Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2020.)

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (17:24): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I rise today on behalf of the state opposition to notify the government that we will not be supporting the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ramsay, if I can interrupt, you will need to identify yourself as the lead speaker.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. I rise today on behalf of the state opposition to notify the government that we will not be supporting the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 if it is voted on this week, owing to the fact that this very bill is still out for consultation.

We have very much informed a clear process that was outlined on the website YourSAy, which is a very useful tool introduced by the former Labor government to inform the community and stakeholders of when we are having discussions and debates. That website stated that the consultation will be open until 20 August, but we find ourselves bringing it to the house for debate one month earlier. The opposition reserves its right to support the bill at a later date depending upon the consultation that is currently being undertaken.

On 2 July, the minister introduced the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020. On the same day, the state opposition sought a briefing from the minister's office as soon as possible. As soon as the minister spoke, they sought a briefing. The opposition was initially offered the briefing on 20 July, the day before it was set to be debated here in parliament.

The opposition rejected this offer and requested one with a more appropriate time frame, noting that the shadow minister needs time to consult with stakeholders and make a submission to cabinet before this matter is voted on. A briefing was then given last Tuesday, 14 July. As I said, this bill was introduced by the minister earlier this month; however, this bill is still out for consultation on the YourSAy website, which has an advertised closing date of 20 August.

The opposition spoke to stakeholders as late as yesterday who are either yet to be consulted or were not aware of the bill at all despite being key stakeholders in this area. We on this side of the house believe in consultation. We believe in everyone having the right to be listened to. What the state government is saying in this instance to the industry and employee representative organisations who represent thousands of apprentices and trainees in the workplace is that their opinions do not matter. They are saying, 'We are going to push ahead with what we want, and we are going to tell you how it is going to be, but we will pretend to consult along the way.'

By pushing forward, the minister and the state government are missing the opportunity of undertaking proper stakeholder consultation to deliver positive outcomes and perhaps needed amendments to the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and this is all because the minister wants to rush it through. I have to ask: why after going slow and steady for two years reforming this area, is there now a mad dash to debate and pass this bill now?

We have runs on the board from this minister, when he has rushed debates before and he has rushed bills through. He might be wise to remember what happened the last time he rushed through legislation in this place—the minister's notorious CITB amendment bill—when he pushed through legislation, providing the opposition with a briefing only the day before the legislation was introduced. Why does he do this time after time? What happened to transparency?

This is such an important area in South Australia to support young men and women, or people older than young men and women, who want to move into a new industry through traineeships and apprenticeships. Let's remind ourselves of what happened to the CITB amendment bill. That bill ended up locked in the other place for months on end because the minister did a sloppy job rushing through the legislative changes to help him get his mates on the board. I urge the minister to learn from his mistakes and not to make the same mistake twice.

We on this side of the house value consultation, we value feedback and we think that there should be appropriate levels of consultation with key stakeholders. While there may be merit in amending some sections of the bill, this should be done in due course with regard to all feedback received. It is a pointless exercise to undertake consultation if you are going to rush it through the parliament. What I want to know is: who is this minister listening to? Who is urging him to rush this bill through?

There are significant changes proposed in this bill. It proposes the establishment of the South Australian skills commission. How surprising that there is a consolidation of power here because all the members are going to be appointed by the minister, and we know what the minister's record is like. We know he has no interest in having employee representation on the board but he does like to make sure his mates are there. The question comes: will they be qualified?

We are rushing through this bill without the consultation process that was advertised, and we have to ask ourselves: what is the rush? Is there a rush to put people on this commission who do not have experience in vocational education and training? We know that that happened on the Construction Industry Training Board, when people were put on that board without adequate experience. The minister has runs on the board for trying to ignore legislative requirements by just removing legislative requirements. Once again, this bill will be looking to establish a South Australian skills commissioner, again to be appointed by the minister: a consolidation of power within the minister.

It deserves transparency. It deserves time for consultation and questioning. The bill also proposes to enable the minister to expand the scope of trades and declared vocations, and this raises the question whether one of the motivations of the minister is to assist him with his struggling apprenticeship numbers. Why do we need to expand it? I saw some of the wording. It is about agility and it is about accessibility, but where are the words about protection for these young workers? Where are the words about supporting these young workers to make sure that they are in safe workplaces and to make sure that they are getting the skills and training that they need?

The bill also proposes to change the employer registration process to remove criteria from the legislation relating to the employer's premises, the equipment and training methods, who will be supervising the work of the apprenticeship or the trainee, and the ratio of apprentices and trainees to supervisors. These are fairly serious topics. It goes to the core of safety. It goes to the core of responsibility for those people who are in charge of supporting these workers as they train on the job and develop their skills.

Our concern is that, instead of the current registration process, we are going to see that employers will be registered almost automatically, with the ability to declare an employer a prohibited employer after problems arise. This is a significant change. It is important that all key stakeholders, industry and employer representative bodies are consulted before rushing this through parliament.

The minister is seeking to increase the probation period for apprentices and trainees to six months, meaning, for example, that a person undertaking a 12-month traineeship would spend 50 per cent of their traineeship under probation. Who has called for this proposal? Who is the minister listening to? We all have trainees here; it is a great process. I have had several trainees during my time as the member for Ramsay. They come in to the office four days a week and spend one day a week at TAFE in order to receive their certificate in business.

It just does not pass the pub test that these trainees could be on probation for six months. It concerns me that this is an attempt to make it easier to access cheap labour in a labour-intensive trade that can be turned over quickly. These are the questions that we need to be asking. Who is asking for this six-month probation period? The opposition has spoken with key stakeholders as recently as this week who are not aware of these proposed changes. A consequence of such a change—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Name them!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: —to probation periods would be that a training contract could be ended without reason within six months of a probation period merely by giving written notice. This is reducing the protection of people who are most vulnerable in the workplace, those new workers who are there to learn. This is a concern.

The bill is also proposing a fee for employers on transfer of a trainee or apprentice. The stated intent is sound: to reduce poaching of apprentices from an employer who has invested in early training. However, this proposal may have unintended consequences that could work against apprentices. It makes no sense to rush through such changes, especially when key stakeholders, who will be the most heavily impacted by this change, are still supposedly having their say.

We therefore advocate that this government does not bring this bill to a vote this week. Why go out and publicly say that you are going to consult to 20 August and here we are debating this on 22 July? It is insulting people. You either believe in transparency and consultation or you do not. These are just some of the questions we have that will arise during this amendment bill, which is 56 pages long. I know it has been 12 years since we have looked at this bill and at changes to the act, so it deserves attention.

We all know there is something that this minister does not like: it is unions. As a very proud member of the Labor Party, I know who I am and I know who I support. I know that I stand up for workers because they need to have a voice. They particularly need to have a voice when people have a blind hatred for their ability to unionise and speak with that voice. In the eight years I have been in this parliament, this minister has constantly criticised unions—almost as often as he has told everyone he used to be an apprentice.

There has been constant criticism, over and over again, so it is not surprising that this bill is proposing to remove the need to consult with SA Unions about the appointment of at least one member of the commission. It will also remove the requirement to consult with Business SA about the appointment of at least one member. You have to ask yourself why we are seeing this consolidation of power so that the minister decides who is going to be the commissioner and who is going to be on the commission.

I have talked about unions and we know how the minister feels about them. This is despite the fact that the minister's own department recognises that unions represent thousands of workers who actively contribute to the skills sector. His department recognises that those that represent employees are key stakeholders. We know he has runs on the board by removing union representation. He has already taken the vast majority of employee representatives off the Construction Industry Training Board, a board that was set up to bring unions and employers in the industry together.

Instead, he put people on that board who were mates. We have had many questions in this house about whether they were credible candidates or whether being members of the Unley Forum made them the most important credible candidates. We have to ask the question: if the parliament simply grants the minister's wish and allows him the ability to appoint whoever he wants to this rebranded skills commission, can the minister be trusted to appoint credible candidates?

Training and skills are a really important part of our future. One of my motivations for being part of politics is supporting people to get their first job. Once you have your first job it is easy to get the second job. For me, it is fundamental how we support people at the beginning of their careers or if they are upskilling their careers and moving on. There is no doubt at all that there is opportunity here. I do not doubt that at all. There is opportunity to contemporise and modernise what we are offering, but we have questions. Why is this rushed? There does not appear to be any reason for this haste. Why go out and advertise if you are then going to ignore it?

The opposition has worked in a bipartisan manner to support the government on many COVID-19 related pieces of legislation. What is being proposed is a significant change to the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It should simply not be passed without thorough scrutiny. If it were up to the minister, the opposition would have first received a briefing on this significant piece of legislation just on Monday 20 July, knowing full well that the matter could be debated the next day. Minister, come on, this is a significant piece of legislation.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am advised that that is what was offered.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am not going to indulge you. After spending over a decade on the opposition benches, the minister knows that there is a party room process in place for both the government and opposition that requires each piece of legislation to be taken to their respective cabinets and for stakeholders to be consulted. It would be constructive if the minister decided to approach the skills portfolio in a bipartisan manner and sought to work constructively with the opposition for the benefit of the state, instead of instinctively and constantly going into battle as if we do not support this, as if we are not interested and as if it was 'us against them.' It is just not true.

You must remember to engage and consult. We do not want another mistake by the government of failing to learn from its mistakes. The minister has stated that he wants to develop a more responsive training system that is flexible, easy to navigate and geared towards the workforce needs of industry. If that is the case, the minister needs to show some maturity and work with industry stakeholders, employee representatives and the opposition so that the end result is legislation that has widespread support. That would be a better outcome for the sector and for South Australia overall.

The opposition is not opposed to reforming the Training and Skills Development Act. We are not opposed to it, but we are forced to oppose it in this situation. We are not opposed to reform, but we are opposed to the rushing through of this bill. We welcome the opportunity to look at this legislation and work constructively with the government to achieve reforms that will benefit the whole industry, but this needs to be done once consultation is completed and once many questions raised by all stakeholders have been addressed. I urge the minister to work constructively to achieve good legislation change that will benefit the whole of the skills sector. If he will not do that and forces the bill to be voted upon this week, the opposition will have to oppose it in its entirety because it is still out for consultation.

This is such an important area. We have an unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent. That is something that everyone in this house is concerned about. We know that this is something that has to be at the forefront of our thoughts. It has to be about jobs. It has to be about investment. Along with that, it is about our skills and industry, and a fundamental part of that is apprentices and traineeships. My father had an apprenticeship; he is a fitter and turner. It has served him very well throughout his time. He is very proud of the certification he holds. While the minister has told us many times that he was an apprentice—and we might laugh—it is something to be proud of.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Why do you laugh?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Because you constantly say it, all the time. It is something to be proud of, having a trade or traineeship—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: But why do you laugh? It's bizarre. You treat it like a disability.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister! Continue, member for Ramsay.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As the lead speaker for the opposition, I am very disappointed to say that we will not be supporting the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill if it is to be voted on this week and we make that decision because the bill is still out for consultation.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:47): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and make some brief remarks, if I may. I have listened very carefully to the member for Ramsay. Far be it from me, but if the reason for the opposition blocking this bill at this time is grounded primarily or solely on the proposition that it is because the bill is still out for consultation, then that falls away immediately.

What we are talking about is a practical circumstance: the year is getting on. The year is progressing and we on this side of the house are all about action. We are about delivering the better outcomes that we have committed ourselves to and not just talking about them. The government is conscious that the parliament is about to go into a period of some extended break. Consultation is ongoing. There is no doubt about that and it will continue.

Consultation does not pull up stumps directly because the matter is being debated in this house. Consultation, I am told as recently as a few moments ago by the minister, is proceeding in earnest. In terms of the progress of the bill, it is very important that we deal with it in this house so that consultation can continue to occur and so that developments between the houses can be taken into account and the new regime can be in place with a view to the commissioner commencing work on 1 January next year.

I am further advised that it is important to go about this in an orderly way and without unduly wasting time or standing in the way on some notion of the adequacy at this time or the completeness of consultation because, but for the extraordinary circumstances that we have all been fighting against in terms of the COVID public health emergency and the global pandemic, we would have had, in the course of an ordinary year, a process in which we would have been able to have this bill introduced in September. It would have been able to be progressed in a way that would have allowed the commencement of the new commissioner's work in the new year, and all the machinery in place around that would have been possible.

That is not the case because we are in the midst of circumstances that have in other places gone so far as to shut down the entire machinery of parliaments. That has not been the case in this state because of the extraordinary leadership that South Australia has shown in its response to the pandemic. So here we are, able to have continued our parliamentary process more or less uninterrupted throughout the course of the year, but in the most extraordinary and trying circumstances.

It is for that reason that, while the timetable remains exactly the same, there is no endeavour to move this through in some rushed way somehow to take advantage of the parliament. On the contrary, the intent is to ensure that in parallel the bill is moving through, the consultation is continuing and we can ensure that there is actual practical machinery in place in time for the start of next year. In bringing this bill to the house, the minister is continuing an extraordinary record so far of development on the skills and training side.

So when the minister brings this bill to the house in these circumstances, it is not against some sort of background of a thought bubble. If the minister says, 'I need this to continue to prosecute our skills and training agenda,' then I will certainly put my hand to the wheel to ensure that that can occur because, as I have said once or twice in the course of these remarks, we are about ensuring that real outcomes are being delivered on the ground, and that is to be contrasted in fairly stark terms with those who it would appear on the other side of the house really have nothing to say in terms of actual practical outcomes. They would perhaps rather see the matter continuing to be aired so that members opposite can continue to talk about it. We on this side of the house are, by contrast, about action.

One of the measures that has just been brought to my attention in terms of demonstrated outcomes—improvement that forms part of the track record in the very early days of the Marshall Liberal government and this tremendous minister—is the 114 per cent increase that we have seen in apprenticeships for those over the age of 45 over the recent course.

We know that in recent days and weeks the federal government has announced its JobTrainer program. There is a skills agenda that state governments of all stripes have signed up to. I think Western Australia is the one outlier as things stand—that is my understanding—but all are coming on board with the prospect that there will be 340,000 new training places on offer. That will be backed by $1.5 billion of federal government investment in apprenticeship wage subsidy programs, and that federal program will be in areas of key relevance to the state, including health care and in manufacturing and in trade.

I for one, as a proud member of this parliament representing, as I do, the good people of Heysen, want to see this state and this government fully equipped to cooperate and participate and turbocharge the work that is going on in terms of skills and training at the federal level. We will be able better to do that if we put our house in order by progressing this important legislation in an orderly way and not sitting on our hands and saying, 'Well, we cannot do anything about it because there might still be some level of consultation.'

On that point—and, again, to drive it home, I hope that I might, with respect, have some capacity to persuade the member for Ramsay and those opposite perhaps to reconsider their view over the course of the coming hours—that is for the reason that it is the stakeholders themselves, those who are being consulted and will continue to be, who are driving this process.

They know that the government's focus on skills and on training places is critically important, and it is those groups that will continue to be consulted over the course of the passage of the bill that I am sure will continue to remind the government, and will I am sure bring it to the attention of those opposite as well, just how important it is that we progress this bill and that in turn we do all that we can in this state to deliver continuing strong outcomes in terms of training and apprenticeships over the period going forward.

Much has been said by the member for Ramsay in the course of her contribution about the role of the minister. I draw particular attention to clause 11 of the bill and I commend, in the course of any quiet moment that members may have in reflecting on where we have got to and how we are reforming this area, the important role of the minister in leading the way on the skills and training front. Those functions of the minister that are there described are so tremendously important. They include the establishing of priorities, of leading the way in managing the state system of vocational education and promoting opportunities. I would like to expand further on those important roles when I may have an opportunity to continue my remarks with leave.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.