Construction Industry Training Fund (Board) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 February 2019.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I advise you as Chair that since the committee last met on this bill, answers to questions put by members have been provided. I hope members found those helpful.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can I clarify whether those answers have now been entered into Hansard?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to read them onto Hansard. In relation to the veto, the government was asked: how many times in the past 18 years have the veto provisions been used? I am advised that since 2002, the veto voting provision has been used on at least 12 occasions. The 2004 review of the act makes the recommendation that the veto voting provision should be removed to ensure decisions reflect a majority of the board as a whole. Ironically, in 2005, the board used the veto voting provision to vote against the motion on recommendation 20 of the review to repeal the veto provision.

The opposition claimed 'we in the Labor Party managed to go 16 years without disrupting the CITB from its stated purpose'. A previous minister for employment and skills (Tom Kenyon) tried to reform funding priorities back in 2012 by amending the annual training plan. Removal of the veto voting is an important step towards modernising the board's processes.

Question 2: where did the Minister for Industry and Skills get the information that the veto voting provisions had been used recently by union members?

The minister was provided this information voluntarily after making a request to the chief executive officer of the CITB. I believe the presiding member approved the disclosure of this information. It is important to note that one of the amendments filed by the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC aims to address the requests from the minister to the board for information pertaining to board operations. Blocking the minister from reviewing the agenda and minutes of the board is unusual and not good governance. It also infers that the board may not be working as it should be; that is, in partnership with the government of the day to deliver optimal training outcomes. The objective of the CITB is to provide:

…a genuine strategic partnership between the Board and the Government whereby the Board’s investment in training is integrated with the Government profile-funded training for the industry and whereby the two work together to improve the targeting of mechanisms to encourage and promote industry investment in training.

The 2004 review was undertaken to make recommendations to promote this.

Question 3: who has raised concerns about the composition of the board?

The Minister for Industry and Skills in the other place previously held the position of shadow minister for training (since 2008). Issues have been raised about the board through the many consultations/discussions with industry stakeholders after over the decade.

Question 4: what approaches and from whom did the government receive about the CIT before the election?

I am advised that issues have been raised about the board through the many consultations/discussions with industry stakeholders over the last decade.

Question 5: which members of the CITB were consulted by the Minister for Industry and Skills before the introduction of the bill to the House of Assembly?

Consultation was undertaken with industry, including the Property Council of Australia (SA), Civil Contractors Federation SA, Master Builders Association of South Australia, Master Plumbers Association of South Australia, Training and Skills Commission, CEO and presiding member of the Construction Industry Training Board, Australian Subcontractors Association and Housing Industry Association of SA. I have been advised that all have indicated their strong support of the bill.

The Minister for Industry and Skills wrote to over 30 industry stakeholders to inform them of the amendments proposed under the bill. This was an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback. I have been advised that no feedback or request for meeting to discuss the reforms were received from the employee associations (unions). Stakeholders included both employer and employee associations prescribed in the current act, including the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU), the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). On 21 September, the Minister for Industry and Skills held a meeting with employee representatives (unions) to discuss a range of training matters. The CITB was not raised by the unions.

Question 6: what was the precise involvement of the Master Plumbers Association in the consultation process?

The minister has met with the Master Plumbers Association many times over the years. Discussions included training reforms and the Construction Industry Training Board.

Question 7: did the minister meet with the Housing Industry Association prior to the introduction of the bill to discuss the bill?

The minister has met with the Housing Industry Association many times over the years. Discussions included training reforms and the Construction Industry Training Board.

Question 8: the Property Council and the Master Builders Association and the Civil Contractors Federation met on 10 September to provide feedback and advise on the drafting of the bill. Did they meet together or separately, and were any unable to attend?

Discussions were held with each individually.

Question 9: did the Minister for Industry and Skills meet in the same way with any of the three employee associations to discuss the bill prior to its introduction?

The Minister for Industry and Skills wrote to over 30 industry stakeholders to inform them of the amendments proposed under the bill. This was an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback. I have been advised that no feedback or request for a meeting to discuss the reforms were received from the employee associations (unions).

Stakeholders included both employer and employee associations prescribed in the current act, including the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union (CEPU), the Australian Workers Union (AWU), and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). On 21 September, the Minister for Industry and Skills had a meeting with a number of employee representatives (unions) to discuss training matters. The CITB was not raised by the unions.

Why were only three associations (see question 9) considered worthy of involvement in the development of the bill?

Consultation was undertaken with industry. I have been advised that the minister also discussed the CITB personally with industry groups, including the Property Council of Australia SA, the Civil Contractors Federation (SA Branch), Master Builders Association of South Australia, Master Plumbers Association of South Australia, Training and Skills Commission, CEO and presiding member of the Construction Industry Training Board, National Electrical and Communications Association, the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors' Association, Australian Subcontractors Association and the Housing Industry Association of South Australia.

The Minister for Industry and Skills wrote to over 30 industry stakeholders to inform them of the amendments proposed under the bill, including employee groups. This was an opportunity for feedback. I have been advised that no feedback or request for a meeting to discuss the reforms were received from the employee associations (unions).

Did the National Electrical and Communications Association, the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors' Association, the Master Plumbers Association and the Australian Subcontractors Association attend meetings with the minister regarding the bill?

I have been advised that the minister met or personally discussed the bill with the National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA), the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors' Association (AMCA), the Master Builders Association (MBA) and the Australian Subcontractors Association.

Were there any meetings with any individuals or bodies prior to the introduction of the bill?

The minister met with individuals, industry, community groups and organisations on an ongoing basis, and has done so since being elected to state parliament.

Question 10: what component of Mr Handley's CV is relevant to his appointment?

Mr Handley has the relevant experience. Crown advice was sought prior to recommending his appointment to the Governor. Mr Handley has been engaged by a registered training organisation to assist them with auditing and compliance activity (including ASQA auditing and compliance activities), and as such has been engaged in vocational education or training. He brings valuable financial and auditing skills that are of great benefit to the operation of the board. I have been advised that Mr Handley was elected unanimously as chair of the CITB's finance and audit committee.

Question 11: under the current composition of the board, South Australia has had a less than a third of the decrease in apprentice numbers compared with other states. Why is a model that is based on other states being proposed?

South Australia has the most prescriptive legislation in the nation. The intent of the CITB is to align state training priorities. The importance of a strong partnership between the board and the government for the effectiveness of the investment in training is critical. Removing sectorial interests will better promote the needs of the industry overall. Skilling South Australia is a key initiative of the South Australian government. A renewed CITB will work better to align training funding, to complement the work of the government to ensure more South Australians have access to skills training and life-long careers.

Renewing the CITB is not unique, and has been undertaken in line with the state government's reforms to rejuvenate training in South Australia. The Training and Skills Commission has also been revitalised as part of broader reforms to rebuild South Australia's training system to ensure more South Australians have an opportunity to participate in a skilled future workforce.

As per the 2004 independent review of the act, 'The review agrees that it is desirable to have a category of board membership which directly links the board to the government's agenda for workforce skill development.'

Question 12: does the government consider the apprenticeship and training support is sufficient at present or too great or not great enough?

The state government has an ambitious target to create an additional 20,800 apprentices from traineeships over four years. The government has a vital role to play through strategic policy to improve and increase new opportunities for our young people, particularly through training. It is also important that opportunities are available to existing workers to upskill through training programs. Skilling South Australia is delivering these opportunities to more South Australians.

Question 13: what skills are currently lacking on the board?

A renewed board will be able to respond to changing industry requirements and enhance training outcomes in line with government investment in policy, including the state government's $203 million Skilling South Australia training investment.

Question 14: are there any plans to extend the CITB levy to include defence or mining or any other areas?

I have been advised that any such proposal would be a matter for the board to consider following consultation with industry and stakeholders. I indicate to the committee that the minister referred to in the answers is the Minister for Industry and Skills from the other place, and that those answers were provided by that minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Firstly, let me place on the record my appreciation that there have been some answers brought back. However, I point out that a number of the questions have not been answered and, instead, answers to a question that was not asked have been provided. That does, therefore, result in a number of further questions, all to do with clause 1.

In passing, in answer to question 1 about when the veto has been used, the Minister for Industry and Skills said:

Ironically, in 2005, the board used the veto voting provision to vote against the motion on recommendation 20 of the review to repeal the veto provision.

However, I imagine that the minister would have been aware that that would need to be changed through legislation and the board would have no impact on that. It was an interesting thing for him to put in when it was quite irrelevant.

In terms of the question about when the Minister for Industry and Skills received information that the veto provisions had been used, the answer provided was that the minister was provided this information voluntarily after making a request to the chief executive officer of the CITB. I believe the presiding member approved the disclosure of this information. That is, of course, relevant because the responsible person to the minister is the presiding member, as opposed to the CEO. So could the minister let me know what date that information was provided to the minister?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know the answer to that question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister able to take it on notice and bring back a reply?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government does not intend to take any further questions on notice. We believe that at the end of the second reading stage all members had an opportunity to ask further questions. The government was very cooperative in taking questions on notice at clause 1, and has expeditiously provided the answers.

I cannot see how the date of the letter can impact on the substance of the advice provided to the committee, and I urge the committee to no longer put up with Labor's filibustering. They might want to pay their dues to their union mates, but these pages, these answers, are very fulsome. They directly address the issues raised, and the committee should get on with its job.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Despite that unexpected diatribe, verging on hysteria and union bashing, I will endeavour to explain to the minister why the date of advice being provided is relevant. The purported reason for this bill is to improve accountability and transparency. We have already seen a number of anomalies in regard to appointment of board members. The presiding member changed over the period of September/October; therefore, my question was leading to which presiding member supposedly approved the disclosure of this information, as would be required under the current code.

In terms of accountability and transparency, it is quite relevant, so I will I ask it again. In fact, there are two related questions: what date was that provided to the minister, and which presiding member apparently approved the disclosure of confidential board information?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member's restatement of the question and the context of it actually highlights that it is even less relevant to this bill. If the honourable member is trying to reflect on a decision—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: You are just refusing to answer the question. It is a legitimate question and you are refusing to answer it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Actually, I am not able to answer because you are hectoring me.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Please restrain yourself.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Point of order, sir: as far as I can see, Mr Chairman, you have not been hectoring anyone.

The CHAIR: I have warned the Hon. Mr Hanson to restrain himself. Minister, continue with your answer.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The point I am making is that the opposition has ventilated an issue about an appointment to the current board. They have the right to do that. They obviously have a problem with the Minister for Industry and Skills, but I just want to stress to the council again that, no matter what issues the opposition has in relation to that appointment, they have every right to continue to pursue them, but it has nothing to do with this bill. It has nothing to do with this bill, because once this bill is proclaimed all the current appointments are null and void, so any flaws that the opposition might claim in relation to the past are a matter for the past.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have noted that the government is refusing to provide answers to do with accountability, which certainly must place more questions to the crossbenchers over the purposes of this bill, the true intent and whether we can really trust a current or future minister to appoint people based on merit, which is apparently the purpose of this bill. However, given that the government is keen to keep covering up this sort of information, I will move on.

My question is: is the minister aware that the board is actually an industry board and not a government board? This relates to a number of items. Will it continue to be a body to provide information to the minister or is it instead envisaged that the minister will provide information and direct the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In a number of the minister's answers he highlighted the importance of a strategic partnership and working together. That is the role of an independent board.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Further on from that, is it not fair to say that this board is different from other boards insofar as it is a board which has been prescribed by legislation and one that deals with public moneys insofar as the levies are collected from those individuals who pay levies as a result of building works that they undertake?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. To clarify my remarks, you can be an independent board established by statute and have strategic objectives. Let me remind honourable members of the act. The functions of the board are:

to act as a principal adviser to the Minister and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training of the Commonwealth on any matter relating to training in the building and construction industry and in particular to provide…

So this parliament gave them the responsibility to be in partnership not only with the state minister but also with the federal minister. My understanding of their role as a statutory board is to come to their own view but, considering that the minister and the government have a responsibility to implement their policy, it is our view that the board and the government should work together in a strategic partnership.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The minister's contribution just a moment ago does come to the crux of the problem: if we want a board to come to its own view then there need to be mechanisms in place so we can be sure that they are not just mates appointed to the board, mates therefore indebted to a minister, mates therefore who will tow the minister's line or the government's line rather than come to their own independent point of view of what is best for industry. I will move—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, was that a comment, was it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was placing it on the record; you are welcome to answer it, minister, of course.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to speak?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was just wanting to clarify if it was a question or a comment; if it was a comment then let it lie.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, do you wish to go on?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am still on that same response, which the minister here read out, that the 2004 review was undertaken to make recommendations and promote that genuine strategic partnership. I appreciate that the member for Unley is the one who has provided these answers. If the member for Unley is supporting the recommendations of the 2004 review, can you explain why he is ignoring its recommendation that:

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 that quote:

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.

So if the member for Unley is supporting the recommendations of the review, why is he not supporting that recommendation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the minister's answer at the end of the second question, he was clearly referring to the need for a genuine partnership. As I said in that answer—and just to stress that the quote I am giving here is a quote from the 2004 review, I am advised—the objective of the CITB is to provide, and I quote:

…a genuine partnership between the Board and the Government whereby the Board's investment in training is integrated with the Government's profile-funded training for the industry and whereby the two work together to improve the targeting mechanisms to encourage and promote industry investment in training.

The 2004 review stressed the importance of strategic partnership. The fact that the minister is suggesting that his bill is supported by a key recommendation of the 2004 review makes no comment about other recommendations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given the minister's comments there about the role of the board and the role of the department, is he aware that the memorandum of understanding signed by the department as a result of the last review sets out different responsibilities for the board and the department?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I am not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to stress that, the memorandum of understanding sets out that the roles are different; they are not to be treated as one and the same. The Construction Industry Training Board is not a creature of government. It is collecting levies and administering those levies—public moneys, as the Hon. Ms Bonaros pointed out—and yet it appears from the intent of this bill and from the comments that we have heard here so far that the idea is to actually merge those roles so that the CITB, looking after money that is not government money, will be implementing the government's agenda. That clearly is why the structure of the board is being proposed in such a way that the minister will have absolute and ultimate discretion to appoint whoever he wishes, essentially to gain control of funds that are not the government's funds to use.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would remind the council that what the minister, on behalf of the government, is implementing as a reform program is very similar to other jurisdictions. We have the most prescriptive model in Australia, and it is a complete mischaracterisation of this bill to say that the CITB would become a creature of government, because that is not the experience of other states and territories.

If this government wanted to make it a creature of government, we would abolish it and put it in the department. The government does see the value of engaging with industry through the CITB, but we are committed to a genuine strategic partnership between the board and the government.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hanson, please restrain yourself. We are in committee. The Hon. Ms Bonaros caught my eye first, the Hon. Ms Scriven, so I will give her the call.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, the Hon. Clare Scriven has said that the fund is being used, potentially, under the changes as 'jobs for the boys' and stacking it in a way that supports those industry groups which are somehow affiliated with the Liberal Party. Can the exact same thing not be said about the union membership on that board and the fact that they have had a right of veto over those decisions? Does the exact same argument not apply in relation to the position that has been put forward by the opposition on this matter?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I completely concur with the member. The Labor Party in this house, in this parliament, is trying to defend a structure where unions appoint unions and then carry a veto. How can—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: 'Unions appoint unions'—outline how that's the case.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Unions appoint union members. I believe that fundamentally undermines the opportunity to develop a collective industry view, and it significantly inhibits the capacity for strategic partnership. You have two groups within the board carrying a veto; it is not a structure which encourages a whole of economy, whole of society, whole of government approach. We believe the experience of other states and territories where the minister has more freedom to bring together all the skills, all the insights that would help the construction industry grow is a much better approach.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And just on from that, then, all those groups which the minister has just alluded to support the bill—as I understand it; perhaps the minister can just confirm this again for the record—in its current form as opposed to the act as it stands, as it is printed at the moment?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not want to overstate the advice I have received. The advice I have received in relation to question 5 is that all of those organisations mentioned had strong support for the bill. I am not saying they have signed off on every clause. My understanding is that they support the act to be amended by this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to respond to the devil's advocate question from the Hon. Ms Bonaros. It is very, very different; it is not exactly the same in any shape or form. What is being proposed in this bill is that there will be a board that will consist of between seven and 11 members, each and every one of them appointed solely at the discretion of the minister. The situation we have at the moment is not as I understand was originally communicated to Ms Bonaros's party, I consider incorrectly, in the member for Unley's briefing.

Currently, there is a board of 11. There are three union members—employee associations—on that board: three out of 11.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: With a right of veto.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They have a right of veto. There are five employer associations—guess what?—with a right of veto. There are two who are supposed to be appointed for their expertise and experience in delivering vocational education and training who have a veto. When we are talking about strategic partnership, the very way that the legislation was established 25 years ago was to ensure that there is a strategic partnership. No matters can be taken off in one particular direction to benefit one group within the industry without the agreement of the other two groups. Vested interests will look after their own interests, and that is why no one group can push their own interests in the current situation.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Hence the current structure.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Hence the current structure, as the Hon. Mr Hanson says.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: He's coaching you. He's trying to keep you afloat.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, we are simply a team, and I think given the experience of Tuesday no-one should be talking about needing to be coached.

So we have an existing situation where the structure has worked. It has ensured that vested interests cannot override each other, whereas the proposed bill will mean that there is pure and absolute power from the minister to appoint whoever he sees fit—or potentially she in the future. That means that anyone who is on that board is indebted to the minister of the day.

How are we going to be having an independent decision-making process when any member of the board knows that if they do not toe the minister's line they will not be reappointed? It is a ridiculous thing to suggest that that will create a better partnership than the current situation, which was reinforced in the 2004 review, which has been referred to a number of times, that says this is actually a key part of having a body that works together for industry.

Regarding the questions that were asked about who had raised concerns about the composition of the board, the minister has simply said that issues have been raised over the years. My question is: can the minister detail exactly which industry stakeholders raised concerns? It is all very well to have this general response of, 'Oh yes, I have spoken over the last 10 years and there have been concerns.' Which industry stakeholders have raised concerns? Within a number of different forums there have been people from the employer associations, as well as the employee associations, talking about the success of the board, which of course includes its current composition.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member condemns her own argument from her own mouth. She says, 'Vested interests will look after vested interests.' Exactly. They will. So the fact that there are only three out of 11 who are employee organisations does not in any way weaken their veto. How is a veto power going to facilitate a strategic partnership? It would be more credible if the honourable member said that it would be good to put in a two-thirds provision, and you had these sorts of groups nominated. Then you could say that at least two groups out of three agreed—but no, any one, including the three employee organisations, can veto.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Vested interests look after vested interests. That is what you said. This party, the Labor Party that seeks to be the alternative government in this state, is saying, 'No. We are going to stand up for our union mates against the broad interests of the state.' This party, the Liberal Party, the government of South Australia under Steve Marshall, will stand up for all South Australians. That is why the government—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, please, I call you to order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —wants to have an open process, including public expressions of interest. We are not going to stand up for vested interests looking after vested interests. We will stand up for the people of South Australia.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There are amendments afoot, and if they do get passed there will be employee representation, about which the minister will consult . There is another amendment: that the minister will consult with the presiding member of the board. But I just want to point out here that the unions do not really have any skin in the game regarding this board. How much do they contribute? How much do they contribute to that levy? How much do they actually financially contribute to that fund?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: None of the employer associations contribute to the fund. Zero.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Where do the levies come from that contribute to the fund, and how does that compare to the contributions of the unions? I think my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo has made a good point in terms of—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Where are the levies that are being collected for this board coming from?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, you tell us where they are coming from.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, you have asked a rhetorical question. I need to keep some order in the debate, so have you formally asked—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is the question.

The CHAIR: Normally you can only ask a question of another member other than the government in relation to amendments. However, I am allowing this debate to go on because we have amendments coming, and we have a variety of amendments.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am the Chair, minister, and I am allowing the members to have a debate at clause 1, which we have done many times in the past, as you well know.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, please. I am tying this debate to the amendments that are to come. That is the basis upon which I am allowing it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Construction industry training funds come whenever anybody builds something, essentially. The employer associations do not contribute a cent to the fund; similarly, as has been pointed out, the employees are not contributing the funds. Every time any of us builds a house we contribute funds—any time something is built. To say that because the unions do not contribute money to the fund defeats the argument that therefore we should not have the employer associations on either.

In terms of what the unions provide, it is the workforce. This is a training fund for workers within the construction industry to ensure that we have the skills that we need for a thriving construction industry going forward. That is the contribution and that is the skin in the game. When you look at what the fund has done in terms of training, there are things like safety training. If workers do not have skin in the game to ensure there is safety training in a high-risk occupation such as construction, well, I do not know what skin in the game is.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There are some initiatives that the employee representatives have put to the board previously, and I hope that they will continue, and we will ask that they continue. I am just having a look at the make-up at the moment. When you say the board does not have any skin in the game—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: No; I said it does not contribute money.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, but their members do.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven and The Hon. Mr Pangallo, it is not a conversation. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, just state your piece and then you can invite another member to respond without asking them a question.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is what I was going to do when I was going to go through the list. I am looking at the list, and there is the HIA, the Property Council, the Civil Contractors Federation and other organisations represented. Are you suggesting that their members, who actually do support much of what is going on with this bill, do not contribute to that board or to the levy? Is that what you are suggesting?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, just for future reference, a better way to express that is, 'I query whether the member is stating something,' rather than directing it as a question because the member has not moved her amendments yet.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay.

The CHAIR: It is just a question of phrasing. The Hon. Ms Scriven, you may wish to respond to that or not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can you just restate what you are querying?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Filibuster on a filibuster.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No.

The CHAIR: Minister, please. If you have something to say, stand up.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The query is that there is representation from the employer groups or the contributors to the fund. Do you understand?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, I understand. Property owners pay into the fund—property owners, not employer associations. The associations that you mentioned are not paying in a cent. The question is: is the training board to be determined based on money in only, or is it: what skin in the game? Skin in the game is not simply money. If you are receiving training, if you are doing safety or other training as part of the construction industry, then of course you have skin in the game, of course you have something to contribute because it is the workers who are going to be undertaking that training.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: This question is directed to the minister. Has there been a suggestion that any programs associated with safety and workplace safety and training will not continue under the changes that are being proposed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that there is no suggestion of that from the government, and, of course, that would be a decision for the board. While I have the call, I will indicate that the Hon. Clare Scriven is misrepresenting the bill when she claims that it excludes employee organisations. It is completely within the broad discretion of the minister to appoint relevant people, and that would include people from employee organisations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is a humorous response, given that the minister in this place was union bashing just a short time ago, not to mention the union bashing from the minister in the other place. To suggest that he will incorporate union members on any future board is just disingenuous; it is quite ludicrous to imagine that that is really his intention.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: How do you know that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I hear the interjection, 'How do you know that?' It is from the behaviour of the minister. Some of my further questions might illustrate that further. Question 5 was about which members of the CITB were consulted, and a number have been listed there. Can the minister explain why the member for Unley consulted only with employer associations before introducing the bill, whereas employee groups were merely informed by letter after its introduction?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I do not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So the minister does not know why that was?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You asked me for a commentary. I do not have commentary.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No; I was asking for an explanation but I understand that there is no explanation. Has the member for Unley given any undertakings to employer groups that they will be appointed to the board if this bill passes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not going to take that question on notice. Clearly, I would not be able to answer that question and I would indicate to the council that the normal time for asking questions is at the end of the second reading and in clause 1. We had a full opportunity and I made it very clear that I was taking as many questions as the council might have on Tuesday. I have done my best to work with my colleague from the other place to provide answers, which I believe are very informative towards the debate. With all due respect to the honourable member, I do not intend to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do appreciate from the minister in this place that he has acted in good faith and I place on the record my appreciation for that. The problem is that a number of the questions have not been answered properly, and that is why they have led to further questions. I note that that will not be answered. Question 8 was that the Property Council, the Master Builders Association and the Civil Contractors Federation met on 10 September, and the question was whether they met together or separately and whether discussions were held with each individually. My question, which I do want to put on the record, although I suspect the minister may say it will not be answered, is: did the member for Unley give any undertakings to any member of the Property Council that they will be appointed to the board if this bill passes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Likewise, I do not have the answer to that question and I do not intend to take it on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Did the member for Unley give any undertakings to any member of the Master Builders Association that they would be appointed to the board if this bill passes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: A similar answer, sir.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Did the member for Unley give any undertakings to any member of the Civil Contractors Federation that they will be appointed to the board if this bill passes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My same answer applies.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to clarify: the member for Unley met with three employer associations over individual meetings on 10 September about drafting the bill, but the only interactions with employee associations was at the end of October via a letter telling them the bill had been introduced and advising that they could contact a public servant if they wanted to discuss the bill further, and yet that is being put forward as though that was an invitation for feedback. There were no invitations to employee groups to meet, despite the fact that the minister had met with employer groups before even the drafting of the bill.

