TAFE SA BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 13 June 2012.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Last time we met on this bill, the Hon. Mr Lucas asked a number of questions which I would like to answer now. The figure of $8.4 million is simply the sum of annual operating deficits for TAFE SA over the last five years. Under current budgetary arrangements, TAFE SA's operating outcome is addressed within the overall budget of the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. The department has achieved on, or better than, budget results over this period, which means that the annual deficit of TAFE SA has been funded in the year that it is incurred.

TAFE SA surpluses or deficits are managed within an annual budget cycle. This year, there is no accumulation of deficits between financial years. The financial management arrangements that will be implemented once TAFE SA becomes a statutory authority will continue to require TAFE SA to develop and manage its budget in accordance with the financial targets set for the further education, employment, science and technology portfolio in the budget.

The budget performance of the department and TAFE SA will be managed in accordance with the budget allocated to the portfolio. Appropriation funding will be made to DFEEST, which will have responsibility for the management of portfolio financial outcomes. Within this portfolio approach, costs associated with TAFE SA's transition to a sustainable budget position will be supported with structural adjustment funding from the department.

This funding, which will be recorded as revenue by TAFE SA, is intended to enable TAFE SA to commence operation as a statutory authority with a balanced operating position and support to achieve a managed transition to a more commercial and competitive operating environment. The financial assessment of TAFE SA's position that will be carried out prior to the proclamation of the legislation will address the requirement for any necessary structural adjustment funding.

As I mentioned previously, the Australian Bureau of Statistics will determine whether TAFE SA is classified as a public non-financial corporation or within the general government sector. This determination will be made based on information on the relevant characteristics of TAFE SA and its operating environment. I am advised that the department and TAFE SA are preparing a submission through Treasury to the ABS to make this determination.

This submission is largely a factual submission as opposed to putting forward a position one way or another. Based on experience in other states, where TAFE institutes have been established as statutory authorities, it is expected that TAFE SA will remain in the general government sector.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to clarify the last question first, the situation in other states is that the equivalent bodies to TAFE SA have remained in the general government sector and are not equivalent to the public non-financial corporation sector?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, that is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the first set of questions, my understanding of what the minister has said to the committee is that, in essence, TAFE SA will start with a clean set of books. It certainly will not start with the accumulated deficits of $8.5 million from the last five years. I am assuming that the projected or estimated $5.5 million deficit for this financial year, 2011-12, will be similarly absorbed by the portfolio and, as of 1 July or whenever TAFE SA formally starts, it will not start off with the estimated potential $5.5 million deficit from 2011-12 because DFEEST will have handled that deficit within its appropriation.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The honourable member is correct.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am moving into clause 1 questions. Why is there a lack of objects or purposes clause for this bill?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: My advice is that we are just establishing a body, and the long title of the bill will suffice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can I just clarify—I did not think we had gone beyond clause 1, because I thought responses from the second reading questions actually ended up being given by the minister and we did not move into clause 1 questions the last time this committee sat?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Yes, we are just on clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you. The minister would be aware that, in 2007, the Victorian government cut all the recurrent government funding to Victorian TAFE colleges and made all government funding for training contestable and open for competition by both public and private providers. Can the minister confirm that the current circumstances facing the TAFE system in Victoria are in fact a direct result of their vocational education training government funding being fully contestable?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It is not purely a fact of contestability. There are quite a number of reasons for this, and one of them is the high growth of expenditure over the last few years which have caused some budgetary problems and they had to make their cutbacks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister confirm that Mr Chris Eccles was in the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet and was an architect of the Victorian market-based model of public TAFE education, and that he has actually been moving on to other states and territories implementing this same model?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I can confirm that he was in the Premier's department in Victoria. He is currently in New South Wales. I can confirm that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: He is currently in New South Wales. Can the minister clarify why the government is so confident that a Victorian-style VET system is not set to become the case in South Australia, given that we are about to move to this contestability and be fully contestable over the next six years?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There are quite significant differences between what we have here and what Victoria has. While Skills for All has similarities with Victoria, as well as reforms emerging in other states, there are some quite distinguishing features. Training providers wishing to access public funding under Skills for All must apply and meet rigorous assessment criteria to become a Skills for All training provider. This is in addition to registration as a registered training organisation through the Australian Skills Quality Authority, the national VET regulator.

