Skills for All

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation prior to directing a question to the Leader of the Government on the subject of Skills for All.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A number of journalists and commentators have commented to me how embarrassing it was to see and read the minister's nonanswers to a series of questions put to her about a central facet of her ministerial portfolio, and that was the Skills for All program and the series of questions that were put yesterday. I am sure, Mr President, even your good self would have been shaking your head at the minister's lack of response.

A series of questions were put to the minister yesterday, such as how many registered training organisations had been asked to return subsidies paid under the Skills for All program in relation to the alleged incorrect use of bridging units and what was the total quantum of funds that the department was seeking to recoup through the process. She was also asked whether or not bridging units were noncompliant, and had RTOs been asked to repay the money.

Further on, the minister was asked whether it was correct that individual RTOs had actually received a letter from the minister's department which said 'The minister'—that is, minister Gago—'believes that the bridging units claimed are not compliant with the Skills for All contract.'

The minister's responses—as you would be aware and other members would be aware—to all of this was a combination of: 'This is an operational issue', 'I am not aware of the detail of this', 'I will need to be briefed on the particular issue', 'I don't have that detail with me', 'Yes, it's very important, but I want to bring accurate and detailed information', and 'I don't have that depth of detail with me.' There were a variety of other phrases, sentences and comments along those lines.

My question to the minister is: given the importance of this particular issue to registered training organisations and to the South Australian community, and given she has now had 24 hours to be thoroughly briefed on the detail of the questions that were put to her yesterday which she was unable to answer, will she at least today treat this chamber with some respect and provide some answers to these important questions that were put to her yesterday?

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) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for his questions. As usual, we saw the Hon. Rob Lucas come into this place badly informed and his question poorly researched. Indeed, I've been able to ascertain information about the bridging unit questions that were raised yesterday.

Honourable members would probably know that a bridging unit is a unit of competency which assists a student to successfully complete a qualification in the course that they are enrolled in. An example of that might be where a student, for instance, requires additional assistance such as literacy or numeracy skills. Bridging units are undertaken in parallel with higher-level training to ensure that a student has the necessary basic skills to obtain that qualification.

Like all programs receiving government funding, which is public funding—the hard-earned taxes of mums and dads—it's extremely important that government funds are spent for the purpose that they were intended. In the case of bridging units, they must be spent on units that provide the additional assistance that a particular students needs, as I have outlined. Every Skills for All provider is required to retain evidence to support any determination that a bridging unit is needed for a particular student.

As part of a monitoring process, the department identified an increase in the number of bridging units being claimed by some training providers so, consequently, 20 Skills for All training providers were written to by the director of Skills SA and asked to provide evidence to validate selection and use of bridging units. She was exercising a delegated ministerial authority on my behalf. Just for the benefit of other matters currently occurring, I am advised that HGT was not one of the Skills for All training providers written to by the department.

I am advised that, to date, evidence provided by training providers has resulted in the identification of a small minority of training providers potentially claiming bridging units that are in breach of the Skills for All funding contracts, so timely action has been undertaken by Skills for All to work to reclaim these funds.

I am advised that the department has identified three training providers that were in breach of their Skills for All training contract in relation to these matters. One training provider, in late 2014, repaid moneys owed on receipt of correspondence from the director of Skills SA. The other two training providers have entered into deeds of settlement. The deeds of settlement, again, were signed on my behalf by the director of Skills SA with those individual training providers.

I am advised that the total amount being sought from these three training providers is approximately $1.9 million, and this action obviously is being taken to ensure that quality training provided to students in South Australia continues to remain of that excellent quality. It ensures that public funds—the hard-earned money of, as I said, mums and dads—continue to be used appropriately and for the purposes that they were intended.