Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. Clause 4, page 3, after line 2—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1aa) The Minister must, in nominating persons under subsection (1)(b) for appointment to the Board, seek to ensure that—

(a) at least 1 person is nominated to represent the interests of employers in the building and construction industry; and

(b) at least 1 person is nominated to represent the interests of employees in the building and construction industry.

No. 2. Clause 4, page 3, after line 2—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1ab) The Minister must, before nominating a person for appointment to the Board under subsection (1)(b) or (c), consult with the presiding member of the Board (unless the office of presiding member is vacant).

No. 3. Clause 4, page 3, after line 14—Clause 4, after its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 5—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) However, if—

(a) the office of a member of the Board becomes vacant before the expiry of the term of appointment specified in the member's instrument of appointment; and

(b) a person had been appointed to be the deputy of that member, the person who had been appointed to be the deputy of the member may act as a member of the Board in respect of the vacant office—

(c) for the balance of the term of appointment referred to in paragraph (a); or

(d) until a person is appointed to the vacant office under this section, whichever first occurs (and a reference in this Act to a member of the Board will be taken to include, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a person acting as a member under this subsection).

No. 4. Clause 6, page 3, after line 28—Clause 6, after its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 10—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) The allowances and expenses for each member of the Board approved by the Minister under subsection (1) must—

(a) be included in the annual report of the Board prepared under section 17; and

(b) be published on a website maintained by the Board to which the public has access free of charge.

No. 5. New clause, page 3, after line 28—After clause 6 insert:

6A—Insertion of section 17A

After section 17 insert:

17A—Reports to Minister

If the Minister requests the Board, by written notice, to provide the Minister with a report relating to any matter relevant to the operation of the Board and this Act specified in the notice, the Board must comply with the request and provide a report to the Minister within the period stated in the notice.

No. 6. New clause, page 3, after line 32—After clause 7 insert:

7A—Substitution of section 38

Section 38—delete the section and substitute:

38—Review of amendments to Act by Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Act 2018

(1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Act 2018, appoint an independent person to carry out an investigation and review concerning the amendments made to this Act by the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Act 2018.

(2) The investigation and review under subsection (1) must include the following matters relevant to the amendments made to this Act by the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Act 2018:

(a) the effectiveness of the Board in the exercise of its functions and powers;

(b) the attainment of the objects of this Act.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must present to the Minister a report on the outcome of the investigation and review within 6 months after the person's appointment.

(4) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receipt of a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Consideration in committee.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

I will make some commentary on the debate, which was very robust. I thank the non-government members in the Legislative Council who contributed to the debate by way of amendments that I think improved the bill overall. The Hons Mr Darley, Mr Pangallo and Ms Scriven put forward some ideas that the government is very happy to accept.

As previously outlined, the act this bill amends is, as it currently stands, the most prescriptive act that governs a construction industry training fund in Australia. When compared with other states, there is virtually no ability for ministerial discretion when it comes to the appointment of the board. This is simply not the case in any other jurisdiction. There have been reports on the board. There was a recommendation for some changes around the early 2000s, and of course boards have modernised even more since then.

I am very pleased that the parliament has agreed to update the board to modern standards so that we can attract the best and brightest to this board to manage the funds that are collected from consumers in the building sector. Whether they be commercial developers, mums and dads or married couples buying their first home, everybody contributes to the building fund through a percentage on every dollar spent in the building industry. Our reform will bring the act into line with the other states and give an ability to pull a number of very important skills together for best practice and strong governance.

Importantly, our reforms are part of broader efforts to revitalise the training system here in South Australia. They are about connecting industry to both the decision-makers and the funders of training here in South Australia, making sure we get the best outcome for those who want to enter various trades and industries by doing apprenticeships or traineeships, and making sure employers are supported in supporting those apprentices and trainees.

The bill will have a positive impact by enabling the industry to more appropriately respond to the changing needs of the economy and to capitalise on opportunities. A flexible board appointment process will ensure the board is better able to respond to the Marshall Liberal government's Skilling South Australia strategy. I think over the last 12 months we have demonstrated how serious we are about listening to industry and working with industry to get the best possible outcomes. We need that to support the government's agenda of delivering 20,800 new apprentices over the next four years and to address the skills shortage that many sectors of the industry are facing. That will only get worse unless we take action now to address this.

I will conduct a public expression of interest process to enable broader industry representation than the current act allows, and of course the new act allows me to do that. The changes will remove vested interests from the board and allegiances to particular organisations or industry sectors. The changes will also bring together essential skills, knowledge, expertise and, of course, good governance to enable the board to function strategically in the investment of funds to support training and skills development in the building and construction industry.

