Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 October 2018.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:38): I rise to support the bill. The Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill 2018 is another step in the early days of this 54^th parliament—indeed, another important step in the early days of the outcome-driven Marshall Liberal government—to enact legislation that will ensure that we deliver on objectives that go to the core of everything we on this side of the house are committed to. We are committed to ensuring that we bring together, engage and empower those who have the requisite knowledge, skills and experience to participate and to make a contribution in all areas of public life in the state.

Not blinkered by questions of allegiance to any particular industrial groups, not blinkered by adherence to unions or to structures that would control and limit access to participation, we will ensure that we set up structures and put in place institutions in this state that will draw those with the best of knowledge, with the best skills and with the best experience in order to discharge their duties and obligations.

Before coming specifically back to how we will deliver very clearly on those objectives in the course of this short piece of legislation, I observe that the bill modernises the process for appointments to the Construction Industry Training Board, which is the subject of the bill. It modernises the process so as to ensure that membership of the board is driven by the three principles I referred to at the outset of these remarks. The board has the responsibility, relevantly, for managing and expending the funds that are raised by the relevant levy. The construction industry training levy is a fund that is raised for the purposes of improving the quality of training in the industry and to coordinate industry-based training.

We on this side of the house very much appreciate the importance of being able to provide access to the very best of practical training, the very best of skills training and the very best structures within which to make sure that that is delivered to as many South Australians as possible. In recent days, we have heard the Premier speak about the central importance of obtaining quality training—practical training, jobs-driven, outcome-driven training—for young South Australians in this state. We know that the Minister for Industry and Skills is a passionate advocate for practical training, having been an apprentice himself not so many years past and having worked with and participated in the delivery of practical training of the highest quality. This is an area that those on this side of the house are both engaged with and passionate about.

The change brought about by this bill, importantly to bring the focus back to knowledge, to skills and to experience, is about departing from the appointment process under the current legislation, which presently is among the most prescriptive in the nation. It has not been amended since the commencement of the current act, so we have seen a generation pass without amendment to this prescriptive existing structure. That is despite recommendations having been made more than a decade ago for the modernising of the appointment process and voting provisions therein.

In that sense, it is much like other merits-driven recommendations that have been made throughout the course of the last 16 years of the former Labor government that are too often met with an ideological response. 'We can't do that because it does not suit vested interests that we rely upon to keep us in government' the former Labor government's response has been. Well, no longer is this state beholden to such vested interests.

We might all rejoice daily for the change that has occurred because now in this state, rather than an ideological prism within which to assess the merits of recommendations that might come to government from time to time, we have a focus, an unerring focus at all times, on ensuring merits drive policy that we will commit to and implement. Merits will drive legislation that we bring to the house, and in this case the merits of ensuring that those with the knowledge and the skills and experience are those who are brought forward to make a contribution to the board that administers this important fund.

We have had recommendations of long standing. They have fallen on deaf ears throughout the course of the previous government, and that is to be noted. It is to be regretted, of course, but we are here and, early days, we can go about the process of bringing back those features to the fore. The changes will bring the legislation more in line with and equivalent to legislation that is already enacted in other states and territories, legislation that governs the appointment also of boards in our state's education and training sectors.

There is nothing terribly revolutionary about this, unless one takes the view that bringing the focus back to knowledge, skills and experience is a revolutionary or outrageous step. In my view, it is nothing more than all South Australians should expect of us, and that is what we will now do with these reforms. We will, as a result of this bill, be embarking off into a new environment that will enable board members to be appointed based on their merit and experience in the sector.

The changes also will enable the board to respond effectively to the government's Skilling South Australia strategy. As we all know, we are all very committed to and are on track with the important strategy to support an additional 20,800 apprenticeships and traineeships over the next four years of the new government. We must ensure that we do all we can to have an environment in which we can deliver these outcomes.

If one is preoccupied with any motivation other than working out what is at the core—what knowledge, skills and experience are necessary, where are the merits, how can we find them and how can we deploy them—if one is focused on anything else, that is, at best, a recipe for distraction, and it is a recipe for the favouring of vested interests. As we have seen on so many occasions over the last 16 years, at worst it is a recipe for disaster in terms of public policy in this state because it means that there is a departure from ensuring that those best placed to participate are indeed doing so.