Regarding the answer that on 21 September the Minister for Industry and Skills had a meeting with a number of employee representatives—unions—to discuss training matters, he says the CITB was not raised. Which unions currently represented on the board did the Minister for Industry and Skills meet with on 21 September?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the meeting involved representatives of the CFMEU, SA Unions and the CEPU. As I previously advised, it was in relation to a range of training matters, but the CITB was not raised by the unions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The information I have is that the minister met with the CEPU only, and the purpose of that meeting was to discuss transition for members of the ASC. Therefore, the other matters were not on the agenda. My information is that the Minister for Industry and Skills did not meet at all with the other two of the three unions currently represented on the board. I think it might be worthwhile just checking whether the Minister for Industry and Skills, through his responses, has misled the chamber.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will certainly seek clarification, and I am sure I can table that as a question on notice. My understanding is that you are referring to the ASC being the topic. That is a training matter.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure it is going to be helpful for the council for us to debate it back and forth, but transition of the ASC is a fairly specific item, I think. Has the Minister for Industry and Skills ever met with the Australian Workers' Union member of the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know the answer to that. With all respect to the honourable member, I do not intend to take it on notice. There were at least two milestone opportunities to put that question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry, I did not hear the final part of that statement.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was making the point I was making earlier, which is that members traditionally use the end of their second reading contributions to pose questions. The other normal opportunity is at clause 1. I thought I made it clear to the council that I would seek answers, but if we are going to have answers brought back with new questions put down, this council is not going to fulfil its function as a legislative body. With all due respect, I think that this council has had plenty of opportunity to seek the information that is needed, through the briefings from both the minister and the department, through the second reading contributions and through the committee stage.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: With all due respect, I would point out that these are not new questions; these are questions that were taken on notice and have not been answered to provide the information. The question that we are referring to was whether the Minister for Industry and Skills met in the same way with any of the three employee associations. He simply has said that he met with some unions. My information is that that does not include the Australian Workers' Union, which is a current member of the board, or the CFMEU, which is a current member of the board. Hence my reason for clarification. I think it is due to the lack of information provided in the response of the Minister for Industry and Skills rather than any action on behalf of this side of the chamber.

The CHAIR: Are there any more questions on clause 1?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In answer to question 10, which was: what component of Mr Handley's CV is relevant to his appointment, the Minister for Industry and Skills provided the answer that Mr Handley apparently has the relevant experience. He then said—interesting information that he was not willing to provide in his CV through an FOI—that Mr Handley has been engaged by a registered training organisation to assist them with auditing and compliance activity, and as such has been engaged in vocational education and training. Is the minister aware that the act states that the person in question must be a person who has appropriate experience in vocational education or training and who are or have been employed or engaged in the provision of such training; so the provision of such training? Can he explain how being an auditor is the provision of vocational education or training?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding of the minister's answer is that the Crown advice confirmed that Mr Handley had the relevant experience to be appointed. I am not going to have a debate about legal advice with the honourable member. I will defer to the Crown.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. My understanding is that Crown won't release advice, so I am certainly not querying that, but in the answer from the Minister for Industry and Skills he appears to contradict the requirements of the act. I wish to place on the record that questions 12 and 13 have not been answered. Question 12 was: does the government consider the [CITB] apprenticeship and trainee support is sufficient at present or too great or not enough? We have an answer which appears to be a paragraph from the industry and skills website, which talks about the state government's ambitious target to create apprenticeships. But the question is in regard to the current level of apprenticeship and traineeship support provided by the CITB. Is the minister able to provide any additional information, given that that question has not been answered?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I have not. I thank the honourable member: she made much better progress in the last two-thirds of the questions than we did in the first, so this has not taken nearly as long as I feared. Thank you.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note that question 13, similarly, has not been answered. The question was: what skills are currently lacking on the board? We have an answer that does not address that question at all; it is just talking about a renewed board supposedly being able to respond better. So as to the skills that are currently lacking, it would appear there are no skills currently lacking, otherwise the Minister for Industry and Skills would have provided an answer to that question.

Question 14 asks whether there were any plans to extend the CITB levy to include defence or mining or any other areas, and the answer was that that would be a matter for the board. My question would be: have any conversations occurred with the Minister for Industry and Skills about extending the CITB levy to include defence or mining or other areas?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is a totally new question that would better have been asked on Tuesday.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: At some stage in the debate I will need each member who wishes to put forward an amendment to move it, and then there is a less than simple series of questions I will need to put to accommodate every member's amendments. I open up the committee to questions or commentary on clause 4. I remind honourable members that, if they wish to pursue their amendments, at some stage in the debate they have to move them, as I will require them all to be moved before I progress.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have some general questions on this clause. Could the minister explain who will determine what constitutes suitable knowledge of and experience or expertise in the building and construction industry as a requirement to be appointed to the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The act makes it a requirement. If this amendment is accepted proposed section 5(1) will make it a requirement under paragraph (b).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am referring to the original bill put forward which, in section 5(1)(b), talks about persons who have knowledge of and experience or expertise in the building and construction industry. I am questioning who will determine what constitutes that suitable knowledge.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Proposed subsection (1) provides:

Subject to this section, the Board consists of the following members appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the Minister:

The minister will make nominations to executive council through cabinet, and the minister would be required to comply with the law.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So the minister will make that determination; thank you. Will expertise in vocational education and training be required? If not, why not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If it assists the committee, I highlighted (1)(b) but perhaps I should also highlight (1a), which provides:

The Minister must, in making nominations for appointment to the Board, seek to ensure that the membership of the Board comprises persons who together have the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the Board to carry out its functions effectively.

There is a range of skills in (1a) and there is the knowledge, in particular, in (1)(b). So your question, again, Ms Scriven?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question was: will expertise in vocational education and training be required, and if not, why not?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Again, this comes to the issue of broad discretion. Of course that experience would be valuable to the board. The minister will need to balance up all the skills and knowledge available to him or her in making the nominations to the government.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Proposed section 5(1)(c) provides:

2 persons who are, in the opinion of the Minister, independent of the building and construction industry.

Can you explain what is meant, or envisaged to be meant, by 'independent of the building and construction industry'?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding would be that in terms of broad governance there is value in people who bring skills but who do not have direct engagement with the relevant industry. My understanding is also that that would be an attempt to strengthen the corporate governance and, if you like, the capacity of the board to act strategically.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am just trying to get a bit more clarity around the sort of interactions. If I ask it the opposite way that might be easier for the minister: what sort of interactions with the industry would make someone not independent? That might be an easier way for the question to be answered.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is a broad expression—

An honourable member: Very broad.

The Hon. S.G. WADE:There would be a lot of people who are obviously involved in the building and construction industry. I think people who are 'independent' from it is self-evident on its terms.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Well, give us an example.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Me; I am not involved in the construction industry.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, if you want to ask a question stand up in the committee and ask it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I understand that under this legislation people such as I might be appointed by the minister.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Why on earth would they want you on the board?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, this is in committee. You are free to ask a question if you so choose. Asking from your seated position is not acceptable.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given jobs for the mates, we may well see the minister appointed by the current Minister for Industry and Skills. That would not be surprising, and I think that is a weakness of this proposed legislation. In his second reading explanation in this place the minister stated that the changes will bring the act into line with analogous legislation in other states and territories. Which jurisdiction's legislation is this bill analogous to?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This bill would mean that the act is consistent with other jurisdictions, in that the minister is not required to appoint by nomination by others; the minister would take on a broad ministerial discretion.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question, which has not been answered, is: which jurisdiction does that? For example, the minister in his second reading explanation mentioned the ACT, claiming the minister there has broad ministerial direction to appoint the board, but the ACT authority has a governing board consisting of an independent—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chair, I cannot answer questions I cannot hear.

The CHAIR: Can the two leaders, if they wish to continue to converse, converse outside the room. The Hon. Ms Scriven, please start again.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. I was asking which jurisdiction this bill is analogous to, and that has not been answered. To assist the minister, the ACT was mentioned in the second reading explanation, and that currently requires a governing board consisting of an independent chair, two employer representatives and two employee representatives. In what way is the legislation similar to the ACT jurisdiction?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will try to make this point in relation to the ACT: the ACT has two people who represent the interests of employers and two representatives who represent the interests of employees. There is no capacity for an individual employee organisation or employer organisation to have their nomination imposed on the minister. The minister in the ACT retains a broad ministerial discretion.

If the honourable member wants to put up a provision in relation to, if you like, quotas within, that is one thing. However, the point the government is making in terms of the golden thread between the other jurisdictions, which is not present in South Australia, is that this state does not allow the minister a broad ministerial discretion and, in our view, significantly undermines the minister's capacity to forge a strategic partnership between the board and the government.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is probably worth noting that forging a strategic partnership might be assisted by meeting with all the members of the board, which has not occurred under this current minister. In the Tasmanian jurisdiction it does talk about a broad ministerial discretion, but it provides that the persons should have knowledge and understanding of the interests of employees and then five persons who, between them, have knowledge and experience of residential building, non-residential building, civil construction, building services and building professions.

