Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2020.)

Mr BOYER (Wright) (20:51): I would like to begin, if I may, with a short potted history of how this bill came to be before the chamber. It was introduced by the Minister for Innovation and Skills back on 2 July, and I understand that on that day the opposition requested a briefing from the minister's office.

It is my understanding that the opposition was initially offered a briefing on 20 July, which at that stage was the day before this bill was set to be debated in this place. The opposition rejected that offer on the basis that it left just one day between the briefing and the bill being debated in here, thereby not leaving us with enough time for the then shadow minister to consult with stakeholders or put a submission to shadow cabinet.

Finally, a briefing was provided on 14 July, which I note was still a number of weeks before the public consultation—which was taking place on the YourSAy website—was due to conclude on 20 August.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt for a moment? At this stage, we are a bit unclear as to whether you are the lead speaker or not.

Mr BOYER: I am not. The member for Ramsay spoke for us as lead speaker before parliament rose.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for clarifying that. Continue.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Consultation is always important, and never more so than when the government is considering the kind of far-reaching changes that are proposed in this bill, changes that will affect the employment conditions of some of the most vulnerable people in the South Australian workforce—that is, trainees and apprentices. It goes without saying that it is incredibly important that the views of the organisations that represent thousands of apprentices and trainees are heard during consultation on this bill.

It would appear that history has somewhat repeated itself here, despite the fact that the government could have made use of the almost seven weeks we have just had in the midyear break from parliament to file any amendments it may have had to its own bill. Instead, it decided to drop a total of 43 of its own amendments on Monday afternoon, while still being intent on pushing this bill through the chamber in the very same week.

I would like to echo the words of the member for Ramsay in the contribution she made as our lead speaker before we rose for the break, and that is: why the mad rush now? Why, after two years of plodding along with these reforms, is the minister now so intent on rushing this bill through parliament?

Sadly I think the minister has some form in this area. Members will remember his attempt to rush the Construction Industry Training (Fund) Board Amendment Bill through this place just a day after given the opposition a briefing on what was actually in that bill. So much for the accountability and transparency that those on the other side were so intent on reminding us they were going to bring to this place before the last state election.

For the reasons I outlined at the start of my contribution, the opposition will not be filing any amendments in this place but will, of course, reserve its right to file amendments in the other place once we have had the opportunity to digest the 43 amendments from the government and undertake the necessary consultation on those.

It goes without saying that South Australia is at a bit of a crossroads at the moment, insofar at least as the economy is concerned. On top of all the usual challenges that we face as a relatively smaller state, the global pandemic is most likely, from what the experts and commentators say, to quicken the pace of what they refer to as Industry 4.0 change and this will present challenges in terms of equipping those who are trying to get into the workforce and those who are in the workforce already but seeking to change careers with the skills they need to do just that.

It is fair to say that we accept that this does necessitate some form of nimbleness and flexibility from the agency that oversees our state's training system, but we do not agree, in many instances throughout this bill, with the methods employed to provide that flexibility. We certainly do not agree with the government that the way to achieve a flexible and responsive training system, which from all the material the government has put out is what they are arguing is the motivation behind this bill, is by watering down protections for apprentices and trainees by reducing scrutiny over the agency responsible for governing that system or by removing the independent advocate whose job it is to oversee that system.

There is a theme pretty quickly establishing itself with this government around a desire to fill the various government boards and advisory panels with what is referred to as captain's picks to remove any of the statutory obligations to provide guaranteed representation on those boards and panels of non-government bodies such as, for instance, unions and instead leave the process of filling those positions entirely up to the minister of the day.

It is the same case as in this bill. The minister proposes to remove any legislative obligation in the act to provide representation on the proposed South Australian skills commission from employer groups or unions. All 10 positions that will make up the new commission are proposed to be chosen by the minister.

I might add that it is fair to say that this particular minister does not have a fantastic record when it comes to choosing appointments for positions like that. But here is the thing: nowhere in any of the government-produced paraphernalia that has been put out to explain to the public, during the YourSAy consultation process, why this bill is so important have I read a cogent argument about why there is a genuine need to grant the minister the power to choose whoever he or she thinks is fit to sit on the commission.

Also very concerning are the amendments in this bill that will result in the removal of the South Australian Training Advocate. The advocate is an independent role tasked with monitoring the training system in South Australia. This includes working with employers, training providers, students, apprentices and trainees to provide advice to the Minister for Innovation and Skills. The advocate's own website defines its role as follows:

We are focused on actively promoting the benefits of training, proactively engaging with stakeholders to help them understand their rights and obligations and how the training system might benefit them, future skills needs and positioning SA to take advantage of new and innovative training models.

The Training Advocate also plays an important role monitoring the training system and advises the State Government on ways to improve the training system.

We can assist you to find your way around the training system, to make informed decisions about your training needs, rights and obligations. It is our aim to support all parties toward successful completion of training or an Australian qualification wherever possible.

At least those on this side of the chamber would agree it sounds like a very important role. A range of the services I mentioned above that the advocate provides are actually offered to people free of charge, including, and again I take this from the website of the Training Advocate:

…to speak for and negotiate on behalf of individuals toward the resolution of an issue or dispute.

Given this bill proposes removing the Training Advocate and rolling its functions into what will be called the South Australian skills commission, it raises real questions about what the capacity of that new commission will actually be to continue the functions of the existing advocate, such as negotiating on behalf of individuals towards the resolution of an issue or dispute if that independence has been taken away. Surely one of the necessary characteristics of a strong and effective advocate is independence, and to take that away undermines the very purpose of having an advocate in the first place.

The Training Advocate's annual report identified 915 new cases and 2,337 issues investigated in 2018, and 793 new cases and 1,772 issues investigated in 2019. I cannot help but wonder if the advocate's pending demise has been brought about because the independent advice they were providing was not to the minister's liking.