A skills mix comprising operational and strategic experience will be an important consideration to ensure the board comprises members who can suitably discharge the functions of the board as set out by the act. The Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill will result in a board that is better equipped to serve the industry's workforce, skills and development funds. I cannot finish without commenting on the more than robust nature with which the Labor Party and the Greens approached this bill.

I have to say that I was very concerned at the personal attack on Mr Handley. Mr Handley is not the first person to be appointed to a board that participates in a political process. The Labor Party has a history of appointing their union mates and Labor Party members to boards—and I am sure they do it because they are qualified to do the job, just like Mr Handley was qualified to do the job despite the scurrilous campaign run by those opposite. It did have an impact on Mr Handley; he was very surprised at the ferocity of the attack from the Labor Party.

I asked myself, 'What is this all about?' I did a bit of research and learned that the Labor Party thinks they have the board process wrapped up, stitched up, for their mates, and want to keep it that way. This is a story in The Advertiser in September 2017, not that long before the federal election: 'State Labor MP Justin Hanson's wife takes his paid position on the board of a $6.5 billion Statewide Super after his election to the upper house'. That is an extraordinary situation. If you read it—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, minister.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Where were you defending—

The CHAIR: Minister, could you be seated please. There is a point of order.

Mr ODENWALDER: I ask that you rule on the relevance of these comments in relation to the amendments.

The CHAIR: Given that we are dealing with amendments that we are agreeing to, minister, I think it is probably an opportunity to wrap this up sooner rather than later.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Certainly, sir, but I do need to put this on the record because there are allegations of deals for the boys with the changes in the amendments. I think what is important to understand—

The CHAIR: Is this relevant?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is relevant. It is very relevant because almost every single question that was asked by the Labor Party—Ms Scriven, in particular, and Mr Justin Hanson—was insinuating that deals were being done between the Liberal Party and the business community here in South Australia. Let's look at the experience of the Hanson family—the royal family of the Labor Party. Wayne Hanson, Justin's father, started off with an appointment on the same board, paying $66,000 a year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: And of course he retires from that—

The CHAIR: Minister, there is a point of order.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Minister, there is a point of order. You have now had the opportunity to put that on the record.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If the member for Unley cannot control himself and bring himself in line with your ruling, then he should leave the chamber.

The CHAIR: So your point of order is?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is no point of order.

The CHAIR: No, minister, sit down. What is your point of order, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: He is defying your ruling to come back to the topic at hand.

The CHAIR: Well, I asked him if he felt it was relevant. He felt that it was relevant. As I said, minister, you have decided you wanted to put something on the record. I think you probably have done that now. Given that we are considering amendments, I would ask you to bring it to a close.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: But, sir, there is more because when he was elected to parliament his wife got the gig. The union put his wife on the board. So the union movement and the Labor Party wanted to keep this wrapped up for themselves. That is what this was all about—self-interest from the union movement and the Labor Party. Of course, I was very concerned about the aggressive nature of Ms Tammy Franks on this same issue. I did some research, and what did I find? I found that in 2010-11 the CEPU—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order, sir.

Members interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Sit down, David. David, sit down.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Minister, there is a point of order. Could you sit down again, please. It seems like you are aggravating the opposition.

Mr ODENWALDER: Again, I ask you to rule on the relevance of the minister's comments and ask him to obey your rule.

The CHAIR: There are a few things the minister has felt that he needed to get on the record.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I am speaking. There are things that the minister felt he needed to get on the record, and we are all aware that it was a robust debate in the other place. We have come to the point where we have six amendments we are going to deal with en bloc and we are agreeing to. So, minister, I ask you to bring it to a close.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. In summing up—

The CHAIR: I think you have put on record what you need to.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In summing up, three Hansons in a row on the Statewide Super board paying $66,000 a year—father, son, wife. The Greens then received from the CEPU $60,000 for their election campaign in 2010-11 and then, from the CFMEU in 2013-14, $50,000 and then a subsequent $20,000. Tammy Franks seemed more interested in protecting $130,000 in donations than in getting better outcomes for apprentices and trainees in South Australia. I commend the amendments to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution about the amendments that have come back from the other place—necessary amendments as they are, of course, for the very good reason that we find ourselves as a house in a strange situation. We find ourselves in a place where the government has been forced to put itself in a position to contemplate amendments to try to give a sufficient amount of cloth in the exercise of backside covering for the incompetence of the minister in the appointment of Mr Nicholas Handley. This is what we are talking about.