The board is to contain, if practicable, at least one member from each of the northern region, the north-western region and the southern region, and a balance of genders. They are also looking for knowledge and skills in respect of all sections of the building and construction industry, vocational education and training—always useful for a training board I would have thought—policy development and strategic planning. In what way does is this proposed legislation for what would be the new board analogous to the Tasmanian situation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would indicate that, if we are going to go through each jurisdiction and I am going to restate the same point, that to me sounds like a filibuster. I make it clear that the opposition apparently thinks there are other things to talk about in this chamber but then puts a filibuster in the way of those important matters.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, what I am saying is that the opposition has matters on the Notice Paper that they say they want to have debated, but there is no evidence of that, because what they are trying to do is block those matters by doing a filibuster on this bill. So let them be responsible for the matters that are further on in the agenda—let the record show.

In relation to the Tasmanian jurisdiction—and perhaps I can join in the filibuster—the Tasmanian jurisdiction, of course, is under the Building and Construction Industry Training Board Act of 1990, which requires a chairperson, three employee representatives with knowledge and understanding of the interests of employees within the building and construction industry, and five industry representatives with knowledge and experience of residential building, non-residential building, civil construction, building services and building professions.

Again, I stress that these are not nominations by specified organisations that are imposed on the minister. The minister has broad ministerial discretion. The honourable member can continue to go through jurisdiction by jurisdiction; the answer will be the same. This state, under this legislation, does not provide a broad ministerial discretion, in the government's view, that significantly inhibits the capacity for a strategic partnership. I would suggest that the opposition has made their case. Let that case be put to a vote and let us move on with other important matters before the parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will put on the record that the jurisdictions that I am asking about are the jurisdictions that were specifically mentioned in the second reading explanation by the minister, as well as by the Minister for Industry and Skills in the other place. Commentary is then made that it is consistent to say simply that this broad brush is going to be similar to the other jurisdictions, when there are so many absolutely clear differences, The differences are that these other jurisdictions do have boards that represent, and are part of, particular areas.

To illustrate that point, Western Australia says that the board shall consist of seven members appointed by the minister after consultation with a whole lot of bodies, including many unions. I would be happy to read them out, but the minister seems to think that I am filibustering, which is certainly not the case. It is simply the fact that a piece of legislation that appears to be contradictory to the proposed purposes that have been put forward by the government needs to be scrutinised. I am asking for answers as to why the introduction of the bill was said to comply with various other jurisdictions—'analogous' was the word used—when there are so many clear differences that fly in the face of that.

I also point out, in relation to the statement that the minister is obliged to accept, essentially, whoever is put forward, that there is a list provided to the minister under the current legislation which he can choose from. When we get to moving amendments, you will see that an amendment that I have lodged does indeed allow greater choice from the minister if he should so desire but still maintains the composition of the board that ensures that all of the industry is represented.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The other thing I wanted to point out is in reference to the other jurisdictions. Is the minister aware if the other jurisdictions have a similar rate of levy which is calculated in their jurisdictions as how we calculate it in ours?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am the minister representing, so that is obviously not a question that I am au fait with. I take the opportunity to stress, in relation to the Hon. Clare Scriven's comments, that when the minister in the other place in his second reading explanation, and I representing him in my speech, talked about analogies, we were not suggesting that every provision of every jurisdiction other than ours was the same. That is a ludicrous interpretation of what was being said. What the minister is trying to stress is that we are the odd jurisdiction out in terms of having a very limited ministerial discretion. All other jurisdictions have a broader ministerial discretion.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: That is an excellent answer to the Hon. Ms Scriven's question. I was wondering if I could get an answer to mine.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No; I already said I am not privy to that.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Then perhaps I can assist the minister. The fact is that the rate of the levy and how it is calculated in regard to other jurisdictions is different. I was wondering if you could answer another question, which is: if there is a plan to bring the governance structures in line with other jurisdictions, are there further plans, as part of anything that the minister might intend to do, to bring anything else in line with other jurisdictions in regard to governance, including levies?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I ever aspired to the position of President, I would wonder if a question about a minister's intention to bring up future bills might actually be a hypothetical question.

The CHAIR: The minister can refuse to answer it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I shall.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: He has refused to answer every other question, so why not?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, please. This is committee; it is not second reading. You can stand up and make whatever comment you want.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I just wish to point out that it actually is a matter of governance. I know this in a number of ways. One, it appears in the same legislation as the manner in which board members are appointed. It appears in our legislation; it appears in other jurisdictions' legislation. Furthermore, I note that great reference has been made by the minister in the other place and indeed the minister here in regard to the review performed in 2004, and part of that review in fact was looking at how the levy was calculated and the rate of the levy. So it is most definitely a matter of governance. It is within context of what we are ventilating here.

My further question—and I notice none of them have been answered yet—would be: is there any plan to look at the rate of that levy and how it is structured in relation to bringing us in line with other jurisdictions, as in fact you have stated, minister?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government has never suggested that this bill addresses all the issues in the 2004 review. Other matters are for other bills and I leave that in the hands of the relevant minister.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: It is valid. The aspect that has been referred to as chapters five and six of the 2004 review actually relates to the government aspects which the government is looking at. Mentioned as part of that is whether or not the nature of the training levy and the recommendations around it were to be changed or not. The nature of that levy and how it is collected actually goes to whether or not you are going to look at a levy system which is based on construction value or whether you are going to go to a levy system based on labour costs. If we are bringing ourselves in line with other jurisdictions in relation to governance, it goes to my question, which I will ask again: is there any plan to look at the nature of the governance relationships in relation to levy costs?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I make the point to the honourable member that the minister did not propose any amendments that relate to the levy. I am advised that this is a general bill and members would have been free to move amendments in relation to the levy, if they so chose. I indicate that in relation to other matters in the review, I do not have any advice as to what the minister's intentions might be in terms of future bills.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The reason it is relevant is you are changing the nature and composition of the board. How the board looks at the assessment of value of work, how it does these things in internal governance to the board, the recommendations that are made to the minister and the recommendations the minister makes back to the board are all matters of governance. These matters go to whether or not the rate of levy could be changed.

If you are changing the composition of the board to be less representative of industry, then you are leaving them vulnerable to things like the assessment of value of work changing in the nature of whether you make it a labour-based cost, making it harder for employers to put on employees, thus justifying, by the way—to go to another point—the presence of unions on the board, or whether or not you are going to leave it at a value of work base, which is how it is now.

The reason I am seeking for it to be at least in some way ventilated here, which I notice they have nothing on, is that this goes to the critical functions of the board and the composition of the board and the kinds of relationships it is going to have with the government and the kind of relationships the minister will be placing on the board members.

I ask my question again, and I really would appreciate an answer to it: is there any contemplation that any of these things will be changed? And I would really like the government to rule it out.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect to the honourable member, you are asking me an open-ended question: will the government ever introduce legislation that will change the levy? I do not have any advice from the minister about what his forward legislative program is. That is the only advice I can give.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I will make the obvious point: that is very concerning. The nature of change in the composition of the board should give everyone within the industry certainty that we are not going to see major changes brought in in relation to something as crucial as how the levy is constructed, assessed and paid is going to change. You should be able to rule that out now. The fact that you cannot really brings into question whether or not the minister has actually thought through what it is he is changing in relation to governance structures on this board. I would like you to take that on notice and bring it back.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Will you answer that question or not answer it?

The CHAIR: Is that your commentary?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, I want to ask a question.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This committee session is closed when we report progress. There is no capacity for me to take a question on notice for this committee.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The minister was asked a while ago about what sorts of skills an independent person on that board would require to actually be appointed to the board.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, that was not a question I was asked. I was asked—

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, I asked you while sitting down, and you responded, 'Someone like me,' which was referring to you. Why would you want to be on the CIT board? Why would we want someone like you on that board?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley, please.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have a question. I have not finished.

The CHAIR: I appreciate the commentary, but I am not sure it is appropriate to incorporate your interjections and the ministers interjections when you have an opportunity. Do you have a question?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I do.

The CHAIR: Then please ask it.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The legislation provides for two persons who are, in the opinion of the minister, independent of the building and construction industry. If they are not to have anything to do with the industry, I would like to know what sorts of skills the minister would be looking for to appoint them to a very important board involved in training.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: They might bring skills in the law; they might bring skills in finance.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would it be fair to assume that someone who is a close associate of the minister would be deemed to be not independent and therefore not suitable for appointment to the board, if this goes through?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On behalf the minister, I accept the compliment from the honourable member that she regards the minister as embodying the essence of the building and construction industry, such that anybody who is close to him would be, by definition, not independent of the industry. However, with all due respect, I think there will be other people who will fit that category.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can you explain why the proposal is to have an appointment between four and eight people? How were those numbers arrived at?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Currently, we have the highest number of members. Proposed section 5(1)(b), which indicates at least four but not more than eight members, is constructed so that the minister can have flexibility in terms of the number of members on the board as well as the composition of the board.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does that number of four to eight have a direct relationship to the number of employer associations that the minister was meeting with in terms of developing this bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is a bizarre suggestion. The minister has made it clear that the whole raison d'être of this legislation is a broad ministerial discretion. If he wanted to ensure the representation of a particular group, he would name them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that ensuring representation of a particular group is different to potentially making undertakings to groups meeting in one-to-one meetings prior to development of the bill, and that was the reason for my question. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–2]—

Page 2 line 13 to page 3 line 14—Delete clause 4 and substitute:

4—Amendment of section 5—Composition of the Board

(1) Section 5(1)(c) and (d)—delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute:

(c) 5 persons nominated by the Minister selected from a list prepared by the employer associations referred to in Schedule 2, being a list for which each employer association is to contribute 2 persons; and

(d) 3 persons nominated by the Minister from a list prepared by the employee associations referred to in Schedule 3, being a list for which each employee association is to contribute 2 persons.