I mentioned briefly in my opening remarks that trainees and apprentices are some of the most vulnerable members of our workforce. The power imbalance that exists between trainee and employer or apprentice and employer has always been really pronounced, and there is an incredibly important role, we believe, that government needs to play in making sure that those usually young employees are protected.

All of us in this place will be familiar with some of the horror stories we have heard in the past of bullying, victimisation and outright criminality that have been perpetrated against apprentices. On this side of the house, we firmly believe that it is our role as legislators to protect vulnerable workers. For that reason, we strongly disagree with the proposal in this bill to allow the extension of probationary periods for some apprenticeships.

I accept that the proposed changes in this bill, which will allow probationary periods to be as long as 25 per cent of the total apprenticeship period but no longer than six months in total, are unlikely to affect traineeships due to their relatively shorter length, but it is our reading of the bill that a two-year apprenticeship could now be subject to a six-month probationary period—double the current three-month period. This is flexibility gone too far and will only serve to extend the power imbalance that already exists between apprentice and employer, which is especially concerning in light of the fact that this bill also proposes to enable a training contract to be ended without reason within the six-month probation period simply by giving written notice.

Finally, I would also like to draw the house's attention to clause 24, which proposes to establish a prohibited employers list containing the names of employers the commission believes are not suitable people to employ an apprentice or trainee. On the face of it, this might sound like a sensible idea. However, I fear that it signals a shift away from the more proactive approach we have had in the past, to try to ensure that only suitable employers are able to employ trainees and apprentices, and a move to a more retroactive approach to adding employers to a prohibited list after the offending act has actually occurred.

To reiterate the words at the start of my contribution, we are here now after 9 o'clock because this minister is seemingly intent on ramming this bill through even though he has just this week filed 43 new amendments of his own. Nonetheless, we look forward to the opportunity to ask questions of the minister during the committee stage and filing amendments in the other place, should the opportunity arise.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (21:02): I have a few brief words to contribute to the second reading in addition to the member for Wright's contribution. There are a couple of things that I think are really worthwhile putting on the record here, the least of which is my own personal experience of working in this area. I am very proud to have a trade union background. I can see the hairs standing up on the back of the minister's neck when I say 'trade union', but I am very proud to have a trade union background. In doing so—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: You don't have a trade background.

Mr SZAKACS: No, I don't have a trade background, as the minister says (and I know it is disorderly to respond to interjections), but what I do have is a background of standing shoulder to shoulder with working people—something the minister would never ever be accused of doing. In doing so, I have spent a fair bit of time representing apprentices/trainees who have been caught up in a system that is often a very clear and overt distillation of the shift in power between an apprentice and their employer.

The member for Wright spoke a little bit in his contribution about his view—one that I share as well in addition to the opposition—about what this bill does to exacerbate some of those issues that we see in the existing scheme; for example, we have heard time and time again of the risk that apprentices face on a daily basis of bullying and harassment. I am sure that the minister will be able to provide in the committee stage some further information from the consultation period and the feedback given by interested parties.

I represented many apprentices starting in what was at the time referred to as the grievance and disputes mediation committee. It was a dispute resolution iteration of previous bills at the time. It was chaired by Mr Brian Mowbray. Often, the disputes that came before the committee were matters where trainees—more often than not apprentices but sometimes trainees—had been treated pretty appallingly at work. Often, because they were tied, for better or for worse, to an apprenticeship or traineeship they had the capacity and enjoyed the right to attend the GDMC to simply get their apprenticeship on track.

I can recall an example where an employee in the metal trades manufacturing space was physically assaulted at work. The matter was before the police. The police were investigating the claim and I think from memory had either at the time charged the perpetrator or were about to charge the perpetrator. Notwithstanding my recollection, eventually the employer who committed the assault was charged and convicted, but the apprentice at the time was stuck in this no-man's-land by not having a host employer to attend. He was directly employed by the employer who assaulted him and not through a group training provider. He had to go to the GDMC to seek the execution of his legal entitlements of pay while he had been vacated and dispensed with by the employer who had assaulted him.

Another thing that I recall distinctly about this case was that the young man, who was in his teens, so 18 or 19, was in the job only for about two months. In this case, one of the amendments to the legislation that the minister brings is the capacity to stretch out that probationary period to up to six months or to 25 per cent of the total time of the traineeship or apprenticeship. That will of course provide a degree of flexibility, as the member for Wright has highlighted. However, what concerns me most is that within that probationary period a traineeship or an apprenticeship can be cancelled and dispensed with for no reason whatsoever. That might suit the minister completely in his warped view of the way that workers should be chattels rather than–

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: imputing improper motives to a member of parliament. I ask him to withdraw.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Can I ask the member to withdraw?

Mr SZAKACS: For clarification, Acting Speaker, what part of that was an imputation of the minister?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Could the minister please indicate before the house the offence that was taken or the improper motive?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member was imputing that I got some sort of satisfaction out of apprentices being treated poorly. It is just an outrageous suggestion and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SZAKACS: If the minister took that as an imputation, I am happy to withdraw. What I can say is that the minister's bill directly and overtly makes the balance of power in a workplace shift dramatically away from vulnerable young apprentices and trainees. I assume the minister is supporting that in bringing this to this place. Any other motives will of course be for the minister to explain in the committee stage.

Another matter that I think is worth touching upon slightly is the minister's evangelical distaste of organised workers. The member for Wright has already touched upon the amendments that this bill sees and the capacity for the minister to directly appoint members to the newly established committee. Up until now, under the current iterations and over multiple series of amendments over time, there has been a pretty clear understanding that workers and their trade unions have a direct finger in the pie, a direct stake, and deserve a voice at the table when it comes to deciding policy that affects their lives, their skills and their jobs. That is a direct change in the bill that concerns me.