Appointments to the board will be made by the Governor on the nomination of the responsible minister. As I have said a number of times in the course of these remarks, those persons will have been nominated because they have the knowledge, skills and experience to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively, and it is not based on criteria driven by association and other distractions. The presiding member will now be entitled to vote in board proceedings, including having a casting vote. The board will comprise up to eight industry representatives, who will be nominated by the minister following a public expression of interest process, as well as two independent members.

The veto voting provisions will now be removed. That will enable decisions of the board to reflect a majority view and not the majority position of prescribed sectional interests, as is currently the case. Unfortunately, that has far too often driven the way in which our board and governance structures have been conducted over the course of the last 16 years—but no longer. Decisions will be made on the merits and, if necessary, reflecting a majority view.

The changes that are the subject of this amending bill—and if we bear in mind only those three concepts, those three observations—will result in a board that is better equipped to serve the industry's workforce skills and development needs because it will be a board focused on selection on merit, selection for knowledge, skills and experience. In the short time that I still have available to me, I refer specifically, as I said I would, to how the bill will do that.

I refer to clause 4 of the bill that will amend section 5 of the act in relation to the composition of the board. Relevantly, section 5(1) and subsection (1a) will be deleted. In their place, a new section 5(1) will provide that, relevantly, the board will consist of members appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the minister: firstly, one person to be the presiding member of the board; secondly, at least four but not more than eight, who—and again, I come back to those keywords, those principles that I have spoken about in my earlier remarks—have the relevant knowledge and experience, or the expertise, in the building and construction industry; and thirdly, two persons who, in the opinion of the minister, are independent of the building and construction industry.

We see expressed in the bill adherence to a new kind of dedication to merits, a dedication to independence and a dedication to knowledge, experience and expertise. No longer do we see this archaic preoccupation with vetoes, with allegiance and with favour, but rather we see an unerring focus on independence, on knowledge and on experience and expertise. We see it further expressed in new subsection (1a):

The Minister must, in making nominations for appointment to the Board, seek to ensure that the membership of the Board comprises persons who together have the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the Board to carry out its functions effectively.

Those are the criteria. Let's talk about it loud and clear. Let's make it really clear: we are focused on independence, we are focused on knowledge, we are focused on skills and we are focused on experience. We are not focused on allegiance and favour and ideology, but we are focused on ensuring that those who are going to participate on this board are there on merit.

Finally, in subsection (1b) we see that the minister, before nominating a person for appointment to the board on grounds of their independence, must ensure that there is public notice inviting expressions of interest, and the minister must take into account any such expressions of interest—transparent, merit driven, knowledge, skills and experience focused. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:58): I rise to support the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill. I come in after that very worthwhile contribution from the member for Heysen. The amendments to this act provide greater flexibility and discretion relevant to board appointments. These reforms are important in ensuring that the board is more appropriately able to respond to changing industry, workforce and training requirements and that funds collected through the construction industry training levy are better managed and expended in line with industry demands.

Importantly, the reforms ensure that industry is better placed to capitalise on government initiatives, including our Marshall Liberal government's Skilling South Australia initiative, which will put nearly 21,000 trainees and apprentices out there into the workforce. What a worthwhile program that will be to get those generally young men and women trained up and into the workforce and to get those technical skills we need right throughout the construction industry—whether they be in the direct building trades, the plumbing trades, the electrical trades—those jobs that are so vital for the future prosperity of this state.

We will deliver those jobs. We saw the farcical situation with the former Labor government when they talked about developing 6,000 jobs from the Gillman development at the time. The only jobs that were developed there were for a room full of lawyers. There were supposed to be jobs in the petroleum and gas industries, and what happened? It all fell apart. We often heard the promise from Labor about the 100,000 jobs they were going to deliver. I think they got to 3,000 from that target because they were not the government to produce jobs. They just wanted to tax everyone to death, and that is why this place fell into a slumber for 16 years. We finally have a government that supports business and employers so that we can have those thousands of jobs throughout the community and the state.

The board appointment process under the current legislation is amongst the most prescriptive in the nation and has not been amended since the act's inception in 1993, despite recommendations in a 2004 independent review to modernise the appointment process and voting provisions. Currently, the minister is obligated to recommend to the Governor the nominations received from the prescribed employee associations, regardless of their experience in the building and construction sector, namely, the Australian Building and Construction Workers Federation; the Australian Workers' Union; the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; and the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union.