(2) Section 5(1a)—delete subsection (1a) and substitute:

(1a) The Minister must, in making nominations for appointment to the Board seek to ensure that the membership of the Board comprises persons who—

(a) in respect of nominations under subsections (1)(c) and (d), reflect the diversity of the building and construction industry; and

(b) together have the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the Board to carry out its functions effectively.

(1b) A person is only eligible to be included on a list under subsection (1)(c) and (d) if the person has knowledge of, and experience or expertise in, the building and construction industry.

(1c) If the Minister does not, within a reasonable time after requesting that a list be provided, receive a list in accordance with subsection (1)(c) or (d) that enables the Minister to make the necessary nominations, the Minister may—

(a) by notice in writing, request the relevant associations to provide a list, or a further list, within a time (being not less than 1 month) allowed in the notice; and

(b) if a list, or further list, is not provided within that time, then the Minister may select a person, or persons, as the case requires, for appointment to the Board (and a person so selected may then be appointed to the Board as if the person had been selected from a list prepared by the associations under this section).

(3) Section 5—after subsection (6) insert:

(6a) However, if—

(a) the office of a member of the Board becomes vacant before the expiry of the term of appointment specified in the member's instrument of appointment; and

(b) a person had been appointed to be the deputy of that member,

the person who had been appointed to be the deputy of the member may act as a member of the Board in respect of the vacant office—

(c) for the balance of the term of appointment referred to in paragraph (a); or

(d) until a person is appointed to the vacant office under this section,

whichever first occurs (and a reference in this Act to a member of the Board will be taken to include, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a person acting as a member under this subsection).

This deals with the issue of what has been suggested is a lack of ability of the minister to make appointments that he is happy with.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: He or she.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: He or she, indeed. I will speak, though, in the 'he' as the current minister is a 'he', although perhaps the minister in this place is suggesting that we are going to have a new Minister for Industry and Skills soon. Maybe that is just a tip; I do not know.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I am standing up for women's rights, the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Excellent; I am interested to see who is replacing Mr Pisoni.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Demoted again. He just cannot cut it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Well, from what I have been hearing around the traps, that would not be at all surprising; however, back to the task at hand. The amendment that I propose keeps the representational nature of the board. I would remind members that this was a recommendation of the 2004 report that the Minister for Industry and Skills has referred to numerous times. I will remind members that that report talked about the central importance of having all of those sectoral interests represented and how it had contributed to a very effective board and that it could find throughout its research—remembering this is an independent report—no reasons to change that.

However, let us be honest: any minister may have a particular personality clash with someone who is proposed to be a representative of a sector. This amendment would allow an expansion of the number that would be proposed for the minister to then choose from. There would be five persons nominated by the minister selected from a list prepared by the employer associations and three persons nominated by the minister from a list prepared the employee associations. The total number on the board would say the same, but the second part of each of those says 'being a list for which each…association is to contribute 2 persons'.

To explain that, rather that proposing that Mr Smith, Mr Jones and Ms Brown would be the representatives, as agreed by, for example, the employee associations, they would instead propose a list of six people that they had agreed upon, and then the minister could choose from them. Similarly, with the employer associations, rather than contributing only five names, they would contribute 10 names, again which they agree upon amongst themselves, as is currently the case, and then the minister could choose from that. If the concern really is about essentially a personality clash or similar, this would enable that to be overcome because there would be a broader number of individuals to choose from. I think that is the main change for the first page of my amendment.

The second, which is amendment No. 1 [Scriven–1], if this amendment does not get through, is simply a matter of governance, but hopefully this one is not controversial. I hope there is widespread support for this one. At the moment, the Governor appoints deputy members, or proxies, to use the colloquial term. But, if a member ceases to be a member, either because of the expiration of their term or for another reason, the deputy also automatically ceases, so that means that, on a board, there will be fewer people for a period of time until a new board member is appointed.

This is a very simple proposal that if a person has been appointed to be a deputy, that person continues after the balance of the appointment or until another person is appointed to the vacant office under this section. It just means that if there is a board of six, for example, that is not changed because someone's other commitments mean that they move interstate and they no longer wish to be on the board. They move overseas or whatever the case may be. So it is a simple governance suggestion and hopefully that one will have support. I look forward to taking any questions about the proposal for the composition of the board.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just point out that the Hon. Clare Scriven suggested that there were two amendments, and the second one she hoped would be supported. That is not how the amendment reads. It is one amendment with two elements, so I seek your clarification. Are we voting on one or two?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My apologies if I gave that impression. The amendment that we are looking at covers both providing extra names for the board and the governance issue. I was simply talking to the governance issue as it does stand as a separate amendment if—as I am guessing from the numbers, sadly and embarrassingly for the crossbenchers—we are not going to get the support needed for the entire amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2].

The CHAIR: Before we go on, can I explain that the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2] contains paragraphs which are also in her subsequent amendment, because this amendment deletes the whole of clause 4. So if this amendment fails, as I understand the honourable member, she would move to recommit and that may be successful, otherwise to bring in the clause of which the council had already considered the second part. Have I made myself clear?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the Chair for the clarification and also the Hon. Clare Scriven. Effectively, if we reject this amendment, we will have the opportunity to consider the governance element, as the Hon. Clare Scriven describes it, when we look at amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The CHAIR: Assuming that the council agrees to a recommittal.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will deal with that issue when we are considering that amendment, but let me address the first part of amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2] which relates to clause 4, subsections (1) and (2). This amendment essentially reflects the current act in that the minister would be obligated to appoint five members nominated from a list prepared by the employer associations and three persons from a list prepared by the employee associations.

The association will provide a list to the minister for which each employee and employer organisation is to contribute two persons. This amendment is clearly a test clause for this council's view of this bill. This amendment would tie us again to a prescriptive approach. It takes away the broad discretion of the minister that this bill proposes. It is not supported by the industry. It is not supported by the government.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting the amendment.

The CHAIR: Just before we go around each member, for the benefit of the Chair, I would also like to see an indication, if members are minded to do so, as to, if this amendment fails, whether they are minded to vote for a recommittal because they have some interest in further debating it.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIR: I appreciate that. That is why I am raising it; otherwise, if I do not know a recommittal is coming, honourable members will not have an opportunity to speak.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I respect the Chair's advice that that would be a good way to proceed. On behalf of the government I indicate that the government will be supporting amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1]. It is the government's view this amendment ensures that deputy members' positions do not cease upon a member's position becoming vacant. The amendment will enable a deputy member to act as a member of the board in respect of the vacant office for the balance of the term of employment or until a person is appointed to the vacant office. The government supports it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting the opposition's amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2], but I would support amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition amendments in their totality.

The CHAIR: That is both the Scriven amendments. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I know that you have said that you are not supporting amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2].

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting amendment No. 1 [Scriven–2], but I will be supporting amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The CHAIR: If I understand the mood of the council—and honourable members will correct me—there is a lack of support for amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2], but obviously we will test it to a vote. However, there appears to be support for a recommittal on amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1]. Does any honourable member have a different view? It is quite important, because I have a series of quite technical motions to put and I want to make sure that every member has an opportunity to have a say and have their motion voted on.

Thank you for that indication. I now ask the Hon. Mr Pangallo to move his amendment No. 1 [Pangallo-1] and speak to it if he so chooses, and then I will give the call to the Hon. Mr Darley for his amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, after line 2—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1aa) The Minister must, before nominating a person for appointment to the Board under subsection (1)(b) or (c), consult with the presiding member of the Board (unless the office of presiding member is vacant).