I know that the member for Ramsay has also touched upon this point about the minister's troubling track record in making appointments that would be subject to argument and scrutiny from a reasonable and objective standard from a skills perspective. Nicholas Handley, one of the minister's fundraisers who was hand-picked and appointed to the minister's board, is one example that comes to mind.

It will be interesting in the committee stage whether the minister can provide, for example, what has led to these changes and what skills analysis of the board has been done that would facilitate the need to make such dramatic changes. In fact, there are decades, if not a generation, of practice from Labor and Liberal governments, both conservative and progressive, around the fact that workers and their unions have a stake in training and have a stake in the transferability and interoperability of the skills that the system provides them for job creation and job transferability.

Finally, I want to talk a little bit about PEER, who are a very important stakeholder and a tremendous training provider, a group trainer, in my electorate of Cheltenham. The minister knows it well. He has been down there for a photo opportunity a few times this year. He loves to parade around young apprentices in high-vis and rightfully congratulating—not often will I congratulate the minister for doing this—and highlighting the extremely important and progressive work that PEER is undertaking.

What puzzles me the most, though, about the minister's approach to PEER is his seemingly blind lack of objectivity: that PEER is an organisation by definition, and as a measure of its success, due to the involvement of working people and their trade unions. It has a board, nonetheless, which has exceptionally well-qualified, strong leaders from trade unions who do not mind getting their hands dirty in standing up for the apprentices and trainees who need their collective voice. They include friends and colleagues of mine, John Adley, Bill Metropolis and Simon Pisoni. In doing so, I congratulate PEER. Also in doing so, I highlight and call out the rank hypocrisy of this minister who is once again chasing an evangelically—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: previous Speakers have ruled the use of 'hypocrisy' as unparliamentary. I ask that it be withdrawn.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): That is true. Could the member please withdraw the use of the word.

Mr SZAKACS: I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker, again. Is 'glass jaw' unparliamentary?

Dr Close: Parliamentary.

Mr SZAKACS: Okay. The glass jaw from the minister—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Just use the rules. The house has rules; use them.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Order!

Mr SZAKACS: I am best advised that 'glass jaw' is entirely parliamentary, and I say 'glass jaw' because the minister does not mind windmill punching when it comes to smacking and punching down against working people and their trade unions, but when they stand up and fight back, he does not seem to like it so much.

Dr CLOSE: I draw your attention to the state of the house, Mr Acting Speaker.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (21:16): Boy, what an angry member for Cheltenham we just heard from. Firstly, I will use this opportunity, if I may, to congratulate the member for Wright on his elevation to the shadow ministry. I look forward to working with him. I have to say that the second reading speeches do concern me just a little, because it sounds as though the long-anticipated announcement of a skills policy from those opposite is going to be more of the same—more of what they were delivering before the last election.

The opposition went to the election without a skills policy at all, and what did we have during that period? We had a 66 per cent drop in the number of apprentices and trainees over six years. It is very concerning that we are getting a hint tonight that the opposition thinks we are in a place that does not move. They think nothing has changed since the 1950s and 1960s, in the days of tariff-protected walls protecting industry in Australia—the days of no international economy and very traditional industries.

What happens when we do not adjust and update what we are doing and we do not innovate? We end up with what has happened in other states with the same attitude of those opposite: failure in the apprenticeship and traineeship space. The Marshall Liberal government changed the way we deliver vocational education, particularly apprenticeships and traineeships in South Australia, almost in the very minute we came to office.

We were the first to sign the Skilling South Australia agreement with the federal government, and I remember the criticisms from those opposite. Within three months of signing that agreement, we were only able to stem the slide of apprenticeships and traineeships. I know the member for Cheltenham was on social media saying that Skilling South Australia was a complete failure. Even though there had been an increase of commencements in apprenticeships and traineeships for the first time in six years—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It looks like there is a point of order.

Mr SZAKACS: Point of order: I would ask the minister to identify, and perhaps table, when that reference to social media posting that he has referred to was.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Look at your own Twitter site. Have a look at that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I missed that, I'm sorry.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Mr Deputy Speaker, here we are, we finished 2019, the first full year of the Skilling South Australia program, which was enormous reform in skills training here in South Australia. In South Australia, in the December quarter—that is, for the last three months of the year—there was a 9.3 per cent increase in the number of apprentices and trainees.

What did we see in New South Wales? We saw a 19.7 per cent decrease. What did we see in Victoria? We saw a 14.6 per cent decrease. In Queensland, there was a 13.5 per cent decrease; in Western Australia, there was a 13.5 per cent decrease; and in Tasmania there was a 15.5 per cent decrease—all double-digit decreases, because they are doing things the same.

They are doing things the way that those opposite will do if, God forbid, they return to office after the next election. That is exactly where we will be going. We will be joining those other states that have not reformed, that have not started the reform process in their skills system, and we will see continual reductions in commencements of apprenticeships and traineeships.

I want to clarify a myth that has been running around, first by the member for Ramsay and then by the member for Wright. It is my understanding that the Hon. Clare Scriven was offered a briefing on 2 July. She was in Mount Gambier and was not available until 14 July, when she got her briefing. That is my understanding of the situation.

There is no rush for this legislation. We are managing the process of the fact that we have had a section in the middle of the year that is usually used for budget. There are about three weeks of parliamentary sitting time that is budget and estimates. That process was used for other purposes. The bill was not ready to be introduced for that section of the parliamentary sitting process. That would normally leave us six weeks at the end of the year, but this year, of course, because of COVID-19 the budget has been moved to November. It means we only really have three weeks of parliamentary sitting where we can deal with matters like this.

It is important that this bill gets through this year so that the new skills commissioner can start the process of developing and building the skills commission so it can start from 1 July next year. It is going to be tight—six months. They are going to be working hard in order to set the commission up, but we have been advised that the six-month period will work.

