<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2015-10-13" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1701" />
  <endPage num="1750" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Skills for All</name>
      <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000140">
        <heading>Skills for All</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="2742" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2015-10-13">
            <name>Skills for All</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2015-10-13T14:42:50" />
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000141">
          <timeStamp time="2015-10-13T14:42:50" />
          <by role="member" id="2742">The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (14:42):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills relating to Skills for All and the lack of appearance before the federal inquiry last year.</text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000142">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="2742" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000143">
          <by role="member" id="2742">The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK:</by>  As honourable members would be aware by now, the opposition has received a number of emails via FOI between senior staff of TAFE, and I will quote this one dated 30 May 2015 between the former CEO of TAFE and the board chair, Mr Peter Vaughan. It says:</text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000144">
          <inserted>Peter,</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000145">
          <inserted>I assume by now that Jo has brought you up to date with the debacle that took place re our submission to the House of Representative's inquiry into TAFE.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000146">Further on it says:</text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000147">
          <inserted>…we need to decide what line to take at the Public Hearing. Do I follow the script outlined in the DFEEST written submission (lots of spin) or do I answer the questions truthfully as outlined in our original Board approved submission?</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000148">
          <inserted>Needless to say, I would not wish to embarrass the Board or the Minister by publicly criticising the State Government on its policy positions but it's going to be very challenging for me to say anything positive about DFEEST and how they have managed Skills for All.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000149">
          <inserted>I guess one option is to simply withdraw from appearing but that might attract more attention.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000150">Then further on, in an email between Mr Ray Garrand, the CEO of DFEEST, and the former CEO of TAFE, dated 3 June 2014:</text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000151">
          <inserted>Ray,</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000152">
          <inserted>Just to let you know that I will not be making a presentation to the HoR's public hearing at Regency on 12 June.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000153">
          <inserted>I have withdrawn after discussing the matter with Peter Vaughan this evening.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000154">Etc., and so on, 'Regards, Jeff'. My question to the minister is: can she confirm that the reason why TAFE decided not to appear before the federal inquiry was that they thought it would be far too embarrassing for the state government?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">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</electorate>
        <startTime time="2015-10-13T14:44:49" />
        <page num="1707" />
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000155">
          <timeStamp time="2015-10-13T14:44:49" />
          <by role="member" id="1821">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) (14:44):</by>  I thank the member for her question. I have already answered this question. As I said, it is old news. It is a lazy opposition that cannot find more contemporary information. It is just lazy. This is all old news. As I said, I have been on the record before and I stand by all of those responses. I have answered the question again here today with the first question but, if the opposition want to waste their second question on old news, then go right ahead. I have made it very clear that I did not request or direct TAFE in the matter of—</text>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000156">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000157">
          <by role="office">The PRESIDENT</by>:  Order! The minister has the floor.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201510136da35c6fad82429090000158">
          <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO:</by>  —whether to appear or not to appear at that hearing. I have made that very clear already. The honourable member simply needs to ask the chair, Mr Peter Vaughan, but as I said many months ago and continue to say, I in no way directed or even sought to influence the board's decision as to whether or not it appeared before that inquiry. It was their decision. TAFE informed me of their decision and I had no discussion, to the best of my knowledge, with TAFE. They gave no reason as to why or why not; they simply informed me that they had made the decision not to attend. As I said, my assumption was that they were satisfied that the final whole-of-government response to the inquiry satisfied the issue that they wished to present to the committee.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>