page were not published owning to my industrial action. Indeed, I can recall a shop steward crying out, 'Everybody out' and, as we walked out, Matthew Abraham continued typing away at his terminal and the shop steward said, 'Come on, Matt.' He said, 'Look, I am just finishing my story,' which is not really the spirit of industrial action. That said, I do not think—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: You'll have the Hansard within minutes.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Apparently the member for Waite is going to run over to The Advertiser management and say, 'Look what the member for Croydon is saying about you.'

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Croydon! Point of order for the member for Mount Gambier, and I certainly hope he is referring to standing order 98.

Mr PEGLER: I certainly am, madam. I do not see that this has anything to do with the mining and engineering sector.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I will completely uphold that. Can I refer you back to the substance of the motion? It has been very entertaining, member for Croydon, but it is completely irrelevant.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have made my point; I am grateful for your indulgence and that of the house.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Any other speakers?

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:40): I want to sincerely thank members opposite for their support of this great centre.

Motion carried.

The SPEAKER: That was one of the most entertaining motions we have had in a while from Public Works.