The amendment requires the minister to consult the presiding member before nominating persons to the board. This improves transparency in appointments by the minister and lessens any concerns that the nominees may not have been appointed on merit. It also provides the presiding member the opportunity to provide some informed feedback on the nominees.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 3, after line 2—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1aa) The Minister must, in nominating persons under subsection (1)(b) for appointment to the Board, seek to ensure that—

(a) at least 1 person is nominated to represent the interests of employers in the building and construction industry; and

(b) at least 1 person is nominated to represent the interests of employees in the building and construction industry.

As indicated during my second reading speech, my amendment will outline that, when making appointments to the board, the minister must seek to ensure that there is at least one person on the board who represents the interests of the employers and one person on the board who represents the interests of employees. Criticism about the current act is that the composition of the board is too restrictive and that the requirement should be broader.

However, there was concern from stakeholders that leaving all board appointments entirely at the discretion of the minister may mean that the board could be comprised entirely of employers or entirely of unions representing employees. Such an outcome would not be beneficial for the building and construction industry as a whole because the board would not have balanced input from all stakeholders.

I have spoken with several stakeholders about my amendment. While some initially were inclined to support the bill going through unamended, when I explained how simple and broad my amendment is, they had no issue with supporting it. My amendment will see that there is at least one person on the board who would be able to provide a different perspective in the extraordinary case where the minister may appoint a one-sided board.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On behalf of the government I indicate that we will be supporting the amendments of both Mr Pangallo and Mr Darley in relation to clause 4. In relation to Mr Pangallo's provision regarding nominees to the board, that the minister must consult with the board's presiding member, the government's view is that that supports well-informed decision-making by the minister.

In relation to the amendment by the Hon. Mr Darley that at least one member of the board should represent employers and one represent employee associations, we believe that that still does not undermine the broad ministerial discretion of the minister. It goes back really to the comments I was making in relation to the interstate provisions. It is one thing to suggest representation; it is another thing to enforce it through a limited ministerial discretion.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would just like to firstly address the Pangallo amendment, which is that the minister would consult with the presiding member. The opposition will be supporting that amendment, assuming it does not cut across any of the others in the process—I do not think it does. However, I point out that it is a little bit of a sideshow in saying that that will increase accountability, given that the presiding member will be appointed at the sole discretion of the minister. You will appoint your preferred person and then consult with him or her about who else you will appoint, so it really does not increase a great deal of accountability. However, the opposition will support that amendment.

In terms of Mr Darley's amendment, the concern is that this gives the impression of being somehow representative of a significant sector of the industry, namely, the workers who do the work and undertake the training, whilst not being specific in any way about what is considered to be someone representing the interests of employees in this case, or the interests of employers. In other places we have seen, where there has been a similar sort of provision, that the person has been simply the head of a human resource department, so already working for an employer but because they have a connection to human resources they are considered to be in some way representative of the employees. I think that is of concern.

If that amendment was recommitted after my amendment—amendment No. 1 [Scriven-2]—and if my amendment is defeated in that event and it was recommitted, the opposition would be supporting that Darley amendment.

The CHAIR: Just to clarify, the Hon. Ms Scriven, I appreciate the position of the opposition. We will have a vote on a question about certain words standing as printed, and if on that vote there is a no then your amendment, [Scriven-2], will not have gone through and I will have to come up and report progress and come back in a recommittal, which the government says it is prepared to accept.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the record, the Greens oppose this bill in its entirety. These two amendments put forward by the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Frank Pangallo, without any due disrespect to a pig, are simply putting lipstick on a pig. We are not attracted to support them, but I can read the numbers and I can add up that, with the government's support, the crossbenchers in the other parties do have those numbers.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that we will support amendment No. 1 [Darley-1].

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will support all the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments.

The CHAIR: The question I will be putting is that all words up to and including page 3, line 2, stand as printed. If you support the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendments, which we will put a little bit later, you vote yes (in the affirmative). If you support the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendments, you would vote no.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You are leaving out 1 [1] in this consideration when you say that?

The CHAIR: Yes; we are not touching amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1], which will have to be addressed after we report progress, and then we recommit in my capacity as President and we come back into committee. We are not addressing in this phase of committee amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1]. I will have to report progress and come back into committee.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: So if you oppose [Scriven-2] you vote yes?

The CHAIR: Yes, If you support the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mr Pangallo you vote yes to this. We are putting the question that the words up to and including page 3, line 2, stand as printed. I put the question that: all words up to and including page 3, line 2, stand as printed.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

Question thus carried.

The CHAIR: I now put the question for amendment No. 1 [Darley-1]. Honourable members have spoken to this; does any honourable member wish to speak further on amendment No. 1 [Darley-1] and amendment No. 1 [Pangallo-1]? They have already been moved. No honourable member has indicated they wish to speak further on these amendments so I put that amendment No. 1 [Darley-1] be agreed to.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: I am now going to put amendment No.1 [Pangallo-1]. I put the question that this amendment be agreed to.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: I have one quick notice by way of clarification: amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1] will be addressed when we recommit, which will have to be after we report progress.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is the provision that will delete the consensus provision, which members have chosen to refer to as the veto. Given that the allocation of funds is a decision that is made by the board, concerns have been brought to me about decisions to direct funds to particular training providers that may be with associations and also be members of the board. Without the existing consensus clause, can the minister explain what will prevent funds being allocated to training providers who have links to board members? If an organisation has a training arm, what will prevent board members directing funds essentially to themselves?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is certainly not the government's view that the arbiters of conflicts of interest are the holders of the veto, but if it pleases the council I would like to seek further advice to assure the council how conflicts of interest would be managed under the act as amended.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: When is that advice being sought?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Now. I refer the honourable member to part 6 of the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993, which relates to training plans. Under that section, the board must:

prepare a training plan for the purpose of improving the quality of training, and to increase the levels of skills, in the building and construction industry across all skill areas of that industry.

This is subsection (4):

A training plan must, in the allocation of money to a particular sector of the building and construction industry, provide for training that is directly relevant to the needs of that sector.

The training plans are the means by which the board allocates funds, and the sectors are defined in the legislation. It focuses on sectors rather than individual training providers. The Construction Industry Training Board would be subject to the normal responsibility to act honestly, consistent with the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for that illustration, minister. Am I right in thinking, however, that the training plan is put together by the board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The provisions that you have just referred to could be changed by a board?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, the provisions I just referred to are in the act, and they are changed by this parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to clarify, are you saying that the act sets out the sectors that need to be covered in terms of training?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can be.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can be set out?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that in the Construction Industry Training Fund Regulations 2008, regulation 4 deals with the sectors of the building and construction industry, and they are identified as the housing sector, the commercial sector and the civil sector. Part 6, section 32(4) of the act provides:

A training plan must, in the allocation of money to a particular sector of the building and construction industry, provide for training that is directly relevant to the needs of that sector.

I do stress that the board must cause a training plan to be submitted to the minister for approval, and the minister may request that a training plan be amended or revised before approval.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, minister for that clarification. However, it really does not alleviate my concerns. The conflict of interest provision in the act, section 8, provides:

A member of the Board will not be taken to have a direct or indirect interest in a matter for the purposes of this section by reason only of the fact that the member has an interest in a matter that is shared in common with those engaged in or associated with the construction industry generally, or a substantial section of those engaged in or associated with the construction industry.

Given that training is provided by many construction industry players, including the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, the civil contractors association, SA Unions and individual unions, could this clause therefore be used to argue that provision of training is a matter shared in common with a substantial section of those engaged in or associated with the construction industry and therefore would not be a matter that needed to be disclosed under conflicts of interest?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This bill does not propose any amendments to section 8 of the act. The disclosure provisions stand.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I realise that, thank you, but the consensus provision that is in the current act prevents allocation of funds to, for example—and I am not impugning this organisation at all—the Master Builders Association unless there is consensus. Similarly, if funds were going to be directed to a union training organisation, that could not happen without a consensus from the employer associations. Hence my concern about conflicts of interest and how the conflict of interest provision could be circumvented, for want of a better term, because so many players within the construction industry share in common the provision of training, and therefore the existing section 8—Disclosure of interest could be interpreted to say that the provision of training is common to that sector.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just fundamentally disagree with the member's view that somehow having different groups within the board acting as the watchdogs on the other parts of the board for conflicts of interest is the way that corporate governance works. It does not happen in boards generally. I would also bring the council's attention to section 9 of the act, which provides:

A member of the Board must at all times act honestly in the performance of the functions of his or her office, whether within or outside the State.