The member for Unley can come up with as many examples as he likes of other people being appointed to other boards in other circumstances which are entirely irrelevant to this bill and to the amendments to this bill. What we are talking about is a case where the member for Unley, as soon as he got into government, as soon as he got the reins, as soon as he got the powers to make board appointments for this—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir: the member is not speaking to the amendments of the bill, and I ask that you invite him to return to the substance of the bill.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Member for Lee, I will just make a comment on that point of order; that is, clause 1 does actually talk about the nomination of persons in regard to board positions. I will listen carefully, member for Lee, but at the moment I am prepared hear your contribution.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Chair. I think the idea with these points of order is to kick the ball forward, not into your own goal. But, as we were saying, these amendments are necessary because we find ourselves in a situation where members appointed to the Construction Industry Training Board, or indeed one member in particular, did not meet the legislative requirements of the act.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, member for Lee. Yes, minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member is speaking about a previous bill. There are amendments on the table that complement a current bill, and I ask that he return to the substance of the bill.

The CHAIR: I have taken advice from the Clerk and we feel that there is still some relevance. I am going to listen carefully, and, as I said before, it is late on a Thursday. We should be nearly there with this one. We are agreeing to the amendments, so let's get on with it. Member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the clarification. In debating a bill, of course, it is germane to the debate to talk about the act that is being amended—who would have thought, particularly when we are talking about the composition of the Construction Industry Training Board? What a revelation for the member for Unley. Still, they say you learn something every day, and the days are numerous in that regard for the member for Unley.

Here we are, with the first amendment seeking to add in additional requirements for the composition of the Construction Industry Training Board. The reason we are contemplating that is that it is an ill thought-out process of appointing his mate Nicholas Handley to the Construction Industry Training Board. What does the existing act, the act germane to the bill that we are discussing, say about the composition of the Construction Industry Training Board? Well, here we are: section 5, paragraph (b) states:

two persons nominated by the Minister, being persons who have appropriate experience in vocational education or training and who are or have been employed or engaged in the provision of such education or training;

That is the problem for the member for Unley. Nicholas Handley, I am sure, is the most accomplished accountant you could imagine. I am sure that he has excelled himself in the art of managing the Unley sub-branch FutureSA events for the member for Unley, but he does not meet the requirements of the act. That is why we have these amendments—to try to come up with sufficient cloth to cover the member for Unley's backside because he has appointed someone contrary to the law. It is not good enough.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would like me to report it? I will just have to check whether appropriate actions have already been taken, or even indeed, as the Attorney-General has found out, whether it is appropriate to be talking about those sorts of reports. Well, how funny. We have a minister of the Crown who feels they need to be reported to an integrity agency. Remarkable! Why do you not just ask them to deselect you? I am sure it would be less painful. I am sure it would be better for your reputation. Just ask them at the party level to express the level of confidence in you that they all express in you privately, but do not come up here with a blatant—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you are addressing me, not the minister. There is a point of order. Thank you, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just say relevance in relation to party preselections.

The CHAIR: Yes, I take that point of order. I think you have both had the opportunity now in this debate over amendments to make the points you have wanted to make. You have them on the record. Member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In amendment No.1, after section 5(1) in the act we see an amendment which will insert a new (1aa). It states that the minister must, in nominating persons under subsection (1)(b), of which we were just speaking at some length, for appointment to the board, seek to ensure that at least one person is nominated to represent the interests of employers in the building and construction industry and at least one person is nominated to represent the interests of employees in the building and construction industry. This of course is a different requirement and a different reflection on the subsection that exists at (1)(b) in the current act.

I like to think I am reasonably familiar, having had to canvass this previously in this place with the member for Unley, with the curriculum vitae of Mr Nicholas Handley. I am not sure whether he would qualify, but I guess we will see. I guess we will see whether he needs to be removed from the board and reappointed or not. The other question is: other than the incumbent, will we see people appointed under these clauses who will actually reflect what is going on in the building industry, who will actually reflect what is going on in the vocational education and training section—somebody who has some experience?

While that might irk some of those opposite, the reason that people work in trade unions is that they work in the industries those unions are paid to represent. They come from the industry, they are familiar with the industry, they work in the industry and hence they represent the industry. That is a clear difference between what the member for Unley has done and what the member for Unley is seeking to do. It is important, if you are going to provide advice at the board level for the construction industry, that you have some experience with what happens in the industry.