I want to reflect on one of those unions, the Australian Workers' Union, which covers a range of industries and jobs. I have mentioned in this place before that during the nineties I went to work as a contractor on the Melbourne to Adelaide rail standardisation project. Even as a contractor, as someone wanting to make a few extra dollars off farm on that standardisation project—it was not far to go, working just north of Coonalpyn and down towards the other side of Keith—the only way I could have that job was to join the AWU. Those were the darkest three months of my life.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I have openly admitted before in this place that just to have a job—as we see in too many jobs, but we are diluting that process today—and get a little bit of money doing something else, I had to join the union. As I have had the interjection, it was really interesting how we progressed on that rail job. One day, I sat with one of the bosses while my rail unclipping machine was being repaired by the maintenance team. The foreman, or the overseer, was letting me have a look at the progress and what we were expected to do in a day, and we were only expected to do eight kilometres a day—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: On a point of order: my point is about relevance towards the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: It is to do with the construction industry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the past, I have ruled that if members can relate the bill at least back to their own electorates, then I would accept their contribution. So perhaps, member for Hammond, you could do that at the very least.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I am; this is definitely right in my electorate, right near my property. It did extend into the member for MacKillop's electorate as well. I would like to say that we were only expected to do eight kilometres a day but, because they had several people like me who did not mind a day's hard work, we were doing 16. So we were doing double the specified amount—we were happy to do so and it was not difficult to do so.

The point I am making is the comparison between that and this legislation is the fact that we are setting the record straight. This is especially so when you have unions that do not have any relevance to the construction industry, so what is the point, apart from the fact that it has been prescribed by former governments that they should be able to be on the board? That is why the minister has put this bill forward—because the full intention of these amendments is to enable board members to be appointed based on their merit and experience in the sector.

These changes will bring the act into line with comparable legislation in other jurisdictions and certainly in regard to legislation governing the appointment of boards in the state's education and training sector. I note that the minister has had consultation with the Property Council of Australia South Australia, Master Builders South Australia and the Civil Contractors Federation South Australian branch on these amendments. He has also consulted with the chief executive officer of the Construction Industry Training Board.

The amendments in the bill include that all the appointments to the board will be made by the Governor on the nomination of the responsible minister and comprise persons who have the knowledge, skills and experience to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively. The presiding member will now be entitled to cast a vote, including a casting vote, in board proceedings, and the board will comprise up to eight industry representatives, who are nominated by the minister following a public expression of interest process, as well as two independent members. The veto voting provisions will be removed to enable decisions of the board to reflect a majority position, not the majority position of prescribed sectional interests as is currently the case.

This is very important legislation for the house. It is very important for the state so that we get the right outcomes in the construction industry. I just want to note what great work all our people in the construction industry do. There are many organisations that support those in the construction industry as well. I attended the MATES in Construction lunch last week. It is a great fundraiser to assist those in the construction industry. Sadly, the construction industry has an extremely high rate of suicide; I think across the country it is around 190 year. In fact, you are far more likely to come across a suicide in the industry than a death on a building site.

I know that MATES in Construction are working hard to help curb that situation. It is a terrible figure when you think about it, so I fully support the work they do with their many tens of thousands of interactions, whether directly with the workplace, one on one, with their toolbox meetings or meetings on site with the construction industry. We need to support these workers in their valuable work—and it is valuable work. This morning, we saw the Premier turn the first sod on a new Sofitel five-star accommodation in Currie Street, with over $100 million of investment. That is more jobs from the private sector coming into this state.

I want to acknowledge the construction efforts that have been going on in my electorate recently: the Ingham's feed mill, which is about a $40 million construction just being commissioned at the moment; Big River Pork, with a $14 million expansion; and Costa Adelaide Mushrooms, with a $64 million expansion. Ingham's has put in and keeps putting in chicken sheds around Monarto or Kepa Road the other side of Murray Bridge, and at Yumali, not far from my home at Coomandook, there are also new layer sheds.