The state government approach in updating legislation to support the South Australian training system is in recognition of the need for a modern and flexible system required to deliver the skills for jobs of the future. We are building on the strengths of the existing system, implementing new reforms to underpin future success across the system, strengthening South Australia's workforce.

Feedback from stakeholders has been essential in forming changes via the bill. The Training Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 was drafted in line with extensive stakeholder feedback. Peter Nolan from PEER was engaged very early on a committee that helped us develop the draft bill, and I take this opportunity to thank him for the work that he did in that process, and of course he supports the bill in its entirety. It is a bill that is responsive to modern needs of industry and supports apprentices.

It has been drawing on information provided by stakeholders in a previous review of the act. It was commenced in 2016. That was under the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was responsible for skills training, I believe, but not acted on. We have taken a number of those recommendations that came from that review and we have incorporated those into the bill.

Consultations related to the Skilling South Australia and the Training and Skills Commission's Future-Proofing the South Australian Apprenticeship and Traineeship System report. Last year, an expert advisory panel was established—this is the one that Peter Nolan from PEER was on—that made recommendations about the way apprenticeships and traineeships and broader training systems should operate under new legislation. Taking into account all feedback received during the initial four-week consultation period, the amendment bill was introduced into the parliament on 2 July.

Concurrently with the introduction of the amendment bill to parliament, a further seven-week consultation period commenced, enabling stakeholders to provide feedback to the amendments. It was always the intention of the government to either use this process in the House of Assembly or the process in the Legislative Council to amend the bill after the final consultation had been completed.

Tomorrow, you will be able to see details of that consultation online. We are not hiding anything here. I believe the opposition has been given a copy of the consultation process and the submissions that came in. We are not rushing anything, we are just being efficient under the current circumstances that COVID has put us in. We have a time line to meet to start this process so that we can have the commission up and running by 1 July.

The consultation period concluded on 20 August 2020 and consisted of meetings with various key stakeholders, including members of parliament, representatives from industry and business associations, employer representatives, obviously the Training Advocate, obviously the Training and Skills Commission and industry skills councils.

Through the YourSAy platform, 21 submissions and comments were received. We have listened and continue to listen. A key to achieving success over the past 2½ years has been, of course, listening to stakeholders. Our amendments address several key matters raised. There are about six substantial amendments. The rest of them are consequential amendments the six amendments will trigger that will need to be made in order for the bill to work.

The establishment of the South Australian skills commission: clause 11, part 3 of the bill, establishes the South Australian skills commission, amalgamating the Training and Skills Commission and the Training Advocate. This will resolve weakness and confusion consistently raised regarding structures underpinning governance of the state's training system by minimising duplication of roles and functions currently performed by the Training and Skills Commission, the Training Advocate and the department.

In line with the scope of this review, the appointment process for commission members is consistent with modern, responsive, best practice legislation and reflects modern appointment processes. The bill requires the minister to ensure the commission has the appropriate skills mix to enable it to respond to the changing needs of the economy, skills and vocational education in South Australia.

Appointments to similar interstate bodies, such as the New South Wales Skills Board and the advisory committees proposed to be established under the National Skills Commissioner Bill 2020 also allow for appointments to be made on the basis of individuals the minister believes have experience and skills necessary to perform the relevant functions. There is nothing new here. This is standard practice around Australia, standard modern practice.

Feedback was received on the importance of the industry skills councils (ISCs), ensuring their ongoing operation despite not being enshrined in legislation. The ISCs are fundamental components to the government's focus on industry leadership in the training system. I was very pleased, as the minister, to reintroduce and resource the industry skills councils here in South Australia that had had their funding removed in about 2012, I think it was, by the previous government.

We see them as contributing enormously to the information the government needs in order to make sure that we are funding skills in the right area and we are delivering the types of support services that businesses and industry need to participate in training apprentices and trainees. While the ISCs are not specifically referenced in the amendment bill or the existing legislation, the legislative mechanism is provided for the commission to establish such industry engagement or advisory bodies as the commission thinks appropriate in clause 11.

It is our intention to retain the existing industry skills councils. They have been key to our success in achieving nation-leading results. I do not know whether you picked that up earlier, Mr Chair—a 9.3 per cent increase in the December quarter in South Australia, a 14.8 per cent decrease nationally under this system here in South Australia.

Functions of the minister, the commissioner and the South Australian Skills Commission: clause 11 of the amendment bill outlines the functions of the minister in new section 7 and the South Australian Skills Commissioner in new section 13 and the South Australian Skills Commission in new section 19. Under the new model outline, the functions of the Training and Skills Commission and the Training Advocate have been combined and rationalised.

Feedback was provided on the need to clarify the functions related to complaints handling and conciliation and concerns raised regarding duplication of functions for the commission. These have been revised through an amendment I will bring up in the committee stage. The revised functions clearly articulate the scope of the commission in complaints handling, mediation and advocacy, with responsibility for conciliation resting with the South Australian Employment Tribunal. The functions have been amended to reduce duplication.

The South Australian skills guidelines: section 26 of the amendment bill describes the powers of the new skills commission to develop the South Australian skills guidelines. These powers largely mirror the Training and Skills Commission's powers under the current act and provide greater direction for the implementation of elements of the bill. Feedback on the amendment identified that the term 'guidelines' can be a source of confusion for stakeholders, who may perceive guidelines to be optional or merely advisory in nature as opposed to a legislative instrument under the act.

As a result of this feedback, I will introduce an amendment outlining that the term 'guidelines' in all instances with the amendment bill and act be amended from the 'South Australian Skills Guidelines' to the 'South Australian skills standards'. The change will provide greater clarity on the enforceable nature of the content given the reduced ambiguities associated with the guidelines. The content of both the standards and the regulations will be the subject of further consultation following the enactment of the amendment bill at a later date.

