Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2020.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:30): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. The Minister for Innovation and Skills undertook a review of the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 in 2019 and released the report 'Future-proofing the South Australian Apprenticeship and Traineeship System'.

On 2 July 2020, Minister Pisoni introduced the bill into the House of Assembly. However, consultation was open on the YourSAy website until 20 August. That in itself was interesting, that Minister Pisoni introduced a bill but had not actually completed consultation prior to doing so. Certainly, a number of stakeholders indicated to me and to the Labor opposition their disappointment with that because it appeared to indicate a lack of goodwill in terms of actually hearing from all relevant stakeholders—and in that I would include representatives of employees, apprentices and trainees—and was instead trying to railroad something through.

Indeed, we know that he did try to get it through the lower house in a very short period of time. If he had been successful it would have come to the upper house before the consultation period was complete. I am glad to say that did not occur and he did not get it through the other place in time to do that.

This is an incredibly important bill because it relates to training and skills development in our state. We have a multitude of pieces of evidence about some of the problems in our training and skills sector. There is a lack of certainty in what the VET system is producing. We see that completions are continuing to decline. What we have had a great deal from this government is a wonderful amount of spin about how wonderfully, supposedly, this government and Minister Pisoni are doing in this space.

Members will recall that Skilling South Australia, an agreement with the commonwealth, at roughly $200 million was designed, supposedly, to produce 20,800 new training places. I say 'new training places' because that is the accurate term, whereas the minister talked about 20,800 new apprentices and traineeships. That 20,800 was on top of what is called the baseline figure or a benchmark of 2016.

In 2016, there were 9,975 new commencements in traineeships and apprenticeships. The 20,800 was to be on top of that, so we could have expected roughly 30,000. We hear Minister Pisoni telling us that he is actually 'leading the nation', that the Marshall Liberal government is apparently 'leading the nation' in training and skills because they had, according to the NCVER figures, an 11.9 per cent increase in commencements from the previous year.

What the minister has failed to say and what the Treasurer obviously is unaware of is that that was an increase, because the previous year, under the Marshall Liberal government, was so bad.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: How bad was it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It was very bad indeed. The figures are such that this government has not even reached the benchmark figure. The NCVER figures show 9,265 commencements for the most recent figures ending in March, which is less than the benchmark of 9,975 that was achieved in 2016.

So, far from leading the nation, Minister Pisoni and the Marshall Liberal government have been going backwards in terms of their commencements for traineeships and apprenticeships from even the 2016 figures. And as I mentioned, completions continue to decline.

This is a very important bill because it does have an impact on training and skills development as we go forward. Of course, as we emerge from COVID, it is incredibly important—perhaps more important than any of us have seen in our lifetimes—that we do have a skilled workforce, that we are able rebuild the economy, and that we are able to fill the jobs of the future, as well as create the jobs of the future and the circumstances by which businesses will be able to do so.

Some of the criticisms from stakeholders that have been given to the opposition include the following, and I think they are worth reading out. I will mention that this is not a political statement from this stakeholder. This is simply an assessment of the bill as it was provided at that time. Of course, there have been some changes.

I will mention that in the lower house there were 43 amendments to this bill—43. So the government introduces their own bill and then makes 43 amendments to it. I cannot complain about all of those because some of them are very good amendments and they actually reflect the feedback from stakeholders, including feedback that I think came about because we asked the questions of stakeholders, who had been encouraged to write to various members of this place saying that they supported to bill, only to find that they were not actually apprised of all of the details.

Once we were able to ask those questions, stakeholders expressed some concerns about some details and they presumably gave those concerns to the minister. I am glad to see that he did make some changes, but it is somewhat embarrassing for the minister to have to make 43 amendments to his own bill in the other place.

Mind you, I think he has now been outdone. I think someone mentioned that another bill—which of course I cannot mention because that would be against parliamentary proceedings—had something like 140 amendments made to it by the government, that the government has made that number of amendments to its own bill. But that is another question for another day.

A comment made by one of the stakeholders was that the amendments in the bill, if supported:

…would result in too much of the management of training and skills development in South Australia being done through regulation, regulation subject to transactional political cycles rather than encouraging proper long-term planning and investment in capability building through legislation.

Other concerns were that:

The objects proposed for the new act ignore the role of vocational education and training in furthering the social development of South Australians in favour of economic development.

So it is a narrow object that is being proposed. It should be about social development as well as economic development. This stakeholder mentioned that:

The original bill preferenced the needs of industry, government and the community but made no reference to the needs of students or workers.

I note that there have been some slight changes that do address that to an extent, but again, the bill as received in this place certainly has a very strong bias towards industry, government and community. Obviously, we do need to have industry, government and community involved, but not to the exclusion of students or workers. We are, after all, talking about apprentices and trainees, so one would think that students and workers should be central to that. Further feedback was that:

It constitutes a repudiation of longstanding intergovernmental commitments to participation in the national training system and mutual recognition.

In addition, that:

It constitutes a repudiation of 30 years of commitment to bipartite industry leadership of a competency-based vocational education and training system, and that it encourages further fragmentation of vocational skills at a time when greater certainty and coherence is what is required.

Also, that:

It constrains the utility of apprenticeships and traineeships to mere employment programs at the expense of opportunities to build a skilled and resilient workforce that can confront the future.

I think that is a very, very valid point. We need to have a skilled and resilient workforce. They need to be able to confront the future and they need to be able to develop. Despite the rhetoric around this being about flexibility, this bill is more about flexibility for one side of the equation rather than flexibility for our entire training and skills community as we go forward.