Do you honestly think that, if we had a Construction Industry Training Board comprised solely of lickspittles of the member for Unley's choice, we would have appropriate attention to how safe workplaces are? Do you honestly think that we would have a board that was focused enough on whether workers were being remunerated appropriately, whether they were being trained appropriately, whether they all had their white cards to allow them onto site? Of course not. That is why you have legislation that currently requires minimum standards for the people who go on, that they have some understanding and experience of vocational education and training. It is extraordinary. I cannot think of another instance where the business of the other place and of this house has been solely dedicated to underdoing the misdeeds of a minister who has appointed someone who does not meet the legal requirements for appointment of a board. That is just ordinary.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier says that she has vast experience of people appointed to positions without merit. Perhaps she speaks from experience, who knows?

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, are we working towards a question, particularly?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I was just saying I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

The CHAIR: Do you have any questions at all?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, sorry. My question is the minister. Will Mr Nicholas Handley satisfy the requirements of the amendment?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There are actually a number of ways in which people can be appointed to the board. There will be a—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am familiar with that. Just answer the question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am answering the question. The process is an expression of interest process and there is a criterion that the department has prepared for that process, which is all about attracting people with the types of skills that are needed for a competent board—those from the industry, those with law experience, those with governance experience—in order for the board to be run appropriately.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the member for Unley is about amendment No. 1. Will Mr Nicholas Handley satisfy the requirements of the amendment under (1aa)(a) and (b)?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is more than one requirement in the act for those who wish to express an interest in being appointed to the board.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the member for Unley advise the house whether, under the terms of the amendment and the change requirements to be included in section 5 of the act, Mr Nicholas Handley will satisfy those requirements for appointment to the Construction Industry Training Board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have dealt with that question.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Since we have no further light on whether the amendments previously discussed will enable us to right the wrong that we have encountered so far with the appointment of Mr Handley, I am interested in the process of how people will be appointed by virtue of the second amendment.

The second amendment concerns requirements of the minister before nominating a person for appointment to the board under subsection (1)(b), which of course we have canvassed at some length, or indeed under paragraph (c) in the act, which, for those who are not following quite assiduously, currently requires that five persons nominated in accordance with the regulations by the employer associations referred to in schedule 2 represent the interests of employers in the building and construction industry.

For those who are seeking some general understanding of how these two clauses will apply, the amendment that has just been successfully moved provides that we have one person representing the interests of employers, one person representing the interests of employees and then, under paragraph (c), five nominated people representing the interests of employers. So we are up to six people representing the interests of employers and one person representing the interests of employees.

The amendment talks about the process of consultation with the presiding member. My question to the member for Unley is: can he talk about how that consultation will be conducted with the presiding member before the nomination occurs?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The presiding member will be consulted if the position is not vacant. That is very clear from the act, but the act is silent on how the consultation will occur. However, I imagine the consultation would start with a formal process through a letter and then perhaps a meeting, as most government business or any type of business or consultation tends to be done. It would start with a formal approach followed by a meeting, if necessary.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just so I understand it, the consultation process will be formal and, as the minister says, presumably by letter in order to ensure that there is some record of that. So I am guessing it is something along the lines of: 'Dear chair, I've got a mate from the Unley sub-branch I would like to appoint. What do you think?' Or will the minister need to articulate to the chair how he believes the nominee satisfies the legislated criteria for appointment?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is a rhetorical question. If you just want to have a dig, that is fine.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is not a rhetorical question. I would appreciate an answer.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, I am going to suggest that you rephrase that question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What will the minister be required to set out in his formal correspondence to the chair in order to effectively consult with the chair on appointments?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I suspect that the minister would invite the chair to have a discussion about appointments to the board.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I must admit I am confused, Chair, which those opposite may find unsurprising. In the first answer we had on this amendment, the member for Unley said that he would envisage a formal consultation process, where a letter would be sent from the minister to the chair—assuming the chair position is not vacant, of course, and perhaps ensuring that we have read both lines of the amendment and not just the first. So we have moved from this formal process of the minister writing to now a discussion. Is the letter a formal process, or does the letter invite an informal discussion about the proposed nominee? What is in the letter that it seeks to effectively consult?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The letter will be an invitation to consult. It may contain those candidates who were selected after the expression of interest process was finished. There is an expression of interest process for those who wish to put up their hand to be members of the board. It may contain those. I suspect that is probably a fairly efficient way of doing it, but the act does leave some discretion to the minister on how the minister will manage that. I suspect that something as simple as a letter with a list of names of those who qualified for consideration after the expression of interest process was complete.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 3:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 3 be agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Amendment No. 3, if I am reading it properly, seems to refer to a reasonably straightforward process of how the board deals with a vacancy on the board. For example, somebody may resign from the board because they wish no longer to serve on the board or they may pass away, etc., so it is about coming up with a reasonably straightforward process of ensuring that the deputy, I believe in that instance, to the member is able to act in the place of that member for the remainder of the term of office of the board member. It seems pretty straightforward.