Declaration of trades and declared vocations: a declaration of trades and declared vocations process is outlined in clause 9 of the amendment bill, amending section 6 of the current act. It specifies that the minister may, on recommendation of the commission, declare an occupation to be a trade such as an apprenticeship or a declared vocation or traineeship. The amendment bill outlines that a relevant pathway to a trade or vocation may, in addition to a primary qualification relating to a trade or vocation, include pre-apprenticeships and specify skill sets, higher qualifications and other matters the minister thinks appropriate.

Feedback received from stakeholders in relation to the declaration of trades and declared vocations was overwhelmingly positive. Feedback received identified a need to include pre-traineeships as a relevant pathway to a trade or a declared vocation. This is important. We have found that the pre-apprenticeship and pre-traineeship program has been very successful in two things: first of all, giving those who feel that they might want to be an electrician, for example, or be in the healthcare sector, or be in one of the new higher apprenticeships that we have developed such as cybersecurity, an opportunity to learn some skills, get an understanding of what would be expected as an apprentice or trainee, and also it gives them a higher skill level for when they start as an apprentice or trainee, making them more valuable at an earlier stage as an apprentice to the employer.

Usually we will have 20 pre-apprenticeships, for example, but only 15 will then decide to move on into the apprenticeship system. We have found that linking those pre-apprenticeships to employers who are offering apprenticeships and traineeships has been very successful in getting better outcomes for both the apprentice and the employer. Of course, we know that that combination works well because that is when we see more people engaging in the training sector, both those making the investment (the employer) and the apprentice or trainee.

The apprentice or trainee is getting two tickets. They might get a single ticket going to university, a ticket for an education, but with this system they get two tickets, one to education and one to a job, because they are going into an industry that is in demand because there is a co-investment. In the case of the employer, it is cash, and it is an investment by the apprentice in the way of time to gain that qualification. Of course, the scope of higher qualifications should be broadened. As a result of the feedback, I will introduce two amendments.

Mr SZAKACS: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I know that they are embarrassed on the other side of the chamber. They cannot even point to their record on skills training. Remember, it was a 66 per cent decline in the six years from 2012 to 2018, and they had no policy to resolve it. TAFE was in chaos under the leadership of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and reports were so shocking that they had to be tabled in parliament.

As I was saying before the interruption, as a result of this feedback I will introduce two amendments—one to reflect pre-traineeships as a potential pathway and another to remove 'in a specified area in response to changing requirements of the trade or vocation' following 'higher education' as contained within the amendment bill.

Then there is the extension of the probationary period for up to three months by application. It is important that it is by application, it is not automatic. Listening to those opposite, they are suggesting that this is an automatic extension that no longer will be a three-month probationary period in a four-year apprenticeship. It will no longer be three months but it will be six months; that is completely wrong and a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the bill.

This is actually here to support apprentices. This amendment came about because employers were saying, 'I really want to work with this guy. He's got the right attitude, but we are having some issues. He's having a lot of sick days. We are not really sure that we want to sign up for the full four years. If we could extend that probationary period, work with the apprentice and get them ready to commit to a four-year apprenticeship.' That is the motivation.

Let me give you another scenario: the apprentice starts and in the second week they have a car accident and they are out for two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, a month, six weeks. In the meantime, the probationary period is ticking away. What is so unfair for the apprentice is that the employer will need to make a decision in a condensed period of time. If there is any doubt by the employer, if the employer is concerned, he or she does not have the option to extend that probation period, to work with the apprentice, to be comfortable in a professional relationship with that person for that period of time. This will actually save apprenticeships and protect apprentices.

We did act on the concerns that were raised by the member for Ramsay, and it did make sense to limit the extension to be no longer than 25 per cent of an apprenticeship, because of course we are seeing a growth in non-trade vocational pathways—the traineeships, for example—and many of them are shorter. We did not think it was reasonable that they could have a 12-month traineeship with a six-month probation period. There is a different set of circumstances in that instance, so we were more than happy to introduce that amendment.

The current act gives the Training and Skills Commission the power to determine a probationary period for a training contract for a specific trade or declared vocation. However, the act does not set a minimum or maximum period of time for a probationary period determined in this manner. In line with feedback received in the initial four-week consultation period, clause 17 of the amendment allows a party to a training contract to apply to the skills commission to extend the probation period specified in the training act, provided the total duration of the probationary period does not exceed six months.

Feedback received on the ability of the Training and Skills Commission to extend the probation period for a period not exceeding six months was positive overall, as it was recognised that there may be circumstances where probationary periods are deemed insufficient. There were some concerns raised about the interaction of this provision with short training contracts. As a result, I will bring an amendment to cap the probation period to up to a maximum of 25 per cent of a contract's nominal term or to a total of six months.

In relation to the issuing of certificates of proficiency and completion of apprenticeship or traineeship, clause 23 of the amendment bill introduces certificates of proficiency and rationalises powers under the current act of the Training and Skills Commission to certify the competency of individuals. The amendment responds to submissions received in the initial four-week consultation period, which supported the need for better structured skill recognition pathways and consideration of legislative arrangements in other jurisdictions.

Feedback received from stakeholders in relation to the certificate of proficiency provisions of the amendment bill has met with confusion on the application of these provisions. Concerns were raised as to how using the same certificate of proficiency would allow for appropriate differentiation between a recognition of qualifications and experience in relation to a trade or declared vocation outside of a training contract. In response to these issues raised by stakeholders, the government has proposed an amendment to the bill that would result in the removal of all references to a certificate of proficiency, resulting in a reinstatement of the current certification process.

The amendment bill streamlines the process for employer registration and aligns the act with complementary risk-based processes that balance incentives to enter into an apprenticeship or traineeship with protections against unscrupulous employers operating within the system. The provision was included in the amendment bill in response to stakeholder feedback received in the initial four-week consultation period and in the 2016 review that was conducted by the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was the minister responsible, which acknowledged employer restraint registration was a valuable assurance mechanism that would benefit from a more streamlined approach.