Further, the feedback is that this bill encourages further fragmentation of the apprenticeship system through ill-considered approaches that preference flexibility over certainty. Again, ambiguity can be a great disincentive, both to people considering an apprenticeship, traineeship or training contract as well as to employers in taking that on. Invariably, ambiguity ends up costing the community and costing industry, workers and students because ambiguity causes disputes.

The original bill removed all registration requirements for employers. What the original bill did was only mention employers in terms of whether they were able to take on apprentices as employees after the fact. If an employer did something that was seriously wrong they would become a prohibited employer, and be unable to take on apprentices or trainees in the future. So it removed all the current requirements for registration as an employer.

It is a very welcome backflip that we have seen in terms of the government in the lower house introducing an amendment to put in a registration process; however, it is still very ambiguous, and it is not clear why that will be in regulations rather than in legislation. I will speak to that more when we get into the committee stage.

The key changes introduced by the bill include establishing the South Australian Skills Commission, with all members to be appointed by the minister. This involves rebranding the Training and Skills Commission and abolishing the position of Training Advocate. It establishes a South Australian Skills Commissioner to be appointed by the minister, and it enables the minister to expand the scope of trades and declared vocations. As mentioned, it changes the employer registration process but, as also mentioned, it does include a registration process. I will comment more about that when we get into the committee stage.

It increases the probation period for both apprentices and trainees to six months or 25 per cent of the training contract. It enables a training contract to be ended without reason within that probation period simply by giving written notice, and introduces a fee for employers on transfer of a trainee or apprentice—apparently to combat poaching. Again, employers and training organisations have raised concerns with that. It would also permit the South Australian Skills Commission, upon being satisfied of a person's competency in a trade or declared vocation, to issue a certificate of proficiency in relation to the trade or declared vocation.

In terms of the Training Advocate, the key function of the Office of the Training Advocate is to promote and provide independent advice about the training system in South Australia to students, apprentices and trainees, employers and training providers. The services the Training Advocate currently provides include a confidential and independent advice and support service, dedicated services to international students, speaking out and negotiating on behalf of individuals towards the resolution of an issue or dispute, independent complaints handling, presentations to businesses, student orientation sessions, making submissions to inquiries, and relevant key stakeholder consultations.

The Training Advocate is an independent statutory office that, by all accounts, would seem to have been relatively uncontroversial. This is despite the fact that when coming into government the Marshall Liberal government, or Minister Pisoni in particular, appointed a former Liberal staffer to the role. The only criticism I have heard of her is that people have not seen her very much, but she certainly has not provided anything that is particularly controversial.

Concerns have been raised about rolling these functions into the SA Skills Commission, because it removes the independence of that office. Minister Pisoni has argued that there has been industry feedback regarding confusion and duplication of roles between the Training Advocate and the current Training and Skills Commission. If that is correct, we would welcome the minister better defining the new skills commission and the role of the Training Advocate. That is what would be needed to clear up confusion while maintaining the important independent role for advocacy.

Something for members to consider: under this new system where there is not an independent advocate, if an electorate office trainee or a trainee in the office of a member of the Legislative Council who works directly under the minister and whose EO had concerns with the on-the-job training they were receiving, instead of going to the independent Training Advocate they would have to go to the Skills Commission, which is appointed by the minister and is under the direction of the minister—the very same minister who has set it up.

The difficulties around not having an independent person whom someone could go to should be obvious to all members. The question would arise whether the commission really would adequately investigate the issues. This could be expanded to any other state government agency or department that undertakes training. Removing the independent role raises questions as to how their complaints will be handled. The opposition will be moving amendments to reinstate the Training Advocate, due to those concerns.

Regarding the make-up of the South Australian Skills Commission, the bill would provide the minister with the power to appoint all 10 members of the commission without consultation from unions or employer groups, whereas at the moment there must at least be consultation with a representative of employers (Business SA is the designated representative) or with representatives of employees (SA Unions is the designated representative).

We do know that Minister Pisoni has a bit of history in terms of making appointments to boards—turning boards that have been working quite well into political nightmares. Members may recall the appointment of Nicholas Handley, who of course did not qualify to be appointed to the role he was appointed to on the CITB, yet the minister went ahead and did it and then changed the act so that he would not have to worry about having any particular skill, any particular experience or any particular abilities on that board.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Bingo.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: 'Bingo', as the Hon. Mr Hanson says. So, under this bill, Minister Pisoni is able to appoint members to the commission without reference to either employer groups or employee groups. We will be moving an amendment to ensure that one person is appointed from each of those two bodies, still leaving the minister to appoint the remaining eight. Two out of ten does not seem a particularly onerous requirement, yet we know that the minister hates unions, so it is not surprising that he wanted to take the requirement to consult with them out of this bill.

But what does the minister have against Business SA? I would have thought that Business SA would have been quite pleased to contribute and has quite a lot of relevant expertise. Indeed, I would argue that SA Unions also has a lot of relevant expertise, but I do not expect to get past the blind spot of the minister on that. But really, what does he have against Business SA? I would indeed have thought there would be a strong argument to increase the requirement to ensure that there is additional representation of different views. For example, Master Builders would probably make a fine addition to the South Australian Skills Commission, and it would not be a problem to see that body included as well.

However, as we know from past history, the minister does not like to consult. The minister wants to be able to appