VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 February 2012.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:11): I rise to support the second reading of the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. Late last year, some time in October, the government introduced this bill to allow for the transfer of South Australian powers through the adoption of the commonwealth National Vocational Education Regulator Act 2011 and the National Vocational Education Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Act 2011.

Members will remember that we have broadly addressed this particular issue in the recent past. Certainly prior to the last election, in about 2009, COAG agreed to the creation of a national VET regulator with powers to register training organisations and to accredit courses. This is part of this ongoing push, in essence, for the feds to take over almost everything that moves. This, as I said, is a number of years down the track.

One of the issues in this legislation—and we will address it tomorrow when I deal with the work health and safety legislation—and one of the concerns that I certainly have is the weakness of ministers in this government when they go to ministerial council meetings. I think there is just this automatic knee-jerk response from ministers to these proposals from very well-prepared federal government—and sometimes Eastern States jurisdiction—officers and ministers in terms of national arrangements.

There is always the argument of whether it is harmonisation or whether it is the need for national regulation of this or the national regulation of that. With the respect that this government deserves, I do not believe that this government has demonstrated—or will demonstrate in the next two years—its capacity to sit back and think independently and on behalf of a small state like South Australia whether this headlong rush, this knee-jerk response, to say that everything that is national, regulated or harmonised (or whatever latest jargon the commonwealth and the Eastern States might use) is automatically good for South Australia.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Dodging responsibility.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Ann Bressington says 'dodging responsibility'. I think in some cases that is right but, in other cases, I think it is just a combination of plain laziness and negligence. It is hard when you are a new minister from a small state at a ministerial council. The entrenched interests sit at the meeting and say, 'Okay; we've been working on this at an officer level for the last three years. Here's the proposition. Who's got a problem with it?' Someone has to actually have the political intellectual grunt to be able to stand up and say, 'Hold on, we're not going to be pushed into this; we're not going to be rushed. We will actually question it'. We are seeing a bit of that from Western Australia, and it is a perfect case in point in relation to this particular legislation. That is a bit of the Western Australian culture. Half of them would probably agree to secede from Australia if they were given the opportunity.

Let me accept that in some cases national regulation and coordination can be demonstrated to be in the national and state interest. I am not railing as a states' righter against everything in relation to some of these issues. I accept that in a number of cases a cogent and reasoned argument can be made. I think that, at the very least, even if you do accept that there is an argument for national regulation or harmonisation, there can be the opportunity to argue South Australia's case, or the small states' case, in the development of those arrangements. I have seen precious little evidence from this government and this group of ministers of the willingness or the capacity (or both) to even engage in that particular debate at the national level.

Again, with the respect that this ministry deserves, the concept of the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, the Hon. Gail Gago or the Hon. Tom Kenyon arguing cogently for South Australia's case at a ministerial council meeting is not a likely prospect. We see the difficulties they have in handling their portfolios back here in the state. Their capacity to drive South Australia's case at the national level is clearly, in a number of those cases, a laughable prospect. That is sad from South Australia's viewpoint in relation to these sorts of debates.

As I said, there are two states—Victoria and Western Australia—which in essence are standing alone in relation to their particular arrangements. This arrangement is about a referral of state powers to the commonwealth. I note that the system that is to be put in place will not be national because Western Australia and Victoria are going to maintain their separate regulatory systems. It will result in parallel systems operating in both those states with the registered training organisations that operate across borders having to comply with both systems.

Those two states have agreed to enacting mirror legislation. There will be a range of issues, obviously complicating issues, in relation to the coordination of those two state-based systems within some sort of agreed legislative framework operating with the Australian Skills Quality Authority, which is being set up in this. I make that point because it is one of the issues that registered training organisations are raising.

With these things, it will be a year or two (or three) down the track when the detail of what has been agreed will become apparent when particular issues arise. At this early stage, one of the issues being raised is about costs. What is being agreed to with this arrangement is that the new national authority is going to be operating on a cost recovery basis after a transitional period. A number of the registered training organisations are already pretty anxious about what the new fee structure will be, in particular in our small state of South Australia.

We are not proceeding with the committee stage today; we will proceed with it tomorrow. The only question at this stage that I am putting to the government—and I seek a response—is: what guarantees is the government able to give to registered training organisations and to young people and older people who undertake courses with these registered training organisations about the level of fees that will be charged to them under the new arrangements?

I think it is incumbent on the state government, and the state minister in particular, to indicate what the government has negotiated as part of this package in terms of protecting our state. Is the level of fees that exists within this VET sector in South Australia generally lower than the national average? I have had varying claims made to me. I am not an expert in this area. I seek a response from the government as to whether that claim is correct, that generally the average fee chargeable in South Australia is less than the average in the Eastern States and less than the national figures. If that is the case, is that differential going to be lost as we move to the national arrangement?

We have seen that happen with the so-called simplified national awards. The cost differential or advantage that the state of South Australia had for decades has disappeared under the new national industrial relations system. A similar question should be asked, and should be answered by the minister, before we conclude the committee stage of debate. With that, I indicate the position of the Liberal Party of South Australia, as enunciated by our shadow minister in charge of the legislation; for some time, it has been to support it, and we do not envisage that the committee stage should be too long at all.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (21:22): I take this opportunity to briefly thank those members for their contributions. This is obviously an extremely important bill. It brings about synergies with the commonwealth for a national approach to vocational education and training to bring about national consistencies. We believe that these proposed changes are sensible and are in the interests of our young people and others who seek further education and training. I thank members for their second reading contributions and look forward to the committee stage to be dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.