Certainly, in the wings and coming up next year is the construction of the new Bridgeport Hotel, which will be about a six-storey construction and will be very similar, I believe, to the new Port Lincoln Hotel. It will be something over $40 million to build that. There is so much going on around the place, not the least of which is the well over $100 million, and climbing, invested at The Bend Motorsport Park by Sam Shahin and Peregrine.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond will be heard in silence. Continue, member.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. These interjections are outrageous. It is so good to see how much construction is going on. The Lucas Group is still out there earthmoving at The Bend, and that is providing such an impetus for so much other construction around the place, whether for industry, tourism or the tourism-related sector, just like the new Bridgeport development when it is built next year.

On top of that, we also have the Murray Bridge Racing Club development, with a commitment of tens of millions of dollars. It has taken a long time to come to fruition, with the first seeds sown in about 2003, and in the last couple of years they constructed the million-dollar horse stables. The track has been down for a long time and will be a real boon for horseracing, not just for Murray Bridge but for the racing community generally in this state because the man-made track on the inside of the turf track will allow races to proceed that normally get rained out, whether they be at Penola or Strathalbyn.

I guess that if an event is rained out in Adelaide there will be the opportunity for it to be moved to Murray Bridge. They are just constructing the new facilities now, including the main complex, which will have conference facilities that will hold up to 600 people. There will be great race day facilities for people who come to Murray Bridge. There are so many options that will be able to be opened up there in the future, including night-time events.

But it gets better in Hammond. We have a greyhound track that will be operating by the end of the year—that is about $7 million or $8 million—and it will be a real central point in regional South Australia for greyhound racing. From my understanding, pretty early on next year there will be a straight-line track of about 380 metres for straight-line greyhound races as well. There is a lot of money being spent, a lot of places being built and a lot of construction happening right throughout the electorate.

It is good to see those local jobs and to see what is going on, but we do need to get the enabling legislation around the edges right. That is why we are here today discussing the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill—so that we can have people elected on merit and not just because they are a member of a certain union with a certain ideology, but people who are involved in the industry, who are directly connected to the industry and who will make a great contribution.

We have to remember that this is about the training, as I indicated earlier, so that we get more skilled workers out there in the jobs, on the tools, doing great work in this state, building this state and making South Australia great again. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:16): I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill, but the reality is that I am speaking with insufficient time to properly consider the bill, to consult with stakeholders and to formulate a fully considered position. The bill was introduced on Wednesday 24 October, less than two calendar weeks ago—indeed, only two sitting days ago. The opposition received a briefing on the bill only yesterday and, as a result, we have not been able to fully discuss the bill in our party room or come to an official position as yet. The minister is trying to push the bill through this house and, frankly, this rush should be an embarrassment to the government.

Mr Pederick: You were complaining before we were holding things up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, order, please!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We consider this a gross breach of process and very sloppy work by the minister. This is becoming a regular pattern for the Marshall Liberal government: rushing through briefings and depriving members of the time to give appropriate attention to important legislative changes. It is clear for everyone to see that the Marshall Liberal government's legislative agenda is very light on, which is somewhat surprising after spending 16 long years in opposition. It now appears as though ministers are being told to rush legislation through the parliament.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: I ask that you ask the member to return to the substance of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ramsay, you have made your criticism of the government and you should return to the bill soon.

Mr Brown: What if she mentions her electorate?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will continue to speak on the facts, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ramsay, just a moment. Member for Playford, I heard your interjection and I had made a ruling in relation to members' electorates. This does not have anything to do with that particular ruling.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Of course, as we know, the Minister for Industry and Skills has, at every request, refused to give the opposition shadow minister for industry and skills a general briefing from the department or with the chief executive. Many times, the shadow minister—

Mr Pederick: You can't even work out whether you support your Labor mates—the unions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order. Take a seat, please, member for Ramsay. Member for Hammond, you have had your opportunity to speak, and I called the opposition to order while you were speaking so that you could continue in silence, and you will give them the same respect, thank you.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will reiterate my point: we know that the Minister for Industry and Skills has, at every request, refused to give the opposition shadow minister for industry and skills a general briefing from the department or the chief executive. There is a pattern here, and it is a pattern of ignoring, of not being transparent. Given that minister Pisoni requested and received such briefings when he was in—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: A point of order: members in this place must be addressed either by their title or—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the order; he will be referred to as the minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The opposition needs to allow due process to take place and for the party room to discuss this and come to a position. This is something that the now government demanded many, many times in opposition.