Until recently, training providers in Victoria did not have to go through an additional process to access funding through the Victorian Training Guarantee scheme and were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. A number of changes that have been recently announced by the Victorian government are in line with Skills for All and demonstrate that South Australia is setting the example. For example, Victoria will be improving contract standards, with more rigorous and independent financial assessment, and will be introducing a requirement for applicants wishing to access government funding to demonstrate capability to deliver particular courses.

Skills for All already requires applicants to provide evidence against a range of selection criteria that are over and above the requirements for registration. It is a managed demand-driven system to ensure training meets industry needs. Skills for All funded training courses will be strongly linked to industry and workforce needs. A system of caps on the number of funded enrolments will be used to ensure that the state government has not over-invested in areas where there are limited job opportunities.

Training numbers will be monitored across all qualifications, training providers and regions to tailor the subsidy levels and funded enrolments to ensure that the state government invests wisely and makes the best available use of their funds. These caps will be signalled early to the market where Training and Skills Commission and DFEEST data indicates there is an oversupply of qualifications. Therefore, the system will be demand driven but managed by need.

Support for enterprise-specific training needs will be provided through the Skills in the Workplace program, which will allow employers in key target industries to co-invest with government to upskill employees at higher qualification levels and support workforce development. Recent reports about the Victorian training system have expressed concern about an oversupply of certain qualifications. In response, the Victorian government recently announced new subsidy weightings for each course to reflect an assessment of their current public value, with courses of greatest public value receiving the highest level of subsidy and courses of lowest public value the least.

Under the TAFE SA Bill 2012, TAFE SA will be established as a single statutory authority comprised of three institutes. This will ensure that system-wide benefits of TAFE SA are preserved. In Victoria, there are 14 TAFE institutes and four TAFE divisions or universities competing against each other, alongside private providers, for students and contestable government funding. Under Skills for All the training subsidy is more generous and inclusive to people wanting to retrain at the same and lower levels.

The Victorian Training Guarantee has an entitlement for people under the age of 20 to undertake subsidised training. For people aged 20 and over, the entitlement is generally only available for training at a foundational skills level and for any qualifications higher than qualifications already held. Under Skills for All, all funded training at certificate I and certificate II level qualifications designated as priority courses, which are foundational skills courses, will be fully funded by the government, which means students will not pay any course fees. The Victorian government does not fully fund foundation-level courses or train up to and including certificate II level.

Skills for All will introduce a contestable market, which will be managed to ensure that the high reputation of the quality of training in South Australia will be maintained. There will be maximum/minimum restrictions on the course fees which training providers can charge. This will prevent providers from overcharging students or offering training at artificially low prices. Since October 2011, Victoria has removed minimum/maximum fee caps to increase competition on price amongst providers.

The state government is committed to supporting TAFE SA, through Skills for All. TAFE SA is the state's largest training provider and the state's largest provider of publicly-funded training, and it will play a critical role in skilling that workforce.

In recognition of the costs associated with TAFE SA's multiple campuses, with more than 2,300 staff, and its importance to regional South Australia, a higher subsidy rate will be provided to TAFE SA courses. TAFE SA will receive a higher subsidy rate to deliver the same training than non-TAFE SA training providers. This is to acknowledge the higher operating costs of TAFE SA as a public institution, additional operating costs, including using and maintaining more than 50 sites through the three TAFE SA institutes across the state, high infrastructure costs in some program areas, and employment conditions of the staff.

Differentiating staff funding for TAFE SA and non-TAFE SA providers demonstrates transparency and provides appropriate support for TAFE SA to transition into a market-driven model. As a rough estimated average, the base subsidy rate for TAFE SA is $17.36 per hour, compared with $9.25 per hour for non-TAFE SA training providers. The actual difference will be more or less, depending on the course being undertaken and the types of units of competency completed within that course, as well as for any loadings due to delivery locations.

The prices for these subsidies, as well as the difference between the subsidies of TAFE SA and non-TAFE SA providers, will be reviewed and modified in line with training and market conditions. This differential price is very different from what is happening in Victoria.

Under Skills for All there is a greater difference between the subsidy levels for TAFE and non-TAFE training providers; that is a difference with Victoria. Subsidy levels are, in fact, significantly higher in TAFE SA when compared with those available to Victorian TAFE colleges.