Neither section 8 nor section 9 are amended by this legislation. The government just does not accept the view that having groups of the board carrying a veto is somehow some arbiter of probity.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Just on the conflict of interest points raised, my understanding is that there are current practices in place in regard to conflicts of interest performed by the board; that includes a code of conduct. Can the minister confirm that that code of conduct will not be sought to be amended by the government?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I just clarify? Are you referring to a general statutory code of conduct or conduct that is a resolution of the board of the CITB? I am not sure of the nature of the code you are referring to.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The code of conduct assists the board in exactly the conflict of interest matters that they have in place now. Given that conflict of interest has come up and the board has developed a code of conduct, I am just confirming that in no way the government will be seeking for that code of conduct to be amended in any way.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As we have said repeatedly, many matters are a matter for the board. This government would certainly not be seeking to undermine proper management of conflicts of interest within a board.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I read that to be that the government endorses the code of conduct as it stands now. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is not for the government. If the board has a code of conduct, they have the right to maintain it or change it. I am confident that the government will respect the independence of the board, including the management of their interests.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I know that the code of conduct was established on the basis of Crown law advice. Does the government continue to trust Crown law advice given to the board in relation to the code of conduct to prevent conflicts of interest?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not sure where the member is taking me on this. I have not seen any Crown law advice, so how can I endorse it? As I said earlier, we respect Crown law advice, but it is a matter for the board to manage any board-endorsed codes of conduct.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: For clarity, you are refusing to rule out that you would endorse a change to the code of conduct in relation to conflicts of interest.

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

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Does the government continue to endorse the position of disclosing conflict of interest matters in the board's annual reports?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the member advise me where that is required?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: It is current practice.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I can only vouch for the legislation, which says that a disclosure of interest under this section must be recorded in the minutes of the board.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: There has been a great deal of moralising in the other place and in this place about the nature of the best interests of governance and clarity. I think the point made by the government in relation to the amendments that it has brought forward is that it is saying, 'We want it to be transparent, we want best practice and we want all these things.' The points I am raising go to those things. Declaring conflicts of interest in annual reports and making sure that you can continue to endorse codes of conduct that actually contain best practice goes to good governance.

All I am asking is whether the government continues to endorse the current good governance practices of the current board and how it operates. Disclosing conflicts of interest in the annual report is something a lot of organisations do, not just this board. I am just asking whether or not the government continues to endorse that practice.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I have said previously, the government respects that independent boards govern themselves. The legislation requires that a disclosure under this section must be recorded in the minutes of the board. I stress that, once this bill is brought before the parliament, it is open to any member to seek to put into legislation what they regard as current practice or enhanced practice. The honourable member seeks an assurance from the government. The other course of action would be to move an amendment.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: What I am seeking to know is whether or not the government actually believes its own mantra. I think I have my answer, but I am going to make it very clear: do you or do you not endorse the current best practices of the board in relation to disclosure of conflicts of interest in the annual general report and their current disclosure arrangements as they perform them now?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not the relevant minister. The legislation lays down the requirements on the board. If honourable members want to change that bar, they are free to move amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Without the existing consensus clause, will anything prevent funds from being directed to non-accredited training?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated on Tuesday, funds can be allocated to non-accredited training and the government supports the board continuing to have that capacity.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Are you able to advise the chamber whether the government has had any approaches from the HIA, Master Builders, Civil Contractors Federation or the Property Council regarding being possible training providers in the industry of non-accredited training following the passage of this bill, if it passes?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not able to answer that question. As I indicated earlier, that is clearly a question that the member could have anticipated at the second reading stage or at the committee stage. The fact that she chose to leave it so late in the debate—sorry, I hope so late in the debate. I hope this is not the middle stage of this debate, but filibusters are filibusters. I do not have that information and I do not intend to take it on notice.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would point out that I did raise the issue of non-accredited training, but the answer was a very general one, hence the further question tonight. The CITB currently allocates funding to a number of programs, in addition to apprenticeship and traineeship support.

To refresh members' memories, or to advise them if they are not aware, these include the MATES in Construction program, which is suicide prevention for workers; the construction workers program, which facilitates skill development for existing workers though upskilling and cross-skilling; development and innovation programs to address new and emerging technologies and skills shortages; and an Access and Equity program, which includes the Aboriginal Workforce Development Initiative and promoting careers for women in construction. I note that Mr Pangallo appeared to suggest in his second reading contribution that a program particularly for women would be innovative. I just point out that the board has already been doing that.

In the second reading explanation, the minister stated that the change in the bill would apparently enable the board to respond to the government's Skilling Australians strategy to support an additional 20,800 apprenticeships and traineeships over the next four years. Can you explain how this bill will ensure that the training funds administered by the CITB will not be directed exclusively to the government's political agenda, as opposed to the variety of programs—not necessarily the same programs that are in place, but the wide variety of types of programs—that the board has funded until this time?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It will remain the board's decision as to the range of programs that it supports.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To clarify, without this consensus provision, there is nothing to prevent the sole agenda essentially being the government's agenda, as opposed to what is going to be best for industry, such as suicide prevention, safety training, Aboriginal access programs—that type of thing that we have had in the past. There will be nothing to prevent all of those being scrapped?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Again, I do not agree that the veto provisions are some protector of probity or some protector of broad interests. All I can do is reiterate that the board will continue to have the capacity to invest broadly.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, line 28—After 'approved by the Minister' insert 'which—'

(a) must be the same for each member of the Board (other than the presiding member); and

(b) must not exceed the maximum amounts determined, as at 1 November 2018, by the Minister under this section (as in force on that date).

The reason I have undertaken to move this amendment is my concern that perhaps some dodgy deals have been done promising people potential board positions. That has certainly been some of the debate that has surrounded this particular bill. This amendment seeks to ensure that nobody does benefit unduly from that and caps the board payments to what they currently are.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am surprised that that was the rationale because, basically, the Greens' amendment is to say, 'Okay, there might be dodgy deals. We are not going to stop them but we are going to cap them.' The advice from cabinet office in relation to this amendment is that no other board has their remuneration set in legislation. The amendment would reduce flexibility and set up a special case without apparent cause for it. I certainly do not think it addresses the mischief the honourable member is trying to address.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just wanted to point out that at the moment the act says that allowances and expenses will not exceed amounts determined by the minister after consultation with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and this will simply be approved by the minister. So the question arises of why it is deemed necessary to remove the current guidelines on members' allowances and expenses and instead have them approved by the minister? It raises the question of will there be any cap whatsoever on members' allowances and expenses?

Given that the minister will determine solely at his own discretion how much to pay members of this board, and these are members of the board who he will appoint solely at his own discretion, clearly there is a significant risk of poor deals. There will be, as far as we can see, no guidelines in place regarding allowable expenses. What that means is if the minister determined, after appointing all of his mates to the board, that it was reasonable, for example, for the board to take a trip to look at construction training in the Swiss Alps and on the French Riviera and then in Las Vegas, there will be nothing to stop him from doing so.

Remembering this is not a government board so it would not even be government funds that were being expended in such a way. These are expenses of a training fund that is there for the purpose of training people within the construction industry. But, unless the minister can point to anything that is not clear from the bill, it appears as though there is nothing to stop the scenario that I have just given from occurring.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The amendment that the government is proposing in section 10 confirms that the responsible minister approves board members' allowances and expenses. The bill removes the requirement for the minister to consult with the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment in determining board members' allowances and expenses. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has advised that this consultation process no longer occurs. In that sense, all this amendment does is bring the legislation in accordance with practice—practice which, I presume, predates this government.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will seek members' indulgence because I do want to ask a question—and I appreciate the minister has the capacity to say that we should have asked the question earlier, but I hope, given it goes to the central point of transparency and accountability, that he will seek an answer, and hopefully it will be one he can provide now but, if not, I really do think it is important enough that he should come back to it. So the question is: where will details of expenditure of board members' allowances and expenses be available? I am referring to what each individual board member will be paid, because, as far as we can see, it could be unlimited.

How will there be any transparency around what will be paid to members and what expenses might be used? So in the Swiss Alps scenario, we would need to be sure that a huge junket was somehow made known. Could it be, for example, published in the annual report what the expenses are or what the individual board members' remuneration is? That is my question. I appreciate that he is not obliged to answer but, hopefully, in the interest of accountability, he will be willing to do so.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have made every attempt today to provide information that is available to me, so I am pleased to be able to advise the honourable member that it is currently standard government practice for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to produce an annual report tabled in parliament disclosing information about all government-appointed boards and committees across South Australia. The report discloses the members of each board and what they are individually remunerated.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. I appreciate that most sincerely but, as I understand it, that does not include expenses that are paid; remuneration, yes, but not expenses is my understanding.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have advice about expenses, but considering that the Treasurer is here, I am sure he would be able to answer it. I am aware that the boards and committees are reporting in relation to what is maintained by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but I am not aware of any board having expenses disclosed. I do not have that advice to me. Certainly, in relation to the key issue of board members' remuneration, this would be disclosed. Considering that the filibuster continues, I undertake to provide an answer to that when this committee next sits.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.