Feedback on provisions for employer registration identified concerns with the extent to which employer registration had been streamlined and the impact this may have on oversight of unscrupulous employers, as well as false or misleading declarations on matters such as the employer's scope of registration. The amendment bill provides checks and balances against manipulation of the employer registration system, including the introduction of the ability to declare an employer a prohibited employer.

Section 75 of the amendment act makes it an offence for a person to make a statement that is false or misleading in any information provided under the act, with a maximum penalty of $10,000. Clarity was also sought on the introduction of a prescribed fee for registration. While the option to set a fee is provided in the legislation, the Skills Commission may determine to set a fee at zero. In the event that a fee is set, it is anticipated that it be reflective of the cost to the government of providing the services. Detail on employer registration and prescribed fees will be provided as necessary in the regulations and standards. Stakeholders will be consulted in the development of these documents.

With regard to the declaration of prohibited employers, clause 24 enables a class of employer who may be declared by the Skills Commission to be a prohibited employer. This would result in the employer concerned being prohibited from employing an apprentice or trainee for the duration of the declaration made against them. Of course, some of the examples that were raised by the member for Cheltenham are illegal now and will remain illegal after this bill is proclaimed, but it will actually shine a light on those employers deemed not suitable to have apprentices or trainees or have trainee activity at their businesses.

This is a significant protection mechanism and I think it is fair to say that we have gone as far as we can in streamlining the system under the current act. Around 97 to 98 per cent of employers who are asked to register to take on an apprentice or to renew their registration for apprentices get the tick. We are bringing our act in line with what happens in states such as New South Wales where the process is reversed, and we remove those in the system who are not fit to participate in the system.

In doing so, the commission must have regard to a set of criteria as set out under the clause before it can determine the person is a prohibited employer. The ability of the Skills Commission to declare an employer as a prohibited employer was largely met with positive feedback by stakeholders as it was seen as the appropriate measure to mitigate risks of exploitation and harm for apprentices and trainees. That is completely opposite to the claims that were made on the other side of the chamber. This actually gives the Skills Commission more power to protect apprentices and trainees and more mechanisms or more tools, if I can use that word in this environment, to protect apprentices and trainees and the integrity of the vocational education system.

Some concerns were raised by industry and group training organisations regarding the impact on employers and the requirement for group training to ensure that they do not host an apprentice to a prohibited employer. This will be managed through regulations and a requirement that the SA Skills Commission, under section 71(2)(c) of the act, publish a list of prohibited employers in the South Australian Skills Register. They are able to have that information available to them—which is not necessarily available to them now—so that when they do host out their apprentices, they can do it knowing that they can avoid those employers that are prohibited.

The introduction of a prescribed transfer fee or the poaching clause, section 540 of the amendment bill, includes the prescribed transfer fee applicable in a situation of an employer in relation to a training contract under section 54N. The prescribed transfer fee seeks to compensate an employer's investment in the training and supervision of an apprentice or trainee who seeks to transfer the apprenticeship or traineeship to a new employer while under a current training contract.

This is nothing new; this is standard practice in organisations like PEER, for example, and other group training organisations, because it is their business model. Their model for providing that service is based on a full term of the traineeship or the apprenticeship, and cutting that short does carry a cost. It is one thing for that to be cut short because things have not worked out but it is another thing for that to be cut short because of the poaching policy of another employer who cannot be bothered putting the investment in early on a first and second-year employer, and goes out deliberately looking to poach third and fourth-year apprentices when they start becoming productive, when they start doing work that is billable by the hour and returning some of the investment that has been delivered with on-the-job training.

That is a significant difference between this government I believe and if you listened to the speeches that came from across the chamber from the previous government: we actually acknowledge that there is an on-the-job cost for an apprentice or a trainee to the employer. We acknowledge that. The fact that that was ignored for so long by those opposite led to significant reductions in apprenticeship and traineeship commencements over a six-year period.

Mr BOYER: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: They simply do not like being reminded about their record of skills training, Mr Speaker. It is an automatic response: call for a quorum whenever the minister reminds the house about just how bad they were for working class South Australians in providing skills opportunities for them. Absolutely shocking record.

This provision seeks to reduce instances of other employers poaching third and fourth year apprentices who have undertaken the vast majority of their training and are often more productive than apprentices in their first couple of years. This provision of the amendment bill was met with support from industry, which largely sought further clarification as to the application of this section and the determination of the prescribed transfer fee. Further detail on these matters will be provided for in the regulations or the standards and subject to further consultation.

Regarding representation in proceedings before the South Australian Employment Tribunal, clause 28 of the amendment bill does not materially change the arrangements outlined in the current act pertaining to the representation of parties to disputes in the South Australian Employment Tribunal. It does, however, make refinements to reflect the discontinuance of the Office of the Training Advocate, which primarily undertakes this task on behalf of aggrieved parties.

While the clause represents a minor change to the provisions outlined in the current act, some stakeholders provided feedback that consideration should be given as to whether the bill should be amended to enable legal representation for employers in the event that the matter is referred to SAET. On balance, the current arrangements are effective in resolving disputes and further change is not warranted.

Regarding recognition of other trade training, the amendment bill introduces new sections 70A and 70B for the recognition of trade qualifications, outside of qualifications gained through completion of a training contract. The amendment bill permits the skills commission to recognise a person's qualification or experience in relation to a particular trade or declaration of vocation and sets out the powers to determine an application, including through conducting independent assessment of a person's competencies.