The bill seeks to remove representation on the board of the various sectors involved in the industry. Currently, the board membership is a total of 11 persons: a presiding member, a person nominated by the minister after consultation with the employer and employee associations, as stated in the schedules; two people with experience in vocational education or training; five people nominated by employer associations; and three people nominated by employee associations. That is a total of 11 people, with three being nominated by employee associations.

The proposed composition of this board under this bill is between seven and 11 members: a presiding member nominated by the minister; at least four people, but no more than eight, who have knowledge of and experience or expertise in the building and construction industry, nominated by the minister; two people who are considered independent of the building and construction industry, nominated by the minister, so a total of between seven and 11, all of whom would be nominated by the minister.

But the question the minister has not answered is: what problem is this attempting to fix? From the briefing the opposition received yesterday, he would have us believe that the Construction Industry Training Board has been in deadlock on numerous occasions, unable to move forward with decisions about training in the industry, yet the opposite is true. The opposition understands that there have been almost no occasions in the past decade when the board has even had to take a vote. Instead, there has been a high level of consensus.

It was only on 12 October that the Minister for Industry and Skills spoke at the 25^th anniversary of the board about how successful the board has been and congratulated them on their achievements thus far. So I go back to my question: what is the problem that the minister is trying to fix? We have heard many conversations today about knowledge, skill and experience, but we have got it right; it is going well.

The minister would have us believe from his second reading explanation that the current board composition will prevent the board from responding to the government's Skilling South Australia strategy to support additional apprenticeships and traineeships, yet he has not explained at all why that would be so. Looking at their annual report, celebrating 25 years, more than 5,000 apprentices were supported last year—an increase of more than 300 apprentices on the year before. That sounds like it is working to me.

We know that there is a solid line of construction projects, thanks to the Labor government, whether it be hotels, race tracks or an Ingham's factory, so we know that there is work out there and we know that the board is working. The Construction Industry Training Board is a whole-of-industry led organisation that brings together employers, unions and government representatives. The board works to support the South Australian building and construction industry by providing leadership, training and skills development for its workforce.

The board has members from the Master Builders Association, Master Plumbers Association, Housing Industry Association, Property Council of Australia, the Civil Contractors Federation, a representative from TAFE SA and a further ministerial appointment, Nicholas Handley, who, I understand, is an accountant.

It appears as though this board has been working collaboratively over the many years of its existence. Certainly, in relation to the board the feedback the opposition has received from employers, as well as from employee bodies, is of high levels of satisfaction with the work of the board. I understand that 91 per cent of construction workers were satisfied with the funded courses last financial year. The minister has not outlined one single specific problem that the Construction Industry Training Board has had.

There may be some amendments that the opposition will support. With such a short time to consider the bill since its introduction, we need to consult with industry stakeholders, which we have not yet had the opportunity to do. There are other amendments that we can see certainly should not be supported, as they remove the cross-sector representation that has been the strength of the board. It appears that the minister's intention is not to strengthen the board; instead, he is pursuing an ideological crusade against any representation of employees through unions. He wants to remove employee representation from the board without any justified reasoning at all.

I have been in this place for a little while, but it has been 12 long years that the Minister for Industry and Skills has been here. We have heard time and time and time again about his dislike of unions. When he became a minister, he must have been ecstatic: 'Now we can get rid of them because it is terrible to have representation of workers on boards, people who are there for the wellbeing and the security of the workers.' He has been waiting 12 long years. He has mentioned this on many occasions.

I also raise my concern about the proposed timing. I understand from the briefing the opposition received yesterday that in January 2019 the minister would like to go out to expressions of interest to replace the union representation. What is the rush to get out there? Call me cynical, but you are going to conduct an expression of interest in early January, right in the middle of the festival and holiday season.

Are we to conclude that the minister already has his Liberal mates lined up for these positions? Andrew Killey is available; he is not on the Tourism Commission Board. Mario Romaldi, who has extensive interest in construction, has probably done his rehabilitation now. So I am sure they are lining up, you have them organised and they are ready to go on the board. One of the outstanding things of this board has been its ability to connect together all the key stakeholders in this industry.

We know that the board has just celebrated 25 years of this work and that it has worked well for all this time. The board does not appear to be broken. It follows, then, that therefore it does not need to be fixed. Unions represent a large number of employees in the building and construction industry. If you remove the input from employee representatives, cutting them out completely, while the minister has wanted to achieve this for 12 long years it is not good public policy and it will not achieve anything useful. My personal contact with the Construction Industry Training Board has been nothing but positive.

One of the areas that I want to talk about is the Doorways2Construction program. We have not heard anything about the success of this program. As the former minister for social housing, I worked very closely with the Construction Industry Training Board to support the provision of Housing SA houses. During my time, I think there were three houses where high school students were working for the Doorways2Construction program. I understand that there have been more than 10,000 participants over the period. What that provides is access and equity. I saw young people, who frankly had been disillusioned with school, come along to the Doorways2Construction program and see a future for themselves.

Women make up 4.62 per cent of workers in construction. Young women in this program saw construction as an opportunity for them. Previously, they did not think that this was a pathway that they could even consider. My own personal experience with the training board has been that it adds enormous value and opens up pathways for people looking to go into this industry. What other successes of the board can we look at? Apprentices make up 12 per cent of workers. There is no doubt at all that there is a role for increased apprenticeships and traineeships—we all agree with that—but already there is a substantial role for the 12 per cent who are supported by this board.

Can I also point to the Aboriginal Workforce Development Initiative, another great achievement of the board. There are currently 49 Aboriginal apprentices working in the construction industry. This is what we should be talking about in here, not getting rid of union representation on the board. Why do we not talk about the 25 successful years of building what is an incredibly important part of our economy? I know that it is very easy for the government of the day to come and say, 'This is not representative. You don't have knowledge, skills or experience.' That is simply not true. Having employee representation on that board provides that knowledge, skill and experience.

There are other issues that the opposition needs to come to a position on, which we will do in the near future, but I reiterate that I cannot believe the speed with which this is being rushed through parliament. What exactly, apart from an ideological push, is the purpose of the rushing? Because of this, we cannot support any of this bill. We look forward to debating this properly in the other place, and I will leave it open to that opportunity, but this is a purely ideologically driven amendment. The minister has wanted to do it for some time. He is here to do it, but this is not going to benefit the construction industry. It is certainly not going to benefit the apprentices and trainees who want to have a pathway into this occupation.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Industry and Skills) (12:32): I thank the shadow minister for her contribution. However, I will use the opportunity to correct her on a couple of issues that she has raised. First of all, she is correct in saying that the opposition did not get a briefing until yesterday, but the only reason the opposition got a briefing is that we initiated it. We did not hear from the opposition; we did not hear from them at all. We thought, 'Oh, we had better give them a ring. We had better contact them and see if they would like to have a briefing.'

We were able to schedule that briefing for yesterday afternoon. It is not my fault that the shadow minister has not prepared something for their party room meeting or their caucus this morning. That is not my problem at all. The opportunity for a briefing has been there since the bill was tabled. On the allegation raised earlier that I had refused a briefing for the shadow minister, that is simply not true. My understanding is that we wrote back to the shadow minister about her request for a briefing, and we are yet to hear from the shadow minister.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there a point of order? Minister, can you take a seat.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: She cannot debate me now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Take a seat, please. Just before I take that point of order, there was an interjection from the gallery. I am not sure exactly where it came from, but I would remind those who are visiting in the gallery that that is totally out of order.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My point of order is this: questions have been raised previously, and there seems to be some contention. I ask the minister to table evidence that he has offered a briefing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Ramsay, that is not a point of order. If we choose to go into committee, that may be a question you could raise then.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The other point where the shadow minister has been incorrect is in saying—and I paraphrase because I did not actually write down, word for word, the claim that she made in her second reading speech—that for the last decade or so there has not been a vote on the Construction Industry Training Board. However, just last September, there were two votes; one was about concerns about assessing the levy and how there should perhaps be an investigation into how improvements to the levy collection could be instigated.

The motion was that the minister be advised that charges to levy collection be investigated by the board, in consultation with industry, to identify red tape reduction. That had the majority vote of the board, but the union members of the board used section 5(1)(d) to veto that process. It is concerning that the minister has come in here blazing with faux rage, using examples that are simply not correct in regard to the claims that are being made.

Another example from that very same board meeting is that it was suggested that emails be used for circular resolutions, to speed up the process out of sessions. A motion was put that out-of-session discussions with the board be made by circular resolution; that was moved by a couple of members of the board. My understanding is that that was a majority vote, but, again, the unions used their veto right to stop that motion from being passed. So two significant claims made by the member, which are the basis of the whole argument against supporting this bill, have just been dismissed.

