Bills

Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2019.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (15:50): I rise today to speak to the Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill 2018. The building and construction sector is an enormously important industry for the South Australian economy. According to Master Builders South Australia, the industry directly employs more than 65,000 South Australians as well as indirectly supporting tens of thousands more jobs. It undertakes about $15 billion of work every year and indirectly generates more than one-quarter of South Australia's wealth. It is therefore in South Australia's best interests that we do everything we can to ensure that the building and construction industry continues to thrive, including that we have a well-trained workforce that is able to meet the demands and challenges of this dynamic industry.

Any substantial change that affects this industry is something we should all pay very close attention to. This bill seeks to significantly alter the composition of the Construction Industry Training Board, which is the minister's principal advisory body on matters relating to training in the building and construction industry. The CITB was established under the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993 to administer the fund and coordinate appropriate training. According to the CITB's own Strategic Plan 2017-22, its vision is to 'promote excellence in training, career development and advice to support a safe and productive South Australian construction industry', utilising the pillars of 'communication, leadership, agility, innovation, collaboration and inclusivity.'

It appears that the CITB has indeed been working collaboratively and inclusively in its current form. This is reflected in the feedback the opposition has received from employer as well as employee bodies expressing high levels of satisfaction regarding the board's work, precisely because it is democratically representative and includes all major stakeholder groups.

Currently, the board has 11 members: a presiding member, a person nominated by the minister after consultation with the employer and employee associations stated in the schedules; two people with experience in vocational education or training; five people nominated by employer associations; and three people nominated by employee associations. By all accounts, this composition has been working well and has not had widespread criticism from any sector. The proposed composition of the board under this bill is for between seven and 11 members, all of whom would be nominated by the minister with no guaranteed employee voice.

It is important to note that the now Treasurer originally supported this bill in 1993 and it included union representation. Employer, employee and training provider representation on the board has been essential in achieving the board's vision and mission, including the specific aims of:

Supporting our industry workforce to adapt to change and develop their careers through information, incentives and advice.

To provide trusted information and advice gained by using our data, research and networks to support our industry and government decision-making.

The effectiveness, independence and integrity of the board would be significantly compromised if we remove one of the main stakeholders. This may align with the government's political ideology but it certainly would not ensure that training within the construction industry is effective and appropriate. After all, the aim of the CITB is to ensure appropriate training for workers. Would it not make sense to ensure that employee associations are included in the decision-making?

The last thing the construction industry and its workers want is for the board's work to be questioned and clouded by controversy, as has occurred following the recent appointment of Mr Nicholas Handley from Handley Accounting Services to the board. I want to be clear: I do not wish to personally attack Mr Handley, but there does appear to be some discrepancy between his experience and qualifications and the stipulation in the act that a person appointed to the board must 'have appropriate experience in vocational education or training, and are or have been employed or engaged in the provision of such education or training.'

In addition, Nicholas Handley is also the chair of the Liberal Party's fundraising arm, Future South Australia Unley Forum, where he is responsible for signing up members for the $5,000 annual membership of the forum. And just a few weeks after his appointment to the CITB, Mr Handley hosted a fundraiser for the Liberal Party.

Now, I repeat: I do not wish to personally attack Mr Handley's credentials, but can it really be in the interests of the CITB and the construction industry to have such controversy lingering behind these appointments? I understand the Ombudsman is currently reviewing some freedom of information requests regarding Mr Handley's appointment, and it would be appropriate for those who value transparency and accountability to defer further consideration of this legislation until after the Ombudsman's decision is handed down.

Deferral for a short time will clarify whether the minister's actions have been in good faith and therefore provide a valuable insight into the motivations in moving this bill. Such controversy, however, can be avoided by ensuring that appointments to the board are transparent and the board remains representative of all those involved in the industry. It is important to note, however, that while the opposition does not accept that there is a problem with the current board structure, we are open to amendments that will further streamline the operations of the board and will genuinely bring about positive reform. We will do this because we are committed to ensuring positive reforms for an industry that plays such an important part in our state's economy.

I therefore hope that members will support an adjournment of this debate when it is called for shortly. If members of this place truly value transparency and accountability, there can surely be no problem with deferring this for a few weeks to ensure that we have all the relevant information to hand before voting on the bill. Failure to support such a move would understandably be construed as a clear sign that those members do not value adherence to legislation, do not think that it is important for ministers to uphold the law and do not think this chamber should scrutinise appointments made in apparent contravention of the law. That will be the choice before members when they vote on whether to adjourn this legislation for a few weeks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (15:58): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

The PRESIDENT: I now call on the minister to sum up the debate. Minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:03): I will do so ever so briefly, just to indicate why the government did not support the adjournment. This bill would see, under the schedule, all current appointees lose their position with the proclamation of the bill, so Mr Handley's CV is not relevant to the bill before us. Of course the opposition is entitled to seek reviews from the Ombudsman, and of course the opposition has the right to pursue those issues in parliament separate from the bill. There is no need for this bill to be held up.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I rise as the lead speaker on this bill. I would just like to place on the record a number of comments before going into some specific questions for the minister. First of all, the minister just referred to the unsuccessful attempt to adjourn this bill because we do not have an answer back from the Ombudsman in regard to the release of the CV of an appointee to the board. The minister claims that that is not relevant to this bill. That would be the case if transparency was not relevant to this bill. That would be the case if accountability was not relevant to this bill. However, those are the claims of the minister in the other place as to why this bill has been introduced.

The reality is that we all know that this bill is not about accountability, it is not about transparency and it is not about improving the operations of the Construction Industry Training Board. This bill is about giving a big kick to unions. Why? Because the minister has an ideological problem with unions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order: to clarify, is the member attacking me or a member in another place?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, please clarify whether it is the minister in this chamber or—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was referring specifically to the comments of the minister in the other place. However, if the minister in this place similarly likes to attack unions, then I am sure he is happy to accept that as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order: I suggest to the Chairman that the approach that Ms Scriven is taking is reflecting on a previous decision of this council not to adjourn debate. The Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, on behalf of the opposition, made it clear why they were seeking the adjournment. Her line of questioning specifically reflects on an adjournment motion which was lost.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, please be cautious. You cannot reflect on the vote of the council but you can obviously reflect on your disagreement with the minister in the other place, and that minister can be referred to—are you referring to the member for Unley?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That would be safer.

The CHAIR: Yes, that would be safer.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the guidance, Mr Chairman, but for the benefit of the minister in this place, I had moved on to this bill rather than the adjournment debate. As I was saying, the member for Unley is on the record as having great disdain for unions, no matter that this board, the Construction Industry Training Board, has operated very well for 25 years. It has operated well because there is a requirement to have involved members of employee associations—unions—members of employer associations and people with experience and expertise in vocational education and training.

It should not surprise members that experience and expertise in vocational education and training might be quite useful for the Construction Industry Training Board—note: training. The fact that the appointment of Mr Handley to a position, which required—required—expertise and experience in vocational education and training, when there is no evidence that he has such experience, is relevant. Why is that relevant? Because we have a minister claiming that his intent is to improve the matter of the board.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chair, I understood that clause 1 was for the context of comments and questions, not a re-reading of your second reading speech.

The CHAIR: In committee, minister, it is free-ranging debate. Members can make statements and comments, and we have had the practice in the past of members reflecting on their dissatisfaction with the bill, including, I have to say, myself in another capacity. The Hon. Ms Scriven, you are free to speak your mind and then, if you have a question, to direct it towards the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I trust that this minister will be able to answer the many questions I have. The member for Unley in his second reading explanation, and I think the minister in this place also, said:

The intention is to enable board members to be appointed based on their merit and experience in the sector.

Yet, Mr Handley was appointed with no apparent experience of vocational education, no expertise in the sector. The fact that his CV would not be released under freedom of information surely suggests that there is something to hide.

The Hon. T.T. Ngo: Who is he?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This bill, of course, is on the priority list for this week. Why? The Hon. Mr Ngo happened to ask, 'Who is Mr Handley?' He is an accountant. Mr Pangallo, in his contribution, made reference to the fact that accountancy skills might be useful to the board. I do not necessarily disagree with that. What I disagree with is that someone without the required experience, required in the act, required in the current act, part of the law, is appointed without that experience. That is the problem.

Why? Because one, it is against the law, it would appear, and two, it indicates what the real motivation of the member for Unley is in moving this legislation. It is not about merit. It is about him being able to handpick whoever he wants to put on the board for whatever reasons. Some of my questions around this bill will certainly get to the heart of what some of those things might be.

Why did we need to keep going with this bill despite the big question marks hanging over it? Board appointments that were expiring this month have been renewed for a further six months, and it is worth noting that the minister, in his arrogance, appointed a number of members for only six months until February this year because he clearly imagined that this chamber would simply rubberstamp his changes to the board.

He arrogantly appointed people only for six months and then had to, embarrassingly, go back and reappoint members for a further six-month period. However, given that we now have that further six months, why the rush? I can think of only two reasons: either this government has such a light legislative agenda that it did not want to show that it had nothing else to progress—

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: That would be true.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Hon. Ms Bourke suggests that might be true. The other explanation is that the minister wants this legislation passed before there can be further scrutiny of his appointment of Mr Handley to the board. Surely he fears that scrutiny. If he did not, there would have been no problem with deferring this bill for another couple of weeks. After all, we have six months before the current board membership will expire.

There are concerns about probity. There are concerns about jobs for the boys. There are concerns about good faith in appointing people supposedly based on merit. What we have seen is the exact opposite of what this bill purports to be about. I now move to a number of questions, which I trust the minister here will be able to answer. If he is unable to answer them, I think it would be quite problematic to proceed with the bill. Can I go into questions now, Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: You are free to do as you please; you have the call.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the minister advise how many times in the past 18 years there has been a decision of the CITB that was not consensus? That is, how many times have the so-called veto provisions been used?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised the veto power has been used, but I do not have information as to the number of times.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister able to find out that information? Given that the so-called veto power is one of the items being removed in the current bill before this chamber, it is surely relevant to know whether it has been used very many times in the past 18 years.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition has raised this before. As I said, it has been used, but I am not able to tell you the number of times it has been used.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Why not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Because I do not have that information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Why not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Because I do not have that information.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the other place, the minister noted that there was a particular motion that he raised with regard to the veto power and that was with regard to a recent veto power used on a motion that had the majority vote of the board but union members of the board used section 5(1)(d) to veto that process. Where did the minister get that information and has that motion now, in fact, been actioned rather than vetoed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the minister was given information in confidence by the board and so I am not in a position to provide it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If the minister was given the information in confidence, why did he bring it to the parliament?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is a matter for the minister in the other place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government so far has refused to reveal Mr Handley's full CV. Could the government simply identify exactly what component of his CV is relevant to his appointment under the act?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My key point in response to this question is that I cannot see relevance. Mr Handley is a current member of the current board. If the bill is to pass—and that is the question before us—he will no longer be a member. His future appointment is completely in the hands of the relevant minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think, perhaps, the minister was not listening when I said it comes to the point of accountability and transparency, which is the purported reason for the bill. That is why it is relevant. However, minister, you have confirmed via the member for Unley's statement in the other place that you are aware of only one time that the veto provision has been used. You say you do not have any other information as to how many times it has been used. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The advice I gave was that I understand the veto power has been used. I am not able to provide information as to the number of times it has been used. I did not say it has been used once and once only.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was not actually suggesting that he said it has been used once and once only, I was saying that is how many times he has confirmed it has been used. In 18 years, the minister in this place is only aware of one time the veto power has been used. I would like to put on record that the argument that this veto power is somehow preventing the board from moving forward really does not hold water if it has been used either only once or possibly twice, as I think the member for Unley may have alluded to in the other place, in 18 years. It has been used twice in 18 years and this is supposedly stopping the board from moving on with its work and stopping the development of the construction industry training sector. Members must surely realise that is an absolutely ludicrous proposal.

The so-called veto power is the opportunity for all sectors to decide collectively what is good for industry training in South Australia, and I remind members what that so-called veto power is: it is the majority of the union representatives on the board, the majority of the employer representatives on the board, as well as at least one of the two appointees who are supposed to have vocational education and training experience. That is about collectively ensuring that any decisions made by the board are in the interests of the industry as a whole. The opposite of that is being put forward, and that is one of the objections the opposition has to this bill. Can the minister advise who has raised concerns about the composition of the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that a range of stakeholders have raised concerns, particularly industry stakeholders.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the minister table a list of who those concerned persons or groups are?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that minister Pisoni formally consulted with three organisations: the Property Council of Australia, the Civil Contractors Federation SA Branch and the Master Builders Association of South Australia. I am also advised that he wrote to all prescribed organisations, both industry and employee.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Which of those organisations—the Property Council, the Civil Contractors Federation or the Master Builders Association—raised issues about the composition of the board? Are there any other organisations or individuals that have raised concerns about the composition of the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the Property Council of Australia, the Civil Contractors Federation and the Master Builders Association have all indicated their strong support for the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the minister for his answer, but my question was who had raised concerns about the composition of the board. That is not necessarily the same as who may now support this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have the detail of the minister's consultation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister able to obtain that detail and report it back to the chamber?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not inclined to take that on notice because this opposition is clearly wanting to delay the bill endlessly. These issues have been thoroughly canvassed in the other place and in this place. The council needs to make decisions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister aware that the debate in the other place was actually guillotined?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is my understanding that the bill progressed through the House of Assembly expeditiously.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is 'expeditiously' now the Marshall government's new word for 'guillotined'?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member should not reflect on the proceedings of the other place. All I can say is that, considering this bill was tabled in this place on 8 November, it is about time we got on and dealt with it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw to the minister's attention that he is the one who raised the point, in response to repeated questions unanswered, that the matter had been fully debated in the other place, which is clearly misleading this council. Would the minister like to reflect on his belief and statement to this council that the matter was fully debated in the other place?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am talking about the issues in the bill. The issues in relation to this bill have been fully canvassed. It is a matter of public record that there is a diversity of views amongst the stakeholders. It is the responsibility of this council to make a decision on the merits of the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the minister explain, if all the matters for this bill have been fully canvassed, why he cannot answer almost any of the questions that I have asked so far?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I continue to provide the information that is available to me.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the minister explain why the Master Plumbers Association was not part of the consultation that he just outlined?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the Master Plumbers Association of South Australia was written to in relation to the legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the clarification since they were not mentioned in the previous answer the minister gave. Can the minister advise what approaches—and from whom—were received by the government about the Construction Industry Training Board prior to the election?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It would amaze me if the relevant shadow minister at the time did not receive representations from stakeholders, considering that this bill is now greeted with strong support by a number of industry stakeholders. In terms of the detail of who, I do not have that detail.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Which members of the CITB specifically were consulted by the minister before the introduction of this bill in the other place?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the public consultation processes were primarily through the prescribed organisations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My query was about who was consulted before the introduction, which I understand would be before public consultation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the minister met with representatives from the Property Council of South Australia, the Civil Contractors Federation (SA Branch) and the Master Builders Association of South Australia to discuss the draft amendment bill. The representatives indicated their support of the bill. He also wrote to all the prescribed employer and employee organisations and the CEO and presiding member of the Construction Industry Training Board to inform them that the bill had been tabled in parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Why did the minister meet with three of the employer groups and not the Master Plumbers Association to discuss the draft bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the minister had discussions with the Master Plumbers Association about the reforms, both before and after the bill was tabled.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So the minister is saying that the member for Unley met with the Master Plumbers Association before introduction of the bill; is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What I said was that the minister had discussions with the Master Plumbers Association about the reforms before the introduction.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the minister advise in what form or forum those discussions took place?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the minister has met with the Master Plumbers Association many times since becoming a minister, and these reforms have been discussed with them. As I have said, they were one of the groups that was written to to be advised that the bill had been tabled.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So just to clarify that I understand correctly what the minister is saying: the member for Unley met with the Property Council, the Civil Contractors Federation and the Master Builders Association specifically to discuss a draft bill before it was introduced, but he did not meet with the Master Plumbers Association specifically to discuss the draft bill before it was introduced; is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For the sake of clarity, I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Will the minister support a report of progress until we have an answer to that question?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I suggest it would perhaps be wiser for the honourable member to continue placing her questions on the record: those that I can answer I can answer and those that I need to take on notice I will take on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I trust then that if there are some to be taken on notice where the minister cannot provide answers that we will be able to have the benefit of those answers before we proceed further with the bill. Did the minister meet with the two representatives from Vocational Education and Training before the introduction of the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the member clarify which members she is referring to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: There are two members who are appointed to the board under the legislation who must have expertise and experience in the delivery of vocational education and training—they are the two members. We know Mr Handley did not have such experience; however, for the sake of the question I am including him in that category as that is where he was appointed, however inappropriately and improperly, and the second is someone who has experience in TAFE.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Is the honourable member talking about the current membership, the current board members who fulfil that role? Is the honourable member referring to the member and the deputy member?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The question regards discussions before the bill was introduced, so I am referring to those members who held those positions prior to the introduction of the bill and not referring to their deputy members at this stage.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There are a number of questions here which are difficult to answer without further consulting the minister. I would suggest that the honourable member might like to pose the questions and then we might take them on notice to consult the minister. I think it would be expeditious to have all the questions on the table so that we can seek advice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Did the minister meet with the Housing Industry Association prior to the introduction of this bill to discuss the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Did the minister meet with any of the employee representatives on the board to discuss this bill prior to introducing the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do not have a question exactly but I would like to raise a matter in response to what the minister has just advised the government's approach will be. If there are to be answers brought back to this council, could they be provided in writing to members before we resume the debate?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will seek the advice of the minister but certainly that would be my expectation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So to clarify, your expectation would be that we would have those answers before proceeding with the debate?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, that is my expectation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will go back to the question I asked as to whether the minister met with the Housing Industry Association prior to the introduction of the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would suggest that the honourable member might want to put all of the questions on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Previously in response to my questions through my briefing in November last year, the minister's office advised that the Property Council, the Master Builders Association and the Civil Contractors Federation all met on, I believe, 10 September, to provide feedback and advice on the drafting of this bill. My question is: was that meeting together or separate, who else was invited to that meeting, and were any unable to attend?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It will not surprise the council that I need to take that on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the minister advise whether the member for Unley met with any representatives of the three employee associations to discuss this bill prior to its introduction in the same way that he met with members of the Property Council, the Civil Contractors Federation and the Master Builders Association?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that so far we only know that there were three organisations met with to discuss this bill prior to its introduction—so prior to its final drafting—and there are 11 members of the board, can the minister explain why the Master Builders Association, the Civil Contractors Federation and the Property Council were considered worthy of involvement early in the development of the bill and yet the other members of the board were not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will be very interested in that answer because it certainly comes back to the core of what the intent of the bill is. As far as we can see, the minister met with three organisations, all of whom may potentially benefit from the bill—benefit in a financial way, which we will certainly come to later on when we discuss further clauses—before the bill was publicly tabled and before the bill was finally developed, so these are very pertinent questions that go to the integrity of the bill, the integrity of the member for Unley and the integrity of the government in introducing the bill. For the record, what percentage of employers are satisfied with Construction Industry Training Board-funded courses?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that a recent CITB survey identified 90 per cent of employers were satisfied with CITB courses.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And what percentage of construction workers were satisfied with CITB-funded courses?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That information is in the hands of CITB, and I will seek that information. Considering it is in the hands of CITB, it may or may not be possible to have it in time for the resumption of debate.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the minister check whether that information is contained in the CITB annual report?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to check the annual report.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just by way of clarification, and I may have missed this: in relation to those groups that meetings were confirmed for—I think there were three bodies listed—can we also confirm for the record whether at the same time, or about the same time, the National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA), the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors' Association (AMCA), the Master Plumbers Association and the Australian Subcontractors Association also attended meetings with the minister?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Adding to that question, were there any other people present at that meeting who have not so far been mentioned?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think we might be conflating here. I do not think the Hon. Connie Bonaros was asking me whether all of those people were in the same room at the same time. So—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that they were all in the same room at the same time but that there may also have been meetings with those organisations in a similar respect to the organisations that have been mentioned before.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And as I said to the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have there been any meetings with any other individuals or bodies prior to the introduction of this bill to discuss this bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did ask the minister, for the record, what percentage of employers and construction workers were satisfied with CITB courses. I have to hand details that 91 per cent of construction workers were satisfied with CITB-funded courses. So, for the record, I am just placing that information there. The minister has said that 90 per cent of employers—and we see from the annual report 91 per cent of construction workers—are satisfied with CITB-funded courses. Could the minister outline what sort of improvements he and his government are looking to see, given that over 90 per cent satisfaction ratings are pretty high by anybody's standards?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The fact of the matter is that boards continue to maintain and improve the quality of courses to make sure they stay relevant to the people they serve. We need to have a vibrant board to do the best by the industry. The government believes that this bill will continue to enhance the good work already being done by the CITB.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the minister outline in what way he expects this new board will perform better than the existing board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On a point of corporate governance in and of itself, it is not good corporate governance practice to have members who are, if you like, designated as subgroups within a board. I have never been part of a board that was structured in that way. It is the government's view that not only does this bill reflect best practice around Australia but also we believe that the operation of the board would be enhanced by being refreshed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note the minister's academic, if you like, response in regard to corporate governance. What I am looking for is specifically what improvements the government is looking for from the board that it thinks will be achieved through this changed structure.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The whole point of having board governance is that the government is entrusting the responsibility to the board members collectively to make decisions according to their objects. It is not going to be for me or the government to dictate to the CITB every decision it makes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed, I am not seeking for the government to dictate any decisions. I am asking what outcomes—what outcomes—the government is seeking from the CIT Board that are not currently being achieved and how this change in board composition will supposedly assist?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In broad terms, the government wants a broader industry representation so that the board will be more responsive to the services it provides.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To clarify, the minister has just said it wants broader industry representation, but in his previous answer I understood that he said corporate governance is not well served by having representation of different sectors. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was referring to subgroups. What I was suggesting is that, for every board that I have been part of, it has been an important principle that all members come to the table as board members to make collective decisions to fulfil their duties as directors. To have some subgroups each holding a veto is not conducive to good corporate governance.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I come back again to: what are the outcomes that the government is seeking from this changed board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government looks forward to the CIT Board continuing to develop services within its objects. The fact that satisfaction with the board courses is high, is to be welcomed, but we cannot be lazy in making sure that we put in place the best arrangements possible to make sure the CITB responds to the needs of the industry.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the minister be specific about what improved outcomes are being sought by the government?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know how many times the honourable member wants to ask the question. I am not even sure if she has changed the structure or wording of it. I have answered that question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to put on the record that I have needed to ask the question a number of times because there has not been an answer. To say we want broadly better representation, we want to do wonderful things, the minister himself talked about the continuation of what obviously is good work. We have over 90 per cent satisfaction from employers, we have over 90 per cent satisfaction from construction workers. It is not unreasonable to ask what is intended from the new board if this legislation passes. What outcomes are expected that are currently not being met and, therefore, what is the reason for this bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have nothing more to add.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Well, I think that is very representative, very illustrative: there is nothing more to add. So there are no new outcomes that are being sought from this bill, there are no better outcomes than what we have currently. So, clearly, the evidence stands that this bill is solely to kick unions—an ideological crusade—and not to actually improve any better outcomes for the construction industry and for training. Does the minister concur?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If the minister does not concur, can he outline what the improved outcomes are that are being sought by the government?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I put it to you, Chair, that this is just repetitive questioning, which is wasting the time of the chamber.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is alright; we have the answers that are obvious, and the minister has nothing to respond. Under the current composition of the board, South Australia has had less than a third of the decrease in apprenticeship numbers compared with other states. Why, then, is a model that is apparently based on other states being proposed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know on what basis the honourable member asserts that that outcome is associated with the composition of the boards in any jurisdiction.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The basis of my question are comments from the member for Unley about the purported reason for this bill, which is to improve apprenticeships and traineeships.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: And the scope for Pisoni to appoint his mates.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, would you like to ask a question in committee?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am waiting for an answer; just one answer.

The CHAIR: Well, stand up and ask for the call. You will get the call and you can ask the minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I think the Hon. Ms Scriven—

The CHAIR: This is not a conversation; this is a committee of the whole.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not aware of any statements by the minister linking those two elements. If the honourable member wants to bring them to my attention, I can seek further comment from the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer to comments from the member for Unley in the other place, so I will take it that the minister is going to take that on notice. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will seek a response from the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The minister in the other place cited the need for improved apprenticeship and traineeship focus as a reason for changing the structure of the board. The CITB spent $11.13 million on apprenticeship and traineeship support last year. How is that expected to change as a result of this legislative change?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government has strong commitments to extra apprenticeships and traineeships over the next four years, so the refreshment of the board will ensure that the board has the appropriate skill mix to enable it to respond to changing industry demands and address skill shortages that many sectors of industry are suffering.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister saying that the amount spent for apprenticeship and traineeship support will increase following this legislative change?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: There are significant funds in the board that are unspent, but the decisions in relation to expenditure are matters for the board.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the minister consider that apprenticeship and traineeship support is sufficient at present, or too great or not great enough?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the honourable member is asking me that question, I am the minister representing a minister in another place. My opinion does not matter.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I can ask the same question of the government. I can state it again if necessary.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to take the question on notice and seek a response from the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. On a similar note, the CITB supported 5,057 apprentices last year, which was 357 more than the previous year. What are the targets going forward for each of the next four years in terms of CITB support for apprentices, and how will they be helped by this legislative change?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that targets are a matter for the board.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Assuming that part of the board's purview is to increase the number of apprentices and apprentices' support, how will that be helped by this legislative change?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The board will have an appropriate skills mix to enable it to respond to changing industry demands and address skills shortages that many sectors of industry are suffering.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What specific skills are currently lacking on the board that the government considers are necessary?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The public expression of interest process we are undertaking is to appoint a minimum of four and a maximum of eight building and construction representatives, but we will be looking for a skills mix that includes commercial and management skills, legal and government skills, and industry expertise.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Which of those skills are currently lacking in the current board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This legislation is the most prescriptive of any Australian jurisdiction in terms of the appointments to the board. Having a less prescriptive process will make it easier to get an optimal balance of skills amongst all board members.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So which of those skills are currently lacking in the current board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With a less prescriptive appointment process, the minister will be able to draw in members with both industry expertise and also a range of skills. If you have a prescriptive process, such as in the current bill, the capacity to mix and match, to blend both the range of expertise and the range of skills, is inhibited. That is why, I expect, other jurisdictions have modernised their legislation, and that is why this government is determined to do that here as well.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note that the minister has not been able to identify any skills whatsoever that are currently lacking from the current board. I also draw the minister's attention, for example, to Tasmania. Apparently, we are the most prescriptive, we are told, and yet Tasmania says:

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;

(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.

(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;

(b) a balance of genders;

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

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

(ii) vocational education and training;

(iii) policy development and strategic planning.

Is it true, therefore, that that jurisdiction, for example, is more prescriptive than ours and therefore the basis that is being used is erroneous?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The South Australian jurisdiction is the most restrictive because the minister is obligated to make appointments, whereas in the Tasmanian legislation there still remains a broad ministerial discretion.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I find that quite humorous, the minister saying that we are more prescriptive yet all those factors within the Tasmanian jurisdiction are part of its structure. Can the minister advise whether there are any plans to extend the CITB levy to include other areas such as defence or mining, or indeed any other areas?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The industries referred to, mining and defence and—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: And any other areas.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the CITB will be expected to respond to the needs of those sectors like other sectors, and they are strategic sectors for our state.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have there been any discussions about including defence or mining or any of those other areas in the levy catchment?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised there have been no discussions about expanding the levy catchment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Are there any plans to include non-accredited training as training to be covered through CITB-funded courses?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Whether non-accredited training is covered is a decision of the board.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the government have a view on whether non-accredited training should form part of the services offered by a CITB-funded course?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Obviously, the answer to the question would depend on the particular case, but the government supports non-accredited training and recognises the value of non-accredited training.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has the government done any modelling on results achieved by, for example, industry super boards that have representational boards compared with retail funds for the purpose of seeing whether it is actually true that non-representative boards necessarily perform better?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the government has not done such modelling.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is there a reason why vocational education and training experience is not considered necessary for appointment to the board under the proposed bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Those skills would be a relevant consideration for the minister in making appointments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is there a reason they are not considered required?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is the government's intention not to be prescriptive; therefore, we are not going to prescribe.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister therefore able to reflect on whether the composition of the board, if it did not include vocational education and training, could adequately advise on training funds?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister to whom this act is committed would balance all of the skills and experience that potential board members have and appoint the most suitable team to take stewardship of the CITB.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not have any further questions at clause 1, but I note that the minister undertook to come back with answers to the chamber before we progress further.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, are you indicating that you are going to seek to report progress now?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If no other members have contributions at clause 1, that would be my intention.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If it pleases the council, I suggest that we report progress and adjourn on motion.

The CHAIR: Unless any other member has a contribution at clause 1, I will ask the minister to move that motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.