This provision was included in response to feedback received during the initial four-week consultation period which supported the need for better structured skill recognition pathways that would lead to trade certification. Feedback on this clause during the consultation process for the amendment bill was mixed. Some stakeholders were appreciative of the clarity provided by the provision and supportive of the broader scope of the skills commission to recognise qualifications or experience in trade or declared vocation.

Other stakeholders raised views that the recognition of other trade training was more appropriately conducted by industry, training providers or other entities. The regulations and the guideline standards will outline mechanisms to ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances in place to effectively manage this process.

In closing, a classic example is that of many migrants who came to South Australia in the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties—fine tradespeople from where they came. They did some fine work on building sites but were never recognised in Australia (South Australia in particular) for their trade and so could never take on apprentices themselves. So some amazing skills were not able to be shared through the formal apprenticeship system.

This will help to alleviate that and will enable those skills to be recognised so that more people who are qualified and able to train apprentices and trainees on the job will be able to do so. I close my remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr BOYER: On clause 6, under section 3—Objects, paragraph (b) talks about promoting partnerships within government industry and other enterprises for the purpose of training and skills. You mentioned during your own remarks the consultation that you have undertaken on this bill. Can you tell us which stakeholders you personally met with in the consultation phase of this bill?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is my understanding that the opposition has been given a program of the outcomes of the consultation. I will just get some advice on that. There were formal submissions. I met with the Office of the Training and Skills Commission; the Agribusiness ISC; the Construction, Mining and Energy ISC; the Creative Industries, Business, ICT and Cybersecurity ISC; the Defence and Aerospace ISC; the Educational Services Sector ISC; the Food, Wine, Tourism and Hospitality ISC; the Health, Disability, Aged Care and Community Services ISC; the Transport and Manufacturing ISC; SA-Best; and the Hon. John Darley.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister. On the same clause, which unions did you meet with in your consultation on this bill?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think there was a representative of the Australian Workers' Union on the Transport and Manufacturing ISC, and then on the Health, Disability Aged Care and Community Services ISC, I met with Rob Bonner and actually visited the training facility out in the western suburbs for a tour. We discussed specifics about the bill and they were very supportive.

Mr BOYER: Separate to people who may, in their day-to-day work, work for a trade union and who were on the ISC in the setting you met with them, did you actually meet with any trade unions yourself?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I met with everybody who requested a meeting.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In the same section, subsection (1)(d), you talk about the desire:

to establish a simple, streamlined apprenticeship and traineeship system featuring flexible industry endorsed approaches to training and skill development that reflects—

and it goes into details. Could you outline what you mean by 'flexible' and how that changes what one might say are more traditional arrangements of a traineeship of one year or an apprenticeship of four years? How does flexibility change that?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you for the question. A classic example is that the Training and Skills Commission has been working with PIA, the CEPU, industry and Larry Moore from NECA to design a dual apprenticeship for refrigeration and electrical. We are hoping to be able to announce that pretty soon. As far as I am aware, that is the first of its kind. That will be a five-year apprenticeship.

We also have a cybersecurity apprenticeship, which I think is a two-year apprenticeship. Off-the-job training is currently done by TAFE SA for that particular apprenticeship. We also have an apprenticeship that delivers a diploma of applied technology. Again, it is another brand-new apprenticeship delivered by this government. It is a three-year apprenticeship preparing people for working in the engineering field in predominantly defence-based areas.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Further to this question, the conversation around micro-credentialing is something that we hear more often. Is that something that you see is embraced by being more flexible and, once again, how does that change how we have traditionally seen traineeships and apprenticeships?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Currently, micro-credentialing is very much front and centre on what used to be the skills COAG; it is now a skills committee. It has bipartisan support right across Australia, whether it be a Labor state or a Liberal state, for the recognition that it is important for people to continue to upskill during their lifetime. Consequently, this will enable formal recognition of micro-credentialing. Currently, if people do in-house training in a business, it is very good for the business, but it usually does not help that person to spruik their wares outside the business because it is not generally recognised.

What the micro-credentialing processes will do and we hope to be able to achieve is provide a formal recognition of that micro-credentialing. If you have put the effort in, obviously in partnership with your employer, through a vocational pathway to add some micro-credentials to your skill set, then you will have a nationally recognised new skill set that you can spruik to other employers. That is where we hope to go with that. It may very well be that those bolt-ons of micro-credentials could lead to a university pathway or a diploma in the longer term.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I may ask a few more questions about micro-credentialing and flexibility, at the moment we obviously have certificate I, II, III, IV, etc. If you have micro-credentialing, is that going to be equal to certificate I, or how will it actually be seen? Would it be a module of a particular skill set? I am curious to understand the language that would be used around what you will get from micro-credentialing.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is pretty simple: you will get the skills that industry needs to employ you.

Dr CLOSE: In section 3(d)(iv), there is reference to resolving disputes in a timely manner. I understand that this bill countenances replacing the Training Advocate. I would appreciate it if the minister could elaborate on ways in which disputes will be addressed under the new regime once this bill comes through.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The mediation will be handled by the commission. They will have greater powers than what the advocate has at the moment. For conciliation, that will need to go to SAIT. SAIT has had only nine cases listed, from what we can establish, over the last nine years. So the process of mediation has been successful, and this will help it be more successful by giving the commission powers to do it.

Dr CLOSE: Turning to paragraph (e), there is reference to adult community education, which many members here will be aware is an extremely important part of the puzzle for people who have not succeeded sufficiently well at school, who may not have very strong literacy and numeracy skills, who may, in fact, be adult migrants to this nation and who may not have any job-ready skills. It is an important part to get them ready and able to go on to further study and then employment.

I have noticed, with some despondency, cuts to the ACE program in recent budgets. What requirements does this clause in the bill confer on the government to provide adequate adult community education?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This clause will not make any change to the current situation.