The other point I want to raise in response to the shadow minister is that this does not stop a union member from being appointed to the board. It does not stop a union member from being appointed to the board. As a matter of fact, there could be a number of union members appointed to the board under this process. I take you to new section 5(1b) where it is very clear in the bill:

The Minister must, before nominating a person for appointment to the Board under subsection (1)(b)—

(a) give public notice, as the Minister may determine, inviting expressions of interest for appointment to the Board under subsection (1)(b) to be submitted within a period specified in the notice;

This is public notice that there are vacancies to be filled, and that is exactly what I will be doing. If the shadow minister thinks that everybody has time off for the Festival and is not focused on doing their job during the Festival process, she needs to get out more. The facts are that we have an economy that runs 365 days a year.

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, people do take leave, but not everybody takes leave at the same time. Of course, as the minister responsible, I want to make sure that I get a good cohort of people who put their names forward to join the board if this bill is successful. I will do that by making sure that there is an opportunity for people to participate in that process and nominate—self-nominate or have others nominate on their behalf, however they feel—but I certainly will not be having a narrow mind. That is the whole basis of these amendments. We are anticipating the need for change.

I think the important thing to remember is the right of veto. There was a recommendation in a report written for the 10^th anniversary of the legislation in 2003, which was written by KPA Consulting, and one of the key recommendations of that report was that the veto be removed from the voting process. It was 14 years ago that the previous Labor government was advised that that process was not working and that it was simply a mechanism for protecting self-interest from interested parties and should no longer be there. Consequently, for 14 years, the previous government did not act.

We are all about wanting to give opportunities to all South Australians to be able to participate in the workforce. We know that in order to do that they need skills. Over the last six years in South Australia, under the previous government, we have seen a shocking decline in skills training: a 66 per cent decline in the number of commencements of trainees and apprentices in South Australia. We are committed as a government, first of all, to arresting that decline and then to delivering more training opportunities in South Australia. We want to work with bodies like the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB). We want to make sure we are getting the best possible representation of industry on that board and we want to ensure that we are getting the best possible outcomes with that money that is being spent.

This money is not the money of building companies. This is a levy on top of the cost of building, whether it be the family home or the latest office block in the CBD. It is a cost to consumers and, of course, in the case of the family home, it is mum-and-dad consumers. It is first-home buyers. It is people who are perhaps downsizing and building a new home in order to do that. Every person who participates and buys a building product is paying this levy. It belongs to South Australians. We know that if they have access, if building companies have access to the broad range of skills that they need, it means that the quality of that work is better and the delivery of that work is faster. So it is better for everybody if we have skilled people in this industry.

We know it delivers long-term jobs and we also know that many of the people who are in business in South Australia have the very skills that the Construction Industry Training Board is chartered to deliver. The very skills in the building sector are skills that we know generate wealth in this state and that generate prosperity and opportunity in this state.

I will just finish with this point. It is surprising that the status quo seems to be okay for those opposite, but when you really analyse it that is probably easy to understand because that is all we got for 16 years—the status quo. There was no aspiration to do better, no aspiration to grow. The changes this bill implements for the CITB gives it the ability to get the very best people onto the board and get the very best outcomes.

To use a building analogy, what is the first thing you tend to do if you want to update an old home that is 50, 60 or 70 years old? You knock out a couple of walls and you put in a new kitchen. That is what we are doing in regard to the updating of this bill: we are bringing it into line with today's standards. We do not have the kitchen in one room and eat in another anymore. That is not the way we do things, just like we do not have boards there to represent—

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Point of order: relevance to the bill. I do not think kitchens and updated—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is closing debate with these final remarks and is working towards the end, I am sure. Minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is extraordinary that the member for Ramsay does not think removing walls and putting in kitchens is relevant to this bill. It is what this bill is all about, sir. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: during the minister's remarks he was quoting board papers, and I ask that he table those board papers in their entirety.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My advice is that if the minister was quoting from documents and they were public documents he can be required, as a result of the point of order, to table them to the house. Are you able to do that, minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not sure if they are public documents, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A further point of order: if the minister has quoted from documents that are not public and are confidential, that should be reported to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept the point of order, member for West Torrens. I will be referring this matter to the Speaker. He will consider that and clarify the situation.

Bill read a second time.