Question Time

TAFE SA

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills a question about TAFE.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yesterday, in response to a question I asked the minister about written responses to the inquiry of the House of Assembly, she said:

In relation to the issue of the written response to that committee—and I am pretty confident I have already put this on the record in this place before—it was the government's decision that it would coordinate a government response to that committee rather than have separate submissions.

She went on to say:

We do not hide from that, Mr President; we were overt about that. I expressed clearly to the board that that was the intention of government, and they were invited to forward any material that they wanted to me and the government to consider in relation to including in a submission.

Under FOI the opposition has obtained some documents. It is interesting that, in May 2014, the chief executive of TAFE wrote to DFEEST regarding the submission made to the federal House of Representatives' inquiry into the role of technical and further education system and its operation. The email stated that the terms of reference used in the DFEEST SA government's submission were not those required by the inquiry, and the chief executive's office suggested that the TAFE submission be attached to the DFEEST one. My questions are:

1. Can the minister explain why TAFE would have expressed these concerns and how the whole of government submission differed from the terms of reference required for the inquiry?

2. Was the TAFE submission attached or was the final government submission altered to reflect the TAFE submission?

3. Did the government's final submission accurately reflect and address the terms of reference of that inquiry?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. I answered this question comprehensively yesterday. We know that the opposition is just desperate—absolutely desperate—to find something untoward where there is nothing untoward. The member of the opposition has had a crack at this several times and has ended up with egg on his face every single time. I am happy to throw a bit more egg on his face again today. There was nothing untoward that happened in this place. I have already put on record quite clearly what the process was.

In terms of the terms of reference I believe that our submission did fulfil those terms of reference to the best of my knowledge. In relation to the material that TAFE submitted to us, I have already answered that very clearly yesterday. I have said that they were invited to put matters before us for consideration. Those were considered and those bits that were considered to be irrelevant to the submission were added in, or included, or addressed in some way.

I have already been very clear about that. I have already also been very clear about the issue of the verbal submission, the verbal hearing. One would have thought that, given they were invited to participate in those hearings, if TAFE had any concerns about the government's written submission or if TAFE had any concerns that vital information had been left out or anything that the honourable member is suggesting through snide innuendo—if that were so, if they had any of those concerns, why would they not have presented them during that verbal submission? They were able to, capable of—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Because the chief executive was verballed by the chairman of the board.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, that is TAFE's problem. TAFE is an independent statutory authority. The board of TAFE makes decisions about their own interests and the chief executive officer is not an elected officer: he works for the board. So if the board decides that they want him to participate or operate in a particular way, that is what he is required to do. He is an employee of the board, for goodness sake.

The TAFE board is an independent statutory authority of incredibly capable, competent people—incredibly competent and capable people and ferociously independent, not afraid to speak up—so why would they not have submitted these concerns during the verbal submission? They did not, because they were satisfied with the way things were conducted. They were completely satisfied with the process and they chose not to submit to that hearing.

As I said, I have already outlined what the process was for the written submission and it is all on the record. The government made its decisions and its judgement about what materials went forward. It was a sound submission, thoroughly considered, and TAFE had an opportunity to input into that and also an opportunity to input into the hearings as well, which they chose not to so.