Recently, the Victorian government proposed to remove the subsidy price differential between TAFE and non-TAFE training providers from 1 July 2012, as well as removing supplementary funding for historical enterprise bargaining agreement outcomes, facilities maintenance and regional provisions from January 2013.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Under Skills for All, as you would be aware, there is a requirement for employers to agree to take on unemployed people for trial training. What sort of employer incentives will employers receive and from what source is that, commonwealth or state?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The commonwealth provides funding to the various job service providers, and there will be some cost sharing between the state and the commonwealth.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister give an undertaking to provide an audit which gives a clear picture of what the South Australian VET system looks like today, including student contact hours, enrolments, delivery in industry areas by both public and private TAFE providers, and also including the assets of TAFE SA, staffing numbers and infrastructure?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, we can do that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister also undertake that the government will provide quarterly reports to be tabled in parliament once the new statutory authority is established; these to provide an update of student enrolment numbers, delivery in specific industry areas and funding provided to public and private providers? Obviously, this will enable the government and members of parliament, as well as the community, to track the performance and possible benefits or unforeseen problems with Skills for All once it is in place.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes. It will be, like most public corporations, required to submit an annual report to the parliament, and it will continue to do that. There will be some data in regard to student outcomes that will come out quarterly, and they will be available to the public.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What protections will be provided or ensured by government to students who may face a potential scam or difficulty by an RTO under the future Skills for All scheme? Will students receive reimbursement for giving up publicly subsidised courses to a private provider who may scam the students? As you would be well aware, this has been endemic in the Victorian model.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The regulation of the providers will be done by the commonwealth government. There is an organisation called the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), and we will be the only government in the country to have a state training advocate. Naturally, if there are problems regarding students being part of an organisation that goes bankrupt (for whatever reason), they will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will the state training advocate potentially take on an ombudsman-like role for these students?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, it is an ombudsman-type role; it is independent.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question first, and then I would like to move an amendment. The minister made mention of this in the second reading debate, but why does the legislation not ensure that the ownership resides with the Crown in the right of the state with regard to intellectual property?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: As a statutory corporation, the actual ownership of that stays with that statutory corporation—that is common.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 3, line 34 [clause 6(1)(a)]—After 'technical and further education' insert:

in a manner that is efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of industry, students and the general community

The Greens move this because in the absence of an objects clause in this bill (and, obviously, in the act) there is a need to specify or qualify the type or sort of technical and further education which is being provided. Left unamended, TAFE SA as a provider is free to determine the technical and further education it provides—something that is called, I understand, 'provider capture'. The Greens' amendment seeks to insert descriptors which ensure that the needs of industry, students and the general community are taken into account when providing efficient and effective technical and further education.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government opposes this legislation. These are amendments to the functions of TAFE SA and add 'in a manner that is efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of industry, students and the general community'. This clause sets out the functions of TAFE SA in legislation for the first time. The primary function is to provide technical and further education. The ministerial charter allows the government to give clear directions as to how effective, efficient and responsive TAFE will need to be. This is a requirement of the Public Corporations Act 1993. So, because of this we do not believe the provisions in this amendment are necessary.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Unley, who has responsibility for the Liberal Party's handling of this bill, has advised me that the Liberal Party will be supporting this particular amendment. We see no concerns with ensuring that the reference to the functions of TAFE SA are provided in a manner which is 'efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of industry, students and the general community'. Nothing in the minister's response gives the Liberal Party any reason not to support the amendment. It seems eminently sensible in the view of the member for Unley. For these reasons, the Liberal Party will be supporting it.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For the record, I will support the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Equally, I see nothing wrong with including the words 'efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of industry, students and the general community'. For that reason, Family First is inclined to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am supporting the Greens' amendment as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a couple of questions on this clause before moving my amendment. The board will determine some quite fundamental issues concerning the provision of technical and further education which directly affect students, community and staff. Does the minister believe it is essential for a voice for those whom the education and training is provided, and for those for whom the delivery is essential, in a decision-making body responsible for the provisions of an essential quality public service? Similar representation provisions are actually common in higher education institutions and in many public sector statutory authorities.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There will be a number of advisory bodies that sit under this board, and they will have student representation. Also, a number of councils will continue on, and they will have student representation, but there is no intention to have student representation on the board itself.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question went broader than that, but that is fine. I have one more question, which also relates to the next amendment. Does the minister believe the bill should ensure the chair is a person who is acknowledged as an outstanding educational leader?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The board as a collective will have various amounts of educational experience, probably quite a significant amount. We do not want to be constrained to having a chair who may have other abilities and expertise in areas that are required, not necessarily solely in education. The board itself will have a very wide cross section of experience and qualifications.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am led to think of a phrase of a friend of mine: my grandma makes great scones, but she shouldn't be running Balfour's. With regard to the composition of the board, I move:

Page 4, line 30 [clause7(2)]—Delete 'not less than 6 and not more than 11' and substitute 'not less than 10 and not more than 13'

The Greens move this amendment because a composition of six to 11, with a quorum of 50 per cent plus one, can actually mean that decisions are made by as few as four people, or in fact only two in an even split situation, with the chair having the casting vote. This is incredibly high risk for such an important public institution serving public purposes. The Greens seek to increase the composition and number of the board and ensure that all decision-making meetings of the board must be quorate. This would mean that, if there were a minimum of 10 members, six would constitute a quorum rather than three, as is the case at present.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government opposes this amendment, because we believe it puts too many constraints on the board. The number of board members—not less than six and not more than 11—provides maximum flexibility in the membership of the board over time, and will allow for the right mix of skills, experience and knowledge without limiting membership. A board that requires a large number of members, as suggested by the Hon. Ms Franks, creates the problem that the appointment may take some time, and without the minimum number of members the board is not functional.

It is important to strike the right balance of numbers and to enable the board to function effectively. Between six and 11 members provides the minister with discretion to make appropriate appointments. In other jurisdictions the minimum number of members of TAFE boards is comparable: for example, in Western Australia the numbers are between six and 10.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Unley has advised that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendment. The board could potentially be up to the size of 11 and it is certainly our view that it is the maximum size you would really need for a board to manage the sorts of operations that are going to be required of it. Having a board of the size of 13 is not something that is our preference. So, we will not be supporting the amendment and will support existing provisions in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 4, line 38 [clause 7(5)]—After 'members' insert:

, who, in the opinion of the Governor, has demonstrated leadership abilities of a high standard in the provision of technical and further education, '

I do so because the Greens believe that the person who is appointed by the board after approval by the minister should at least have the qualifications that are fitting of the head of the TAFE SA Board—that is, being an outstanding educational leader. It would be unthinkable in a private sector board not to have a chair or a CEO who is not acknowledged as having standing in that field. It would also be unthinkable in a university council or a public hospital not to have a chair or CEO without acknowledged excellent leadership in that required area—for example, medicine or higher education.

The public expects TAFE institutions to have no less respect for the position. As I said, grandma can make great scones, but it doesn't mean she should run Balfours. If you do not have expertise in the area that you are in fact the leader of, I would think that would not instil public confidence in the institution.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: These amendments relate to requirement of board members and the chief executive of TAFE to have demonstrated leadership abilities of a high standard in the provision of technical and further education. The legislation is deliberately silent on this matter to provide maximum flexibility in the appointment of both the board members and the chief executive of TAFE.

The legislation allows for the board members to have a combined mix of skills, knowledge and experience rather than requiring each board member to have a specified ability in the provision of technical and further education. It is important that the board is made up of the right mix for the effective governance of TAFE SA. Board members bring different types of expertise which, when combined, allow for effective governance.

Appropriate expertise of the chief executive of TAFE SA will be decided by the board and the minister who will seek advice from relevant stakeholders. This allows for maximum flexibility to appoint the right person for the job. The chief executive will be supported by the management team who will be experienced in the provision of technical and further education.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Unley has advised that the Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment either. In speaking to the amendment, I would argue the case differently. The one we are addressing at the moment is the position of the chair of the board under clause 7. As the minister has outlined, the board is going to be required (potentially with a membership of 11) to have a wide body of expertise and experience, and I think on the issue of who chairs TAFE SA there should be a considerable degree of flexibility. I think there is a logical and rational argument for that.

I do not share the Hon. Ms Franks' summary of the equivalent provisions, for example in higher education or universities, because I think the equivalent position in universities would be the chancellor of the universities. He or she chairs the respective governing council or university councils. I think one only has to look at the people who hold the position of chair or chancellor of the university councils to see that, in many cases, they have not tended to be people with considerable experience and expertise in academia or higher education.

In some cases they are, but I know that in relation to the University of Adelaide Justice Roma Mitchell was a chancellor, ex-senator Robert Hill is a current chancellor, I think Justice von Doussa might have been a previous chancellor, I think Robert Champion de Crespigny might have been a previous chancellor.

Those are four examples where people with considerable expertise in corporate governance generally, in terms of chairing a board or a council, came from either a traditional background, a business background or, indeed, a political background. I can think of any number of equivalent people who have held positions as chancellor of governing councils in other universities in other states and territories of Australia as well.

In relation to this particular amendment, which relates to the chair, I think the precedents in higher education would probably support the position the government is putting. It is probably less likely to be the case when we move to the next amendment, which talks about the chief executive, although I might say that the member for Unley has advised me that the Liberal Party will not be supporting that either.

I certainly think that, in relation to the chief executive position, when one looks at the equivalents in higher education, those who hold the position of chief executive, or generally what is known as vice chancellor, in many cases, if not most cases, would tend to be acknowledged as having come from an academic background or having had considerable experience and expertise in higher education training.

However, this particular amendment relates to the chair as opposed to the CEO and, as I said, the member for Unley has advised that the Liberal Party's position is that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not seek to move the amendment standing in my name; I will just treat it as consequential. I think we have an indication that it will not receive the support of the chamber.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 7, lines 17 and 18 [clause 13(2)]—Delete:

', if the instrument of delegation so provides,' and substitute 'not'

The bill contains a delegation power which was not in the consultation draft. Although this power is necessary for administrative purposes, as currently expressed, the power is extremely wide and empowers the delegate to further delegate. Such a provision mitigates against both transparency and accountability; that is, there should be no power to sub-delegate the delegation power.

Clause 13(1) provides a broad power for the chief executive to delegate to any person all or any of their powers or functions. This in itself is quite extraordinary in its breadth; for example, 'person' is not defined and so could, in fact, extend to anybody, potentially a person external to the institution, such as a family member.

Be that as it may, clause 13(2) extends this power further by enabling the delegate to further delegate if the initial instrument of delegation specifies. This is highly unusual. The more usual formulation is to provide for a power of delegation by which all or any functions and powers may be delegated, except the power to delegate.

The usual formulation assists in protecting the public interest in that the delegate, and not the delegator-at-law, becomes the legal entity, and the legislature is more usually concerned to ensure that the public can easily identify and seek redress from public authorities, rather than having to trace through a long line of delegates. By creating a potentially endless line of delegates, transparency and accountability is diminished with its consequential high risk, something contrary to the public interest.

The worst case scenario could in fact be for the chief executive to delegate to an institute manager the power to employ as well as the power to further delegate this power. The institute manager then delegates to a labour hire agency the task of recruiting, employing or engaging hourly paid instructors or, perhaps even worse, the function of providing technical and further education is delegated to the chief executive, who in turn delegates it to a person who is the CE of a private RTO.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This amendment relates to a delegation by the chief executive of TAFE SA to other staff. The proposal is to prevent the further subdelegation of the power of the chief executive by removing the phrase 'if the instrument of delegation so provides'. This would limit autonomy and accountability through the organisation.

In a commercial environment, line managers need the delegation to manage operations at a local level without requiring further approval by the chief executive or delegate. Having approvals at high level restricts responsiveness and creates excessive layers of administration. In government departments at the moment, the CEOs have the ability to delegate down. CEOs of private enterprises delegate down to lower levels. We think it is quite appropriate on this occasion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If it is intended to be used as the minister has outlined, and that is that, in TAFE SA, the CEO would delegate down to a staff member and then further delegate to another staff member, why did the government not restrict the delegations to allow for that? The Hon. Ms Franks is raising the question that it is non-specific in relation to subclause (1); that is, it might not be a member of TAFE SA.

I know that, in another bill that we are in the process of discussing—the Work Health and Safety Bill—this issue of whether you delegate certain powers in that case to a non-SafeWork SA staff member has been raised by some stakeholders. It is an issue that is being raised in government legislation generally, not just in relation to this.

If it is the government's intention only to delegate to staff of TAFE SA, why would the government not be prepared to at least specify that in the amendment? That would not necessarily mean supporting the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment, but supporting an amendment that makes it clear that you are only delegating to staff members of TAFE SA. That would appear to be a reasonable proposition. It may well solve part of the concerns being raised by the Hon. Ms Franks without necessarily going as far as the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment goes.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The intention is just to delegate through the staff of TAFE SA. If you are saying there is an amendment that would indicate that, we are quite happy to entertain it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Perhaps I could suggest a process so that at least the government could consider it and the Hon. Ms Franks and others could consider it. If we were to report progress on motion today at this particular provision and move on to the other bill where we have my amendments and those of the Hon. Mr Darley, my understanding is that parliamentary counsel would be able to very quickly draft an alternative amendment.

We do have an amendment drafted in my name in relation to the Work Health and Safety Bill which, in essence, requires that the delegation of any powers goes to staff members as opposed to people who are not members of staff. I would have thought that it is a relatively straightforward amendment. If that process was agreeable to the minister, at least we could have a look at something that parliamentary counsel might be able to draft, proceed with the other bill and then return to this clause in this bill afterwards.

If it is all too hard, then we will have to just vote on the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment. If, however, there is a simple solution that meets the minister's requirements and partially meets the requirements of the Hon. Ms Franks, it will be a win-win and we can still process it this afternoon.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The advice from parliamentary counsel is that we do not need to have any interpretation of this. The legal interpretation is that you cannot delegate to someone you cannot control, so their advice that we have just received is that there is no need to have an amendment to reflect that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister clarify then that his legal advice is that it will be impossible for TAFE SA to delegate to an RTO or to a non TAFE SA staff member, because it may well be possible in legal terms to write a contractual arrangement where TAFE SA indicates that it does control what a non TAFE SA staff member does by way of contractual or legal guidance or arrangement. This has, in essence, been the whole debate in relation to the Work Health and Safety Bill. If the minister is saying that there is no way in the world that it can be contracted out along those lines then I am prepared to accept that undertaking. But if it could be contracted out in that particular way then I think it is worthwhile looking at an amendment which clarifies it.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: My advice is that there is no way you can delegate to any person or body that you do not have control over, even by contract or whatever.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The advice from the member for Unley to me anyway was that the Liberal Party was not going to support the amendment as drafted by the Hon. Ms Franks. So, on the basis of the undertaking that the minister has given, based on legal advice from parliamentary counsel, the position the Liberal Party will be adopting is the one outlined by the member for Unley to me, and that is that we will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 21 passed.

New clause 21A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We are having an amendment drafted in response to the minister's advice about quarterly reporting. We are seeking to ensure that that reporting provision is part of the legislation. It came up in the debate, so we have requested that the amendment be filed urgently.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: During the debate it came up, but we made it quite clear then that they report once a year and they will have this data on public display every quarter. No other corporation is required to do this on a quarterly basis.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is my understanding that in Victoria they do.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks can move it and, if the Hon. Mr Lucas has a look at it and he needs more time—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will move that progress be reported. I have not seen it.

The CHAIR: I must say it would be highly unusual; if this was the government trying to slip one through, it would be a bit different.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have been in this place for two years and I have seen the government slip quite a few amendments through at the last minute.

The CHAIR: Yes; and we know what happened when it did happen.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes; and you would not deal with it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Some of us have short memories; it does not take that long to remember similar occasions where the government has also—

The CHAIR: Are you moving it?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes. I move:

Page 11, after line 28—After clause 21 insert:

21A—Quarterly reporting on delivery of technical and further education

(1) TAFE SA must, within 1 month after the end of each quarter, deliver to the Minister a report on the delivery of technical and further education by TAFE SA during that quarter.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be included in the report, the report must include—

(a) details of the courses delivered; and

(b) the number of students enrolled in each course; and

(c) details of funding received identifying the sources of the funding.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report, cause copies to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(4) In this section—

quarter means 1 January to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June, 1 July to 30 September, and 1 October to 31 December, in each year.

This amendment has been moved because the minister did not guarantee to ensure quarterly reports. I do note that, in Victoria, as a response to some of the errors of their ways there, I understand they are providing such quarterly reports. If we are to safeguard our system from going the way of Skills for All in Victoria, that is what I think the government should, at the very least, be committing to do.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.