My question is: does the minister expect Mr Nicholas Handley in his position to avail himself of the utility of this amendment?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not sure what Mr Handley's intentions are.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I can ask more directly: what are the minister's intentions with Mr Handley? Is it to make his position vacant as a result of the passage of this bill and presumably these amendments, or will he just carry on on the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If you read the bill, the bill will tell you that his position will be made vacant, along with every other position on the board, once the passage of the bill is complete.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think we have come to the nub of it: we are having to spill the board as a result of the situation we have found ourselves in, but perhaps—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You should have read the bill.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, I missed that, Deputy Premier. You were offering some pearl of wisdom, were you, or some casual insult across the chamber? I missed it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir: it is disorderly to respond to interjections.

The CHAIR: I accept the point of order, minister. Member for Lee, you have the call to make a contribution and ask a question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have completed my questions.

The CHAIR: You have completed your questions? Thank you.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 4:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 4 be agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What are the allowances and expenses available for each member of the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not have those with me, but they were answered, I believe, in the other chamber and they are in the annual report.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Has the level of allowance or expenses for board members changed prior to this bill or is it planned to be changed in the next financial year?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I certainly do not have any plans, but what I do know is that it is nothing like the $66,000 that Wayne Hanson, his son, and Justin Hanson's wife got when they were on the board of the superannuation fund.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a small amount of money Mr Handley's name has been dragged through the mud for then, isn't it?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: He is not doing it for the money, mate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Clearly not, and he is not doing it for the reputation either, I gather.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I wonder why he is doing it. Is this what you call a hospital pass in the Liberal Party?

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Lee, you have one question remaining on amendment No. 4.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: When will this information be published on the website?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: As soon as it is practicably possible.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 5:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 5 be agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the minister outline the circumstances in which a report to the minister under section 17A would be sought or required?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So your question is when will it be required?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. My question was: can the minister outline to the house for what purposes the minister may request a report of the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The minister may request from the board a report if there are questions asked by the opposition in the parliament that the minister might not have the answers to that refer to the CITB—that would be one example that I could imagine. Another example could be if the minister was made aware of something that an industry person may be concerned about or may want some information about and who is in an industry that pays a contribution to the Construction Industry Training Fund. I cannot anticipate every single situation where the minister may require information from the board, but the beauty of this particular amendment—and I thank the Hon. Mr Pangallo for the amendment—is that it certainly does help in the transparency process of the work of the board.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If I can summarise the advice the minister has provided to the house, he may seek a report from the board if there is a question from the opposition, if there is a question or an issue raised by an industry person (perhaps about the administration of the fund, for example), but the minister cannot think of any occasion when he of his own volition and using his own initiative might request a report from the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is not correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is the minister able to give us some examples of instances where his own initiative and volition might seek a report from the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, I can.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 6:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 6 be agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What will be the qualifications of the independent person required to carry out an investigation and review of the amendments made to this act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is not an amendment that was put forward by the government, so I am not able to furnish you with all the detail of that, but I think the intention of the Hon. Mr Pangallo is that that person would have the appropriate qualifications and experience in order to conduct that review. It may be somebody independent from the industry.

If it is to conduct the governance of the board, it may be a combination of people who bring in several skills together. It may be someone from the judiciary, it may be somebody from the industry and somebody who is an expert on governance. It may be somebody who is an expert on auditing. There may be a team of people that might do it, or it might be a single person who is doing it. I am very pleased that I have such a strong team within the Department for Industry and Skills that will be able to identify the appropriate person in order to do that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, if I can paraphrase the advice that was given by the minister to the chamber, he said that it could be someone who has the appropriate qualifications and experience to conduct such a review or someone with appropriate qualifications and experience within the industry. It could be somebody independent from the industry. It could be a member of the judiciary, or a team of all of the above. What resources will be used in order to fund such an investigation and review?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I suspect that the resources would come from the Construction Industry Training Board.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: From the fund or from the board?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The board manages the fund. They do not have funds of their own, so I suspect it would be from the fund. My understanding is that the board is independently funded from the fund itself. Any action that the board is required to take through this legislation would be funded by the board. I understand the board fees are funded by the industry fund, and I would not imagine that the cost of the investigation would be funded in any other way.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the minister advise whether he would contemplate using Mr Nicholas Handley to conduct this investigation and review?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not suspect that I would be involved at all in selecting that person or that body of people that would—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It says, 'The minister must appoint.' Have you not read the bill? Have you not read it?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I would be taking the recommendation—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Lee! Continue, minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —of the department.

Motion carried.