Dr CLOSE: My final question refers to (g). I guess in many ways it is a piece with (e), but goes further. This question of promoting equity and training necessarily implies that a government that is responsible for this act will ensure there is equity and access to training, which means that people who do not have the financial resources or do not have the combination of financial resources and knowledge or skills to be able to enter training easily will be supported to do so. What requirements are conferred by this bill on the government to act on equity?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that the skills commission will have oversight of the whole system. Obviously the aspiration of the government is to have pathways to continue education, and that will obviously start with foundation skills for those who have either arrived in this country and do not have the foundation skills for employability or those who have failed in the education system, for example, and who need additional skills. The object of the act is to include the promotion of equality in training and skills development, including access to such development.

Just to give an idea of how serious we are about this, when we came to office there were only about 350 skills available on the subsidised training list, and the non-government sector was locked out of about 70 per cent of those skills. That substantially reduced access to skills training. We have now opened that up to 800 skill sets, all subsidised and available to all registered training providers, whether they be public training providers or non-government training providers. That has done enormous things for access to skills, particularly in regional South Australia, and we have seen significant improvements in access to skills training because of that.

As part of the equity program we have in place, I am pleased to report—the Minister for Education is here—that TAFE facilities are now available for non-government providers to hire at a market rate. Many of the TAFE facilities that were closed in regional South Australia by those opposite are now able to be used again by students. They do not need to be delivered by TAFE. They can be delivered by industry-based organisations, such as PEER or the MTA, for example. They have access and they can also hire, lease or purchase the TAFE curriculum, which removes a large risk for them.

We have a situation where we are opening up access and improving accessibility to the training system, whether that be foundation skills or whether that be skills that are learnt through a pre-apprenticeship or pre-traineeship program. Together with our Skilling South Australia program, we are using additional money on top of the Subsidised Training List to remove barriers and bring in enablers for employers and apprentices to be able to access skills training to participate in a skills program, even to the extent that, if a barrier to an apprentice starting on their first day is they do not have their car registered, we have a grant program that will cover that because we know it is important for them to get started and supported to do that.

It is not a one size fits all. We have seen these programs where a shiny toolbox is presented and they say, 'For every apprentice, we will give you a toolbox, whether you need it or not.' We are identifying what is needed for that apprentice to get started and what is needed for that employer to get behind the apprenticeship program. None of that will change under this act.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, in your answer to the deputy opposition leader's question you touched upon the question of access under this bill. Of course, what this bill does is remove the object of equity in participation. Would you explain why it is no longer a priority or an object of the act not only to have an accessible scheme but to ultimately measure success as an object of the act in the true participation in training and skills?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Would you point out where the act does that because that question does not make any sense?

Mr SZAKACS: I am happy to clarify. Clause 6(1)(g) of the minister's bill provides, 'to promote equity in training and skills development (including in access to such development).' I note, for the minister's benefit, that he may not have read the bill, but the legislation—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, take a seat. Minister, you have raised a point of order. What was the point of order?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The point of order is the inference that I had not read the bill. It is just outrageous. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

The CHAIR: Is that what you said?

Mr SZAKACS: Chair, the minister is asking me to clarify in his own bill where participation has been removed as an object.

The CHAIR: Which you are doing.

Mr SZAKACS: Yes. So to draw into question—

The CHAIR: You have pointed out (1)(g); is that right?

Mr SZAKACS: That is correct. To draw into question an imputation the minister may or may not have read the bill is entirely reasonable for me to put on the record considering that he has asked me to clarify.

The CHAIR: No, I do not know that that is reasonable, member for Cheltenham. We are going pretty well thus far. I know the Manager of Government Business would like to get to a certain point tonight. I do not want this to be tetchy at 20 past 10, so, member for Cheltenham, if you could just come back to your original question on clause 6(1)(g) without goading the minister.

Mr SZAKACS: For the assistance of the Chair, I am happy to withdraw.

The CHAIR: Take a seat, member for Cheltenham. Minister, you have asked the member for Cheltenham to withdraw his comments. What I need to know, minister, is that you have taken some offence to what the member for Cheltenham has said.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: You do? Alright. Member for Cheltenham, for the sake of the committee let's withdraw that comment, if you don't mind, and we will come back to your question.

Mr SZAKACS: For the sake of the committee I withdraw, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr SZAKACS: The minister has asked me to clarify and so I draw his attention to the objects under the legislation in section 3(c)(i), and I quote: 'equity and participation in and access to education, training and skills development'.

The CHAIR: And so the question, for my benefit?

Mr SZAKACS: My question was again, for your benefit, Mr Chairman: why is participation in training and skills development no longer an object of the act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Feedback from stakeholders confirms the need to align the legislation with current national vocational regulatory arrangements and for the act to provide a clear and up-to-date statement of its purpose and objectives and for this to be done in a way that provides a statutory framework that was more responsive over time for the changing nature of work and therefore skills and workplace development.

The objects of the act reflect the modern responsive and accessible framework for skills outlined by the amendment bill allowing for responsiveness over time to a changing nature of work, and therefore skills and workforce development. These objects also assist in the interpretation of the bill. The amendments reflect the values underpinning VET apprenticeships and traineeships, adult community education and other forms of long-life learning. Subsection (1)(g) retains the focus on equity and access to skills development.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you, minister and Chairman, but I seek clarification. My question was why has participation been removed from the act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Participation still applies, and it is the intention of the act that people will participate in this otherwise we will not have skills training in South Australia.

Mr SZAKACS: If it is the intention of the act, would there be a more appropriate place to include that intention other than the objects of the act? Considering that there is an explicit removal of the word 'participation', what other examples or assurances can you give to this house that participation truly is still key to this act when in this bill it has been explicitly and overtly removed from the objects of the act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Section 19.

The CHAIR: So, minister, you are referring to section 19 as part of your answer?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes.

The CHAIR: Okay. We have not got to that yet, and I do not think we will get there tonight.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.