Bills

Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Industry and Skills) (12:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:48): This gives me the opportunity to make a contribution on this bill because, of course, the opportunity for members on this side of the chamber to make second reading contributions has been curtailed by the minister through his obstinate refusal to allow sufficient time between the government deigning to give other members of parliament a briefing on this bill and for us to have the opportunity to at least consider it within our party room, let alone form a position and contemplate what remarks we might like to make to the parliament on the bill.

It is an important bill, and it is an important bill for a number of reasons, not just because it is yet another example of the complete contempt with which the Liberal government treats this parliament when it comes to managing the business of the house, providing briefings to members of parliament, providing sufficient time to members of parliament—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: my understanding is that the third reading is specifically about debate of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you have made your criticism of the government, member for—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not quite, actually; there is still some way to go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you are on the third reading now, and—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I am speaking about this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —you would have had the opportunity to make a second reading speech had you been—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: But that was denied to me, and that is the point of my remarks. It has been a commitment of the government—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, how was it denied to you?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We were given a commitment by the Leader of Government Business, after the Supply Bill kerfuffle—when initially there was not the sufficient 10 days' notice given to the parliament to be able to debate that bill—that this set of circumstances would not happen again, yet it has happened again. This is not the first time it has happened again; it has happened again and again and again. Each time, we raise concerns and comments in this chamber, bringing this to the attention of the government. Here we have yet another minister treating us and the crossbench with contempt. It is not that much to ask—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, if I could just interrupt for a minute, the member for Ramsay raised this issue and, to my mind at least, the minister addressed that in his closing remarks.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not understand the relevance; I am not the same person as the member for Ramsay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but she raised the same criticism—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am a separate member of parliament, here to represent my constituency.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, it is not for you and me to have a debate here now—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you; so if I can continue my remarks, we will not need to continue to engage in this, will we?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —but the minister responded to the member for Ramsay when he closed his remarks to the same criticisms.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, just to understand your ruling, if another member of parliament addresses a particular concern, then the other 46 of us are not allowed to speak on that concern going forward? Is that the ruling?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Good—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —I am just taking you back to Hansard—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —then I will continue my remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and I will also remind you that you are on the third reading, so you must pertain your contribution to the bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, we have made that point already, thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So keep that in mind.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am speaking about this bill, which was introduced in the last sitting week—not 10 sitting days ago, contrary to the commitment that we were given by the Leader of Government Business. Once again, it has been—

Mr Teague: It's the third reading.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would like to make a contribution, too? My time will be up soon and you will have your opportunity as well, rather than calling out in an unparliamentary way. That's enough, is it? Okay, good. Thank you; no more interjections from the member for Heysen. This is an important bill because it does not just seek to address a particular issue on the Construction Industry Training Board, it seeks to salve a longstanding desire by the minister to try to rid himself and his portfolio responsibilities of the influence of those who represent workers.

The minister is a constant critic of people who should have the wherewithal to represent the concerns of workers, either in the workplace or outside the workplace. One only needs to go through his Twitter account—that is, before the periodic deletion of tweets and retweets that seems to occur with the minister—to see the singular focus he has on demonising those who dare to stand up for workers. He does it time and time again.

Here we have a bill, brought forward to the house by the minister, seeking to reduce how workers can have their needs represented in the best possible way to ensure that they and the workers who follow in their footsteps can receive the best quality training, as the state government can be involved. That is an appalling outcome. What next? I think that is a reasonable question to ask. Are we going to see legislation from this government that rids employee representatives who have a seat on superannuation boards?

Remember, we are talking about a government within the same political party that has, both federally and in this state, stood up for the rights of banks and for the rights that pillage workers' superannuation funds. We now have a government in South Australia that is doing its damnedest to ensure that workers cannot be represented in matters that relate to their training or to the training of other workers. That is a shameful development, all done for the vanity of the minister's political predilections. It is not for good governance and for the benefit of ensuring that South Australians receive better quality training, but just because he does not like unions.

There are enough people on the other side of the chamber who think that is a good idea. Of course, they are happy to accept all the other benefits and accoutrements that come with the union movement: the development of workplace rights, as well as the improved access to training and the improved quality of training that has been developed over the last 125 years or so. They are happy to pocket all of that, but, when it comes to giving them a voice around the table, they are not happy to have it because the minister and his political party are rooted in the ideology that only the employer knows best and that this is a parliament that should be focusing its attention on what is best for bosses and not what is best for workers.

The poor member for Heysen—I know he is new here—unfortunately is still not conversant with standing orders. He has only just become conversant with how to park his vehicle, I have noticed, as well. He is not quite conversant with standing orders, so he does not quite understand that he will have an opportunity perhaps to speak in another 12½ minutes or so. As always, we welcome his contribution when it comes.

When it comes to this government, they continue to line up without fail against workers and on behalf of employers, and none is more guilty than this minister. When our side of politics was calling attention to the outrageous behaviour of employees and banks with regard to the management of workers' finances or the management of their superannuation, what did we hear? We heard the rallied defence by those opposite of the banking sector. We heard the rallied offence against those people who should have had the wherewithal to stand up for what is important to workers.

Perhaps I can give a bit of an anecdote as to what informs my remarks on the bill. I cast my mind back to maybe 18 months or two years ago when I had the great fortune to be invited to Mitcham Primary School, the school that my two nephews and niece attend, in what was then the electorate of Waite. It may now be in the electorate of Davenport. They wanted to meet a member of parliament and understand a bit more about the parliamentary process and democracy and why it is important.

You can always rely on schoolchildren to ask you curly questions, the questions you are not expecting and the ones that will trip you up. One question they asked was what the difference was between the Labor and the Liberal parties, because there have been times, particularly over the last 30 years, when policy priorities in some areas have converged, as well as, of course, in other areas where they have diverged significantly.

I thought the best way to explain it to these schoolchildren was to talk about the historical basis of each of the political movements: that one was there to represent employers and bosses about how best they could make the most amount of money in the community and that the other was the Labor Party, which was founded to protect workers' interests and how best to protect those who are being exploited by those employers and those bosses.

Once again, we see that historical context come into sharp focus with this minister seeking to promote the interests of employers and bosses against the interests of workers and, concerningly, when it comes to construction industry training. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: