Bills

Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2018.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (11:02): The Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill that the government has proposed is nothing more than an opportunity to change a board that has been working very, very well. Let us first understand what the nature of the fund is that is being referred to. On any large construction projects over a certain value, a levy is paid. That levy is paid by the project manager or the project owner. That means that the funds within this construction industry training fund are not government funds. These funds are paid by every person who is involved in the building and construction industry. That means people who are purchasing houses are indirectly paying into this fund. Those doing commercial buildings are paying into this fund.

The fund was established in 1993 so that training of workers in the construction industry could be covered. There was an acknowledgement that, in order to be ready for future developments, there needed to be a skills base. This fund, this board, was established with all the parties involved in the industry, with those employer associations and employee associations—it was an initiative of the entire industry. The current composition of the board comprises one chairperson, five people who are nominated from employer organisations, three people who are nominated from employee organisations, and two people who must have experience and expertise in the vocational training and education system.

Much has been made of the supposed veto aspects of this board in the act as it currently stands. I am told that the minister in the other place who has moved this current bill has implied that it is the unions, the employee associations, who have a veto, and therefore they can stop progressive actions on behalf of the board by this veto. That is the first misrepresentation that this minister has made.

The so-called veto is a consensus provision. There must be a majority in each of the subsections of the board on any decision in order for that decision to progress. What that means is that there must be a majority amongst the employee associations—the unions—a majority amongst the employer associations, and a majority, which is only one out of two, of those who are appointed for their expertise in vocational education and training.

If one goes back to the 1993 introduction of the act, one can see why this was needed. At that time, the building and construction industry was in huge turmoil. Most of us can probably remember where the industry was at that time: there were wars on worksites. The establishment of the Construction Industry Training Board demonstrated how parts of industry could come together and work for the betterment of the industry, the industry being the entire construction industry. What this consensus provision ensures is that no vested interests can have control of the board.

Now, think about that. We are talking about a fund with many millions of dollars involved; money that does not belong to the government, money that is there for the betterment of training in the construction industry. We need to remember that there are many vested interests in the construction industry and we need to make sure that the board cannot be captured by any of them, hence the fine balance of ensuring that without consensus in each subgroup no decision can be taken by the board.

This is not about anyone holding the board to ransom; this is about ensuring that all subsectors of the board are working for the betterment of the industry. It is sad that this has been misrepresented by the minister in the other place. This is not one sector holding the board to ransom; this is three sectors working to achieve consensus and working collaboratively. There has been a history of consensus on the board, partly, if not entirely, due to this consensus provision.

In moving the bill in the other place, the minister said that there had been recent times where the consensus—or as he called it, the veto—had been taken into account. I am told that has only happened in the last three months, since the minister made an appointment to the board, which is currently the subject of a large number of questions. In today's Adelaidenow, there are revelations that if it appears that the minister has appointed someone to the board without the requisite qualifications, he is in breach of the act. It is since that person was appointed that there has suddenly been a problem with consensus on the board.

We need to look at the outcomes and achievements of the board. The CITB recently celebrated 25 years. I was at the celebration, as was the minister in charge of this bill, and he spoke glowingly about the achievements of the board over that time. The achievements included high levels of safety training within the construction industry, an industry that I am sure we all know is subject to many dangerous aspects. Safety is a key part of the training. Another key part of the training is ensuring that we are set up for the future in terms of a skilled workforce. No-one is suggesting that that actually has not happened. Later on in this contribution, we will compare ourselves with some of the other states.

The CITB is also responsible for apprenticeships and traineeships, work health and safety, as I have mentioned, a pathways program, and MATES in Construction, which helps to avoid suicides within the industry. I know that other members will be making contributions that particularly refer to those aspects.

This current bill seeks to entirely change the composition of the board. Let's look first at what the proposals are. Instead of having each of the sectors of the construction industry included, we will have between four and eight members appointed purely at the discretion of the minister. It has been argued that this is similar to other government boards, but we need to remember that this is not a government board. This is not a government board. This is a board of the construction industry.

The proposals contained in the bill of what should be included to be a member of the board are extremely thin. Apparently, it will assist with merit but there is not even a recommendation that any member of the board must have experience in vocational educational or training. This is the Construction Industry Training Board, and in the current bill appointees to the board do not need to have any experience in vocational education and training. I am sure I am not the only one who sees that as quite ridiculous.

There are a number of very large risks in the changes that are proposed in the bill. One of the reasons for the consensus provision is so that there cannot be the opportunity to funnel funds in a particular direction that might benefit one or other of the sectors of the industry. We need to remember that there are many sectors of the industry, including civil, commercial and housing. Currently, the make-up of the board means that each of those sectors will have a say. It is not just about unions versus employers, which is how the minister is wanting to portray this, it is about ensuring that all aspects of the industry—whether it is domestic housing or civil construction—all sectors have a say on the board.

It has been quite difficult to see what the proposed purpose of these changes are. In the other place, there have been claims that this will modernise the board and make it more in line with other boards. There are implications that it will be implementing the recommendations of the 2004 independent review. Indeed, in this place, the Hon. Mr Hood stated:

The proposed reforms are indeed long overdue in our view, given amendments have not been made to the act since its inception in 1993. This is despite the fact that recommendations to modernise the relevant processes were made in an independent review over 14 years ago.

He went on to say:

The current appointment process for the Construction Industry Training Board under our existing laws is considered amongst the most prescriptive in our nation. The government's proposed changes will bring the act into line with equivalent legislation in other states and territories and that which governs the appointment of boards in our state's education and training sector, by enabling the appointment of members based on merit and their requisite skills.

Let's look at what that review concluded, and its recommendations. This review has been used both by members in this place and the other place to say that this is what the bill that is currently before the parliament will be implementing. I quote directly from the KPA Consulting report of July 2004:

The Act [as it still stands now] was also widely seen as presenting a powerful unifying influence and mechanism for the building and construction industry, with a common refrain that the arrangements bring 'some coherence to the different tribes' in the industry.

The report further states:

During the consultations for the review, the 'streamlining' of Board membership was often raised. Streamlining is important because, generally, the smaller the membership of a body the more efficient is the decision-making. However, streamlining is not an end in itself. The proper test for categories of membership and numbers of members is to ensure the Board has available in its deliberations the views of all interested parties.

I continue to quote from the review:

As the review has accepted the pivotal role of employer and employee associations in the building and construction industry, then logically the associations should be represented on the board to the extent they are necessary to provide coverage of all interested parties.

I continue to quote from the review, which has been used by the minister and others in this place to support the current bill:

The review is unable to conclude that any of the associations presently represented on the Board, an outcome strenuously negotiated at the time of the drafting of the legislation, should not be there for the purpose of providing such coverage.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: They've all got merit.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They all have merit, the Hon. Mr Hanson says, and that essentially was what was concluded by that review, the very same review that members in this place and the minister are attempting to use to misrepresent and to say that we should not have organisations such as employer and employee associations specifically required on this board. The review continues:

The review also notes that the nomination process in Regulation 5 provides a means by which the associations named in the Act may effect any changes required by the industry to Board membership.

The recommendation of this review was:

That the membership of the Board continue to comprise eleven members…including three representatives of employee groups and five representatives of employer groups.

Clearly, this bill does anything but reflect that recommendation, and it is a misrepresentation on behalf of the minister to suggest that it does.

The review did suggest that the phrase 'represent the interests of' be removed from section 5 of the act. This is the part that says that those employee and employer organisations represent the interests of employee or employer organisations. The review explained in some depth that it was not recommending that that be removed because the phrase entitled members on boards to promote their own particular interests. Indeed, the report quoted at length legal opinion that concluded the words are:

…simply intended to mean that the manner of selecting board members would promote the confidence of the particular interest group in the board, provide a means of liaison between that group and the board and ensure that the board had available in its deliberations the views of all interested parties.

Nevertheless, the review did recommend removing the words 'represent the interests of' from the act to avoid the widely held perception that it created divided loyalties. Given that this review has been used by the minister and others in this place to apparently justify the changes, I am moving an amendment that does implement that very recommendation. I am moving an amendment that does remove the words 'represent the interests of' to ensure that there is not a perception of a conflict of interest.

The review does make another recommendation, under 'Governance', that I do not agree with but which I will mention in the interests of transparency—transparency, because if members of this place are to make considered decisions about legislation such as this they need to rely on the facts and they need to know what those facts are, rather than the misrepresentation of those who have a different agenda. The review recommended the removal of the so-called veto provision on the basis that it was 'an artefact of the climate that accompanied the introduction of the Act'. It is referring, of course, to the acrimonious environment, which I mentioned earlier, within the construction industry in the early nineties and which the careful wording of this act successfully overcame so that it became, as quoted earlier in the review, a 'powerful unifying influence'.

It may have been that when that review was written circumstances were such that the consensus provision may not have been needed. I must, sadly, argue that such a provision is needed now because, firstly, we have seen a minister who is clearly not acting in the interests of the industry in the bill that he has put forward and, secondly, because of a very practical reason which possibly was not in existence in the same way when this review was written. Many providers of training services are now associated with employer and employee associations. So what we are saying is: there are unions and there are employer associations that have training arms either directly or indirectly, and that is the kind of conflict of interest we need to absolutely be sure that we avoid.

I am going to do something I might not usually do; that is, to quote favourably from the Hon. Rob Lucas. When he spoke to the original bill in 1993 regarding this provision he said:

I would hope that the employer associations would not want that fund, which will be worth many millions of dollars, controlled potentially by the unions with respect to where the money is spent, how it is applied and who gets what.

Now, that is valid. But I trust that any fair-minded person would agree that such logic also holds true for employer associations to also not potentially control the funds, where they go, how they are applied and who gets what. Those employer associations are now in the position where there is the potential for huge gain from their associated training bodies.

The potential under the bill, if it passes, is that the minister can appoint whomsoever he chooses to this board. That composition of the board could potentially be totally comprised of employer associations that have training arms associated with them. How can anyone imagine that that is a good model for probity?

The suggestion has been made, 'Look, we can trust to merit.' The purported intention of the bill is that people will be appointed on merit. It has been suggested that the changes proposed by this government will not have adverse outcomes because of that, and because we can trust the minister. I must point out firstly that such a position embraces not only trusting the current minister but every future unknown minister. This means that we are happy to put total control in the hands of people—we do not even know who they will be—appointing members to a board that administers training funds and may well have training organisations themselves.

We must look at the track record of the current minister so far to see if it is reasonable to have trust and confidence in him. Firstly, he has not followed the existing legislated process in his recent appointments to the board. The current act requires that the presiding member be a person nominated by the minister after consultation with the employer and employee associations stated in the schedules, so that means that the unions must be consulted as well as the employer associations.

However, when the current presiding member was appointed, of the three employee associations, one association received no communication at all until a letter arrived saying that Mr Peter Kennedy had been appointed and gazetted, so there was no consultation with that union. Two other unions did receive a letter saying a new presiding member would be appointed but with no indication at all of who it would be. Then, despite one union responding and saying, yes, they would like to be involved in the consultation, the only response was again the letter saying that Mr Peter Kennedy had been appointed and gazetted. Someone was appointed and gazetted, and then the unions were advised, and apparently that is consultation according to the act. I am confident that no-one could describe that as consultation.

I point out that this is not about the merit or otherwise of Mr Peter Kennedy as chair. It may well be that he has merit. The point is that the minister is required under the act to take certain steps. The minister has not taken those steps. That comes down to whether it is reasonable to have trust and confidence in the minister in the way that he is now looking to have total control over the board.

The current act also specifies that for a board member to be appointed, who is not representing the employer or employee associations, they must have vocational training and educational experience. It is very specific. It says they must be:

…persons who have appropriate experience in vocational education or training and who are or have been employed or engaged in the provision of such education and training.

The minister did not follow that legislated process either. The person he appointed is an accountant. It appears that the closest he has ever got to a training organisation is auditing it, not providing training as explicitly required in the act.

Coincidentally, the person appointed has been at Liberal Party events which has caused some people to question what merit principle was being applied in his appointment. That raises alarm bells; not simply the fact that he has been at Liberal Party events, but that he does not—according to information that we have to hand—have the required merit-based experience that is required in the act, and the minister has ignored that.

An additional matter that must raise alarm bells in the context of the way that the current minister has behaved, is that the bill further seeks to remove all limits on the amounts that may be paid as allowances and expenses for board members. The new provision will state, 'A member of the board is entitled to receive allowances and expenses approved by the minister.'

Now, most of those here are probably aware that, generally, there will be a link, often to the levels of a board for government, to ascertain what are reasonable allowances and expenses. Under this bill, there will be no such checks and balances whatsoever. At best, this appears unwise; at worst it appears like a minister wanting total command over who serves on this industry board, and total freedom to pay them as much as he wants out of an industry fund.

It may be that there is nothing in terms of probity that will occur in the future that would cause problems. Even if that were the case—and I understand that many people have great doubts about that—there is the perception, a very clear perception, that a minister seeking to appoint people, unfettered, to a board, after already making two appointments not in accordance with the act and, further, wanting to have total unlimited ability to set allowances and expenses for those board members, which certainly raises a huge suggestion and perception of impropriety. Is that something that we want for this board, which is set up for the interests of the construction industry, which is set up to make sure we have a skilled workforce, which is set up to make sure we have appropriate safety-based training for people in a very high-risk industry? I think the answer must be no.

The minister introduced this bill without any consultation with employee associations, not even those employee associations who are current board members. This shows his total disdain for the whole-of-industry approach that the board has had until now. So let us review the minister's behaviour. The minister has misrepresented the way the consensus clause applies. The minister has misrepresented the recommendations of the 2004 review. The minister has breached the existing legislation, not once but twice already, in making appointments to the board, and now he wants to make changes to the process, which would allow the actions in the future that he has already taken, yet we are to trust him to make unbiased appointments to this board in the best interests of the construction industry.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Doesn't stack up.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: With that track record, it certainly does not stack up, as the Hon. Mr Hanson comments. I do not want to detract from the main discussion of this bill, but I must seek the indulgence of the chamber to set the record straight regarding some comments by the minister in the other place. This bill was introduced in the other place on 24 October. My office was contacted on 25 October to offer a briefing. I am still relatively new to this place, so perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that that was the usual process from ministers' offices.

Certainly, the minister made grand declarations in his third reading response about his great magnanimity in contacting my office to offer me a briefing, so I am very happy to put on the record my appreciation for his extreme generosity; it is very sincerely appreciated. However, contrary to his statements, my office contacted him the next day, which was Friday, to seek a briefing on the following Monday. We were told that his staff were not available then. Fine! I was then in my home town of Mount Gambier for the remainder of the week, speaking at a citizenship ceremony, hosting a community meeting and attending a Training and Skills Commission event, coincidentally, among other commitments, so the briefing was arranged for the next Monday. I am sure the member for the inner city seat of Unley nevertheless understands that regional members travelling a round trip of 11 hours do not always have the same flexibility as city-based members.

The bill was then brought on in the other place on the Tuesday, the day after my briefing, not just for debate and some speeches but rammed through to a vote that very same day. But, according to the minister, that did not constitute a rush, a panic nor an ideological charge. I will leave others to make that judgement.

Let us now return to the substance of the bill. In the minister's second and third reading speeches in the other place, he failed to outline any logical or factual reason why these changes needed to take place. His case consisted almost exclusively of attacking members opposite, while he continued to struggle to outline key reasons why these changes would be useful. The only argument seemed to be that the South Australian act is the most prescriptive in the country, and that this bill will bring the act into line with equivalent legislation in other jurisdictions, so let us look at these claims.

He mentioned the ACT, claiming the minister there has broad ministerial discretion to appoint the board. However, according to a paper prepared by the parliamentary library, the ACT authority has a governing board consisting of an independent chair, two employer representatives and two employee representatives.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed. So that very aspect, the representational nature of including the different sectors on the board that apparently this bill is going to remove because that is how it is in other jurisdictions, the first one he mentions is not the case at all. There are employee and employer representatives on the ACT authority.

He then refers to Tasmania and its 'broad ministerial discretion'. However, the Tasmanian act provides the following:

Members of the Board

(1) The Board consists of the following members…

(a) one person who is appointed as chairperson of the board;

(b) three persons who have knowledge and understanding of the interests of employees within the building and construction industry—

that is right, three persons who have knowledge and understanding of the interests of employees—

(c) five persons who between them have knowledge and experience of the following:

(i) residential building;

(ii) non-residential building;

(iii) civil construction;

(iv) building services;

(v) building professions.

It continues:

(3) The board is to contain, if practicable—

(a) at least one member from each of the northern region, the north-western region and the southern region; and

(b) a balance of genders; and

(c) members with knowledge and skills in respect of—

(i) all sections within the building and construction industry; and

(ii) vocational education and training; and

(iii) policy development and strategic planning.

It is truly fascinating that the minister thinks that is a model that is not prescriptive.

So in the Tasmanian model you must have those representing employees, you must have knowledge and experience of five different sectors within the construction industry, you must have geographical representation, you must have a balance of genders, and you must have other experience. How can the minister possibly argue that we are going along the lines of the Tasmanian model, which supposedly is less prescriptive? However, let us continue.

The minister also referred to the Western Australian model and emphasised the ministerial discretion in that state's act. Let us look at that act. It provides:

Members

(1) The board shall consist of seven members appointed by the minister after consultation with bodies known as—

(a) the Master Builders' Association of Western Australia (Union of Employers Perth); and

(b) the Housing Industry Association Limited (Western Australian Division); and

(c) the Construction Contractors Association of Western Australia; and

(d) Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Association of Western Australia; and

(e) the Master Painters Decorators and Signwriters Association of Western Australia; and

(f) the National Electrical and Communications Association of Western Australia; and

(g) the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers; and

(h) the Civil Contractors Federation of Western Australia; and

(ia) the Australian Workers’ Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers; and

(ib) the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union of Western Australia; and

(i) the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union.

So there is no consistent model in other jurisdictions; there is no consistent model at all. The minister stated the following:

What we are doing is modernising the board. We have looked at best practice around Australia where it is working. The current South Australian model is unique, as there is no other model like it.

Part of that is true. There is no model in Australia quite like the South Australian model, neither is there another model in Australia quite like the ACT model, nor is there another model quite like Tasmania, nor quite like Western Australia—nor is there any other model quite like the proposed model that this government is putting forward.

What is patently not true is the claim that the minister has looked at where it is working elsewhere in Australia and picked that up. There is no truth to that at all. Further, it is surely self-evident that rather than a vague wish to 'modernise' the process, if we are to make changes we should be aiming for better outcomes.

Claims have been made about the reduction in the numbers of apprentices in training over recent years, with the implication that this is somehow a result of the composition of the South Australian Construction Industry Training Board. However, if we compare the numbers of people in training in the construction trade over the 10 years to 30 June 2017, a very different picture emerges.

I am well aware that we can try to use different statistics to try to prove different things. What I am looking at is a full decade of apprentice figures across Australia. It is true that South Australia has had a decrease in numbers over that 10-year period, a decrease of 7½ per cent, and I acknowledge that. The other states mentioned by the minister have also had changes in numbers. Tasmania's apprentice numbers have decreased by 30 per cent. They have decreased by 30 per cent in Tasmania, yet the minister is alleging that is the model we are following and that will somehow modernise the board, which is a good thing. A 30 per cent decrease in apprentices in Tasmania.

Western Australia's numbers have had a 22 per cent decrease. South Australia has had a 7½ per cent decrease. Under the current composition of the board, it has had less than a third decrease in apprenticeship numbers compared with other states, which the minister apparently sets up as a model of something working well. Why would we do that? Why would the minister do that? There is a better way. There is a middle ground. I suggest that the amendments that I have tabled are that middle ground.

The amendments that I have tabled pick up the best of the recommendations in the 2004 review. I will speak more to them, of course, when we get into the committee stage but, briefly, the amendments that I have tabled retain the involvement of all the interested parties in the industry. Remember that this mix of representation on the board has been referred to by the very review that the minister alludes to as creating a powerful unifying influence in an industry that is of crucial importance to our state. My amendments also remove the words 'represent the interests of' to ensure that there is no misunderstanding that those who are on the board must act in the interests of the industry. That picks up that recommendation of the 2004 review.

Further, my amendments do provide greater ministerial discretion so that he has some choice over the individuals who will be nominated to the board. My amendments talk about the representative groups still putting forward some nominations, from which the minister can choose. So if he has a particular issue with one particular individual, he will not have to have that person on the board if he sees that that will be problematic.

The employer associations and employee associations would, if my amendments pass, each be able to suggest two people into a pool from which members would be drawn. So if there are three employee associations who put forward two people each, that is six. There are five employer association positions, but there are more than that on the list of required employer associations, so it would be a bigger pool from which to choose for both the employer and the employee associations. That gives additional discretion while still maintaining the absolute necessity of making sure that all the major players within the construction industry contribute to decisions about training and the future of the industry.

My amendments also insert a requirement that those nominated by employer and employee groups must have knowledge and experience in the industry. That has been a criticism. I think those of us on this side are happy to say that, whilst we think those who have been appointed have been there on merit, if we include this as well then that will give greater certainty. My amendments also insert a reasonable endeavours type of clause regarding reflecting the diversity of the industry and the skills necessary for board membership.

There is also a further governance improvement that is proposed, which ensures that deputy members—what one might call proxies—can continue to serve on the board while new members are appointed following the expiration of a term. This means that the board need not stop its good work, in effect, because someone has retired from the board or their term is up. Instead, the deputy can continue to serve until the new person is appointed. These are amendments that improve merit. These are amendments that streamline operation, and these are amendments that provide greater ministerial discretion whilst still ensuring that the careful balance between all interested parties is maintained.

Again, I must emphasise the purpose of this board is to look after funds and administer them for the betterment of the industry—for safety training, for pathways training for high school students, for upskilling, as well as apprentices and trainees where relevant. This board has been successfully benchmarked against the other states in terms of the outcomes. It has been successful because consensus must be reached. How can any right-minded person think that removing certain people and representative interests from the board means that there will be better outcomes for the industry?

How can one look at the actions so far of the current minister and say that we can trust him and his approach to appoint people on merit? How can we look at a fund that is so important, training that is so important to the future of our state, and say we are happy to just take out those who represent the interests of workers, those workers who are working in an industry where they need to have safety training? The argument will no doubt be lodged that under the proposed bill unions can still apply.

Strictly speaking, that is true. But I think the actions, sadly, of the minister so far, not consulting at all with the unions about the bill in the first place, not adhering to the current act in terms of appointment of a chairperson, not adhering to the current act in terms of the requirements to appoint someone with vocational education and training experience—pretty central and important to a training board—all of those things, not to mention his general absolute disdain for anyone representing workers' interests, means that there is no way that any fair-minded person can say that the bill does not place such huge risks for our industry, for the safety of workers in the industry, for the employer groups going forward to ensure that they are equally represented between each other.

The bill creates so many risks that it is totally unreasonable for it to continue. I will add to my comments in the committee stage on my amendments. I encourage members to support my amendments, but to oppose the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:42): I also rise to express some of my deep concerns regarding this particular bill. I think some of this has already been covered by the Hon. Ms Scriven quite well, but you will have to forgive me, this particular board and industry in particular is very close to my heart and I intend to make many of the same points, I hope not in the same way, but I do think they are worth making.

The Construction Industry Training Board is a training fund created by industry. It consists of industry representatives and it has operated harmoniously through several iterations of Labor and Liberal governments—admittedly, Labor very successfully for the last 16 years—since its early creation in the 1990s under the Bannon government. It is an old board. If you get around the industry you will find out that it is quite a trusted board. It was a board based on a time, perhaps, when industry associations, from employers and employees, looked for what might best be termed as, perhaps, peace in their time by seeking to spend more professional time together, working together to achieve what is a very laudable outcome for their industry, and that, of course, is safety and training.

In this regard, I think it is quite instructive for me to recall the underpinning rationale for what we currently have for the board that is in place now, and I am going to do that by citing a valid portion, I feel, of the second reading speech for the CITB Fund Bill from 10 November 1992, and that is as follows:

It is critical for members to note that the drive for the establishment of the levy and associated fund has come from employer and union bodies within the industry. This is a case where the industry has recognised a problem and taken steps to rectify it. The government is consequently responding to a direct approach from industry for assistance...As the initiative has come from the industry itself, it has been important that the industry partners were directly involved in the drafting of the legislation, to ensure that the individual and broad concerns of the industry are met.

I feel the importance of this statement from the original creation of the CITB really cannot be denied. A founding principle of the creation of the CITB was bipartisanship: it was bipartisanship in the interests of safety and training in the industry. Another founding principle of the creation of the CITB was the continued involvement of what was then termed as 'industry partners', which we would know now as unions and employer associations. This is not industry as this government or perhaps other federal Liberal governments before it would really have you believe.

This act was founded on a very real meaning of industry, consisting of employers and employees working together towards common aims and better and safer production. This act was created on the founding principle of industry, consisting of employers and their unions and employees and their unions coming together and deciding that, for the life of the project, they will, at worst, agree to disagree in their decisions. This is important because you can open up any paper today and see pretty heavy industrial finger pointing, pretty heavy rhetoric, pretty heavy game playing or a lack of focus on the needs of the industry.

What led to the creation of this bill is very much something that stopped that. What led to the creation of this bill is the notion that industry was going to get together in the instance of safety and training. These days, it is tough to imagine that: people coming together to work on a project that they can only truly, actually make work if they all pitch in. It is worth considering, when you think about that, how responsible and worthy of merit are the people who chose to do that and how responsible and worthy of merit are the people who chose to participate in that.

One wonders if this state government, and I have to say the particular minister for this area, for all his rhetoric and debate on this bill of wanting to promote responsible persons with merit, is even capable of imagining what led to the creation of this bill and the people involved in that. The fact is that in this place we could probably all learn a lot from industry's attitude to bipartisanship when it comes to productivity. By having industry, employers and unions, working together on boards such as this, the fact is that we promote better conduct in industry and a more collegiate atmosphere of bargaining and negotiation.

It is a fact that we have seen the results and benefits of this bipartisanship in working days lost to industrial action in this state. I know it is a very dry topic, but it is a very valid one. ABS data, which is as recent as up to the first half of 2018, shows that South Australia, for at least the last decade, has one of the lowest amounts of days lost to industrial disputes in the nation. In 2017, South Australia had approximately 600 days lost to industrial action recorded. In New South Wales, where there is no similar CITB like we have in South Australia, had 42,000 days lost and there were 34,700 lost to industrial action in Victoria. I know New South Wales is a fair bit bigger than South Australia, and I know they probably have a bigger construction industry, but 600 versus 42,000? I know which I would prefer.

This is not a one-off: since 2012, South Australia had a year-on-year average of 1,316 days lost to industrial action. In Victoria during the same period, the average is 47,400 days lost to industrial action. In New South Wales, the average in the same period is 30,583. They are some good numbers for South Australia. While I am certain there are other factors at play, not least, as I have already mentioned, scale between economies, the vast difference in industrial disputation between the states cannot be denied. South Australia is a more harmonious industrial landscape because of the employers and the workers here being commonly engaged in matters of common purpose on boards like the CITB.

The fact is, for all the rhetoric of the minister, responsible people of merit do not just happen because they have a certificate saying so. I have a law degree. Lots of people have law degrees, but that does not necessarily make them responsible people. There is no course that you can do for common sense. There is no course you can do that will give you industry knowledge that is like working in the industry. It is stating a plain fact to say that, no matter what your industry, people work together better because they understand where the other person is coming from. The statistics on industrial action show it for our state and, given how the minister has treated the opposition and the crossbench on this bill, as the Hon. Ms Scriven has outlined, he could probably learn something from that, too.

I also think it is important to recognise that from the founding statement from 1992 that I read out, the government was just the facilitator for the bill. This board, like the industry, was never intended to be the plaything of governments. Industry recognised from the start that, while there was a need for some sort of regulation in this regard, the less direct government input there was on financial decision-making and board composition the better.

These really are quite strange times for those opposite, if they think that it is a good thing having the minister or the government approve expenditure and appointments for a board governing private funds. It seems very strange to me as a Labor member that I actually have to stand here and lecture the Liberal Party on the desires of private industry, to have to lecture a Liberal Party on the need for less government involvement and not more.

We in the Labor Party managed to go 16 years without disrupting the CITB from its stated purpose. This Liberal government has not even lasted 12 months. That is not a partisan statement, it is just a fact. Perhaps the Liberal Party in this state has been out of government so long that they forgot that the small government free enterprise ideology of their Canberra conference, that was meant to drive them to govern in the first place, was meant to be at the core of what they do. One wonders what the Liberal Party might be saying if our positions were reversed here: if the Labor Party were in government, and we said that we want to make all the appointments to this board subject to the whims of the minister.

If we said, 'Trust us. We won't just appoint those from employee associations to whom we may or may not owe political points. We will appoint people of a loosely defined notion of merit.' I reckon I know what they would be saying. It might be something like some of the government's own backbenchers said most notably and recently on the last Thursday of sitting. The member for Narungga in the other place said that business needs confidence to operate. Specifically, he said that they need to operate 'confident in the knowledge that they will be able to do so without the interference of government'. It is important that I acknowledge here that those comments of the member were made in regard to the rights of landowners versus miners and not necessarily in relation to this debate. Nonetheless, the comments are instructive. It is clear that there are members of the Liberal Party, even ministers, who are more than willing to throw good governance under the bus to suit political aims.

The Liberal Party seem to be picking and choosing what they believe these days based purely on what suits it. There does not seem to be any guiding ideology as they had back in their Canberra conference, and the member for Narungga is not alone in believing that the ideology of the Liberal Party is, at times these days, nothing more than a confused and haphazard belief. It is something that we have seen played out on the front page of the newspapers recently. You can go to the Members' Bar in this place and hear it playing out. Many members of this government seem pretty concerned about it.

Like the member for Narungga, and so many of his colleagues, I do find myself wondering what Hall, Tonkin or Playford would think of the current ideological record of this state government so far when it comes to interfering in the operations of what is a private fund for industry. What are the hours for shop trading organisations? Because that is right: the funds here are private funds. They are not the funds of government and they never have been. The board's private funds are not meant to be there to activate or respond to the whims of the government of the day, and neither should they be there.

Ideologically it is so very odd, and maybe even a little hypocritical, that this government, a Liberal government, wants more big government control over private industry funds. This bill says it wants the minister directly interfering in appointments. It wants the minister having a say over allowances and other remuneration. It wants the ability to say industry, 'No, you can't.' It wants a direct say over private funds and training. How is this reflective of the ideology of the modern Liberal Party? If that is the case, then it is a totally valid question that many in the party, if not in private industry, are even asking themselves: 'What does the Liberal Party believe in these days?'

That is worth considering as I go back to the aims of the board and even the purpose of this fund existing. The purpose of the fund can be summed up, I think, in a fairly simple sentence—that is, to improve the quality of training in the construction industry. As the 1992 second reading speech, which I read at the start of my comments, stated, this happens when the various heads of industry come together on the board in a format agreed to by the industry in the early nineties, which I would argue still works today, making decisions that work best towards that simple aim.

Again the facts speak for themselves in this regard. The board has achieved this aim. How, you might ask? Well we can see, for instance, placing ongoing training aside to look solely at apprenticeship rates for a few minutes, that the construction industry has actually increased the number of apprenticeships since the early 2000s. That is right; the number has increased. In the construction industry apprenticeships have increased.

Based on figures kept by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research we can establish clearly what the apprenticeship rates are in all states and in the nation, and I am happy to provide these statistics to anyone who so wishes. There has been an increase of over 30 per cent in the number of people in training for the construction trade during the last decade and a half in our state. During the same time period we have seen the number of apprenticeships more broadly in South Australia generally drop by almost 50 per cent.

I hammered through that, so let us take a moment consider that again: an increase of 30 per cent in construction versus a 50 per cent decrease over a trendline of almost 20 years. That is not a one-off result; that is just fact. But according to the minister that remarkable statistic is not worth rewarding the current board. That kind of statistic really begs the question: where is the problem?

If anyone was going to be trusted with supporting an additional 20,000-odd apprenticeships that the government sees as one of the needs behind this bill, it seems like the current board can do it. Again, I say, where is the need for change? Where is the problem? But more than just apprenticeships, the CITB also performs ongoing training of employees in the construction industry, and in this regard the board of the fund has also been remarkably successful in maintaining its relevance to the industry and also to its stated aims.

We can see that through the levy collected from construction projects the board has successfully distributed these funds into training through an annual training plan. This plan makes clear that the fund looks at more than just the fact that construction industry workers need training for hands-on matters on worksites. The fund has construction worker programs for upskilling existing workers that spread those funds to just over 50 per cent for improved work, health and safety training and a further almost 40 per cent spent on upskilling workers to meet new challenges in the workplace.

Well, what do those things mean? This means that there are diverse plans for training people, something that we would want to see in any modern industry. Specifically, for instance, there is the Doorways2Constuction program, a VET program placed in schools to support pathways into the construction industry and SACE completion. There is an Aboriginal Workforce Development Initiative. There is the Women in Construction initiative, which is critical to supporting the less than 5 per cent of women who currently make up their proportion of the construction industry. There is the targeted apprenticeship initiative, an initiative which supports adult apprenticeships into the construction industry, and there is apprenticeship and traineeship support—or ongoing support programs—for those who make up 12 per cent of the overall workforce in construction, to the tune of just about $11 million.

Why do I mention all those things? Well, when we talk about modernising the operations of the board it seems to me that they already regard themselves as pretty modern. There is no clunky old, business as usual 1970s approach here. Instead, what we are seeing is modern training done on modern issues which industry recognises and is looking to address.

I also make mention of the operational capacities of the annual training plan of the board because there seems to be some confusion on the part of the government in relation to the operations of the board. To quote the member for Heysen in the other place, he made mention, when speaking on this bill, that the government's aims in proposing this bill are to:

…deliver on objectives that go to the core of everything we on this side are committed to. We are committed to ensuring that we bring together, engage and empower those who have the requisite knowledge, skills and experience… to make a contribution...

It may seem trite but, of course, I agree; I guess this goal is so broad that anyone would really. I imagine that if you asked the board they would agree too. This is where it starts to get a little confusing because I cannot tell what the position of the government is. Unlike the member for Heysen in the other place, we know that the minister did not think to ask all of the current board what they thought about the bill changes proposed in board composition. We have already heard the Hon. Ms Scriven talk about this. The minister did not think to talk to any of the employee representatives on the board. The minister did not think to talk to all of the employer associations who were representative on the board.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Not even all the employers?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Not even all the employers, the Hon. Ms Scriven. It is hard to see how this is an example of the kind of merit-based governance approach the member for Heysen says he and his government are allegedly championing, at least when he takes the plum out of his mouth.

Back in the early 1990s, we know that the original bill was subject to extensive consultation with industry. The review in 2004 was subject to not as exhausting but nonetheless comprehensive consultation with industry. How much consultation has been done by the minister this time? Well, the member for Hammond in the other place belled the cat on the minister by revealing that the minister spoke to the Property Council of Australia, the Master Builders Association and the Civil Contractors Federation in regard to the changes. So more than just ignoring the legitimate interests of unions who have thousands of members in this industry, this is hardly a wide net being cast in terms of the employers in the industry broadly.

In fact, more than just bad governance, frankly, it looks lazy and, more than just a lazy approach, I would argue it is a bizarre one: bizarre, as it is well known that at the same time as proposing to make changes to the board, the minister got up at the recent 25-year celebration of the CITB in October this year to congratulate the board on its successful operations and performance. The minister actually congratulated the very same people he wanted to kick in the guts and kick off the board. The fact is that the minister says one thing to the faces of those in industry and then another to the people in the other place when introducing this bill.

This would not be surprising at all; in fact, given the increasing view of many towards the minister in the other place, it is probably not worth mentioning but for the fact that he then wants personal control over who is appointed and how their allowances are approved. The minister says, 'Trust me when it comes to this bill.' However, by his own record here, and as the Hon. Ms Scriven has outlined in her speech, too, how can you trust him?

This lack of appropriate approach to good governance and consistency of message also takes on a new light when we look at the time frames that have been imposed on the debate for this bill. In this regard I look to the member for Lee in the other place and his comments on this bill. He makes a valid contribution in his argument on this point, which is as follows:

We were given a commitment by the Leader of Government Business, after the Supply Bill kerfuffle—when initially there was not the sufficient 10 days' notice given to the parliament to be able to debate that bill—that this set of circumstances would not happen again, yet it has happened again. This is not the first time it has happened again; it has happened again and again and again. Each time, we raise concerns and comments in this chamber, bringing this to the attention of the government. Here we have yet another minister treating us and the crossbench with contempt.

The minister and the government in the other place fast-tracked the debate to this place, choosing to ignore the concerns raised by the opposition and the crossbench in favour of taking it to a vote as soon as possible.

We have heard the Hon. Ms Franks echo these concerns. She stated that the crossbench here was also treated with contempt by the minister, as she echoed the concerns raised by the member for Lee in her preliminary comments on this bill. Let us not be glib about this. The contempt shown to the opposition in the other place and the crossbench here is a dangerous and ominous sign of contempt generally for consultation and due process. It is the kind of contempt for good process about which we know even the government's own backbench members, as I have said previously, are expressing concerns, and we see it again here now.

Moving on from the confusion of this government on the purpose of the board and lack of consultation on proposed changes, I now turn to the composition of the board. The composition of the board, based on the comments that have been made by the minister and those in the lower house who did rise to speak on this bill, seems to be of some great concern by this government. In particular, it is really hard to ignore the point that their greatest concerns seem to be where the interests of employee associations are concerned. Why do I say this? Specifically, the member for Hammond again belled the cat on this when he decided to do a bit of Tony Abbott-style casual union bashing, as some of the Liberal Party love to do, by committing the following as part of his debate on the bill:

The point that I am making is the comparison between that and this legislation is the fact that we are setting the record straight. This is especially so when you have unions that do not have any relevance to the construction industry.

There was little recognition in this very partisan statement of the thousands of workers in unions and construction who he dismissed. There was little recognition of the fact that it was industry that set up this board and the funds for this board, and that it is a fund for that industry and those workers who work in that industry, who legitimately join unions—those workers he dismissed. There was even little recognition of the safe working conditions and training provided by organisations like the CITB, which assist in promoting and maintaining those conditions. The member for Hammond was the ungrateful recipient of many of those conditions.

Fortunately, not everyone is as ungrateful as the member for Hammond. Many workers are happy to have their conditions and wages protected by unions and, to my mind, long may it be so. But this really has little to do with the CITB. What it does tell me is that the member for Hammond bothers to have note of it, as in this regard the member for Hammond really has revealed the true motivations of the government behind this bill; that is, they just do not want unions on it, they wish to be partisan in their own right.

More than that, they want the ability to change and remove those who do sit on it at the minister's discretion, so even within the employers they wish to reward only those employers who want to toe the line. So rather than crow on about anti-union sentiment myself—something which, I am sure, many on the other side might be a little bit over—I will choose to leave the partisan game to the side and just look at some facts.

In Tasmania, where the removal of employee associations occurred from its CITB, we can look at the results. Over the last 10 years in Tasmania, a state with not too dissimilar rules to what this bill proposes, we have seen the employees in training and construction drop by over 30 per cent. Yet we expect such a model to deliver 20,000 new apprenticeships in this state. The facts indicate that the model suggested by the current government cannot deliver them. If this is the kind of performance we can expect, and we want 20,000 more apprenticeships, then why would we change from a model that we now have in SA, as I have already mentioned in my debate, which is delivering vastly better outcomes?

It is worth my mentioning again in discussion on the composition of the board that it was never the intention, in creating the CITB, for the board to be part of government; in fact, the opposite was true—it was always intended to be independent from government. In this regard, again, the member for Hammond's comments in the other place bell the cat on the government's true intentions when he said:

Importantly, the reforms will ensure that industry is better placed to capitalise on government initiatives…We finally have a government that supports business and employers so that we can have those thousands of jobs.

No mention was made there of the importance of the CITB to train employees in safe workplaces or to provide ongoing training spread evenly across industry. In fact, there is no mention of good training practices at all.

What do I mean by that? Well, it is important to recognise that the fund, as it operates now, is spent evenly across many players in the industry who provide training. This is very important, because anyone who is in the industry will tell you that diversity of training is important in driving quality of service. In other words, the more providers you have the more experience you draw from them and the better results you get. This occurs now with the current CITB because the board members, all from different employee and employer associations, currently recognise the importance of many different trainers and providers.

The comments from the member for Hammond suggest there is an intention to reform this, to change it from a diversity of training providers to just a few. Maybe that is not too terrible but, again, I note there is a simple logic to the notion of reform and change, and that is really telling. The member for Hammond makes clear that the reforms will be made for only those providers who can capitalise on government initiatives. In other words, only those who will prioritise the government initiatives of the day will be rewarded.

Combined with the minister handpicking his own board, does anyone really believe it will continue to be the small trainers and providers who will be given this opportunity to, as the member for Hammond put it, 'capitalise'? No; it will be toe the government line or you get nothing, your training will be cut. That applies to employer organisations as much as to employee ones.

The CITB, under this bill, according to the comments of the member for Hammond and the government, runs the risk of becoming just a blunt instrument of facilitating government projects. The CITB, under the proposed changes, would be devolved from the efficient, independent and high-performing training organisation it currently is to a simple and basic clearing house for the government's proposed 20,000 apprenticeships. As I cited from the second reading speech in 1992 at the start of my comments, such a level of government control was never intended by the drafters of this bill. In fact, the opposite was true.

Further, the minister also proposes, in this bill, to uncap and set the amount that members of the board would be paid. Why do we need to propose changing the amount of remuneration or allowances of the board to be uncapped and at the discretion of the minister? If the minister is in charge of who gets appointed and what allowances they might get, and also wants them to prioritise government requirements, how can the independence of the CITB continue? How can industry continue to govern itself? The CITB was never intended to be another arm of government and, under the current bill, the CITB will lose its valuable independent industry status. That would be the worst outcome. Nobody wants to see that.

Moving from the purpose of the board to briefly address its operational structure, I also want to make some comment here. The current voting structure for the board's decisions is correct to allow balanced decisions requiring one government appointee and a simple majority of employee or employer representatives to carry a decision. I cite a shorter portion of the 1992 second reading speech again, which is valid when considering everything to do with the voting structure:

As the initiative has come from industry itself, it has been important that the industry partners were directly involved in drafting legislation, to ensure that the individual and broad concerns of industry are met.

The voting structure, therefore, was developed specifically and has lasted, it is worth noting, for 25 years under multiple Liberal and Labor administrations of state governments, so that none of the three parties—government, employers or employees—could influence a decision that was not in the best interests of industry.

As industry designed the voting structure, it is worth noting that it is not just the employee associations that have a veto, the employer associations have too. I will say that again: employers and employee groups both have the same rights here. Employers have a veto, and employees have a veto. And why should we not have this structure? This is consistent with the intent when the board was made that all associations have an equal say—and there has been an equal say, so equal that there is an excellent voting record where it seems that less than three veto votes have occurred in 25 years. It really cannot get much more stable than that.

This level of stability in the voting record, ensured by the manner in which the fund was created, is a prime example of what good governance is. It would be greatly envied by any board anywhere. The importance of this is further underlined when you consider, as mentioned previously, that a number of employer associations have training providers. The current board composition has a balance to ensure that all training providers have equal rights to access funds. Again, with these amounts of funds being distributed, good governance is required. Excellent governance is required. That is what was contemplated when the board was created and that is what is being exercised now as the board currently operates and has operated for 25 years.

We know that none of this is really actually up for debate. How do we know that? The facts of the matter are that the board operates well now and the efficiency of decisions of the board as it sits now is undisputed. I will say that again as it is pretty critical: it is undisputed. That is right, at no point did the members for Unley, Hammond or Heysen ever give any indication that the current board composition or any of its decisions are failing to carry out any legal obligations or requirements.

For 25 years, the board has made decisions and never once, on the prosecution of the government made in the other place, has the board failed to carry out its obligations in the act. That is a fact, and it is undisputed by the government. What we did get from the government when it spoke on the bill was a bit of misdirection. 'It will bring it in line with other states,' is what they said. The Hon. Ms Scriven has already spoken on this, but it is interesting because there are no CITBs in New South Wales or Victoria. The only one that the government cited was Tasmania as really comparable to exactly what we want, and we know that we do better than Tasmania in terms of apprenticeships and board stability now—something I have already addressed.

What we also got was a bit of straw man work. 'It's about having people appointed on merit,' they said. That is also interesting because there was no mention by the government of any board member actually lacking merit. There was no mention of any members of the board who have acted inappropriately or of decisions made which lacked merit. In 25 years of operations and decisions, it appears from the government's own commentary that not one of those board appointees was not meritworthy. Not one decision by them actually lacked merit. It is pretty astonishing.

Frankly, I think the current board, made up of a diverse cross-section of industry, deserves commendation and not condemnation, and certainly not the partisan attacks that we saw from the member for Hammond. What we know now is that the board members, as they currently stand, do not lack merit and the decisions of that board cannot really be criticised, and that is undisputed by the government. If you want to make changes, you probably actually want to make a case for making them.

The board's record stands in stark contrast to the very wet behind the ears minister who has rushed this bill, has ignored pleas for communication and proper briefings and has treated the current board composition with contempt and ignored due process. In terms of governance and merit, I do not think we need to reform the board, I think we need to reform the front bench of the current government, specifically to remove the minister for his performance on this bill. He clearly does not understand the industry he proclaims so loudly to have once been from, something I note from Hansard even his colleagues in the lower house are now mocking him on.

In summing-up, I encourage members not to reward the poor behaviour of the minister on this one and instead look to the facts of the performance of the current CIT Board and support them by voting down the government's proposals.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (12:18): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill and also to thank my colleagues for their detailed and thought-provoking contributions, particularly the Hon. Clare Scriven who, unlike the government, has taken the time to engage with the union members and also members of the parliament.

The bill, which the government is attempting to hastily put through parliament without explaining the urgency or the reason for the changes to the composition of the Construction Industry Training Board, only sat in the House of Assembly for four sitting days, and the member for Lee had to fight to give a contribution on the bill at the third reading. Such is the haste that the Liberal government is trying to push this bill through parliament that, when the bill was debated in the other place, the opposition had not had the chance to consider the bill.

The opposition was given insufficient time—time that was poorly considered for this bill—to consult with stakeholders. We also need to recognise the fact that the Minister for Industry and Skills might be breaking the law by using his powers for a captain's pick to appoint an unqualified Liberal supporter.

The minister is also said to have failed to consult before installing its chair. It again raises the question why the Liberal government is trying to rush the bill through parliament. What is the urgency for the bill? Why do the changes to the act even need to be made? The minister in the other place never really explained why this was the case, and in light of recent developments, perhaps the chamber has its answer. It seems the Marshall Liberal government has changed its tune on the importance of parliamentary process and consultation. South Australians saw that earlier in the week when four of the government's own members crossed the floor to vote with the opposition for the mineral resources bill due to the government not fulfilling its commitment to consult with regional communities. It is a concerning trend of a new and inexperienced government.

Let's consider, for a moment, the Minister for Industry and Skills' opinions of unions. The Minister for Industry and Skills' dislike for unions is so strong that he has made snide remarks about them in the other place when unions were not even the topic of debate. The minister even did so when the member for Reynell asked the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing a question about female participation in sport. These snide remarks are even more curious when you consider what the bill will do if it passes in its current form. It will change the composition requirements of the Construction Industry Training Board.

Currently, the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993 requires the board to consist of a presiding member; two people who have appropriate experience in vocational education or training and who are or have been employed or engaged in the provision of such education or training; five persons nominated by an employer association; and three persons nominated by an employee association and unions. Note the requirement for employee association and union representatives and employer association representatives. Also, I did not mention, under the current act, before the minister nominates a presiding member, they are required to consult with the employer and employee associations. This means there is a balance of representation, ensuring that both employee associations and employer associations have representation on the board.

The bill will change the composition requirements of the board to one presiding member, at least four, but a maximum of eight persons who have knowledge of and experience or expertise in the building and construction industry, and two persons who are, in the opinion of the minister, independent of the building and construction industry.

The minister has mentioned that the changes do not preclude unions having representation on the board. But what it does do is remove the requirement for a union representative and gives the minister the power to choose all members who are on the board—and we all know how much the minister likes unions, and that he is not alone in his dislike of unions. I doubt his colleagues will be pushing for him to select a union representative onto the board.

If he asks for the opinion of the Treasurer, who has also brought up unions countless times in a negative light, he is unlikely to suggest that a union representative be on the board. That is why the opposition will be moving an amendment to ensure that employee associations and employer associations have representatives on the board.

The bill will also change the board's voting procedure or take away the veto right, as the minister has referred to it. Currently, for a decision to pass the board, a majority of the board members present must have supported the decision that a majority must be made up by one of the persons who was nominated under the section 5(1)(b) appropriate experience category and the majority of the union or employee association members who are present and vote on that question and the majority of the employer association members who are present and vote on that question.

In the other place, the minister did not make an adequate case for why the changes should be made to the Construction Industry Training Board and the urgency for the changes. In relation to the proposed voting procedure changes, the minister vaguely referred to a couple of decisions made last September. Conveniently, the minister quoted from notes and the Speaker later ruled that these did not need to be tabled. In his explanation for introducing the bill, the minister mentioned a report from 2004. I cannot speak for other honourable members, but I know that in my own life a lot has changed in 14 years.

There are many questions surrounding the consultation process for this bill and how it was undertaken, such as: why was there no consultation process, who was consulted, and why did the minister feel the need to rush this bill through the House of Assembly and now through the Legislative Council? These are just some of the questions I am sure most honourable members in this house are keen to have an answer to.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:25): I rise to speak on the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill. The bill will change the manner in which the board is appointed. Currently, the board comprises an independent chair, four members who represent the interests of the employers in the building and construction industry, three members who represent the interests of the employees in the building and construction industry, and two members nominated by the minister with experience in vocational education and training.

Employer and employee representatives are nominated by industry groups and are appointed by the Governor. The bill will change this so that the board will comprise of the chair, two members independent of the building and construction industry, and between four and eight people who have experience or expertise in the building and construction industry. All these appointments will be made after expressions of interest and will be appointed by the minister. The minister will have absolute discretion as to who to appoint within these broad parameters.

I have had many conversations with the minister about this bill and I understand that the motivation behind moving this bill is to modernise the board. I understand the minister wants to appoint board members based on merit, rather than being constrained to the current requirements as set out by the act. In consulting with stakeholders on this bill, it is clear that there are no issues with how the fund is currently being administered, nor the training that is being provided.

One does have to ask the question that if it is not broken, then why fix it? Whilst there may not be concerns about the manner in which the fund is administered, I understand there are concerns from all stakeholders about the rules regarding the board and particularly the veto powers contained within the current act. I agree that these are problematic and need change. I also agree with the minister that board appointments should be on merit. However, I am concerned that there is potential for the board to be stacked and that it will no longer represent the entire building and construction industry.

I have filed amendments that will oblige the minister to try to ensure that there is at least one person on the board who is there representing the interests of employers and one person who will represent the interests of employees. The board is there to do what is best for the industry as a whole and I believe this cannot be done if not all voices from within the industry are heard. As a minimum, this should include at least one member each for employers and employees.

Some have indicated to me that the minister has given an undertaking that the board will be balanced and include a range of people from different backgrounds but all with experience or expertise within the building and construction industry. Whilst I cannot comment on this undertaking, as it was not made to me, if this assurance has been made by the minister, then the government should have no problem with supporting my amendment. After all, my amendment will merely see one voice on the board of at least seven that may be out of step with others due to their experience or expertise.

I want to make it clear that I have deliberately refrained from listing or naming any organisations from which these people are to come and instead have left it up to the discretion of the minister to ensure that all interested parties are represented. I understand that this amendment may not be exactly what the opposition seek, and that, should the amendment be successful, the government are unlikely to support it in the other place. However, I believe this is a good compromise position and hope that it will gain support during committee. I support the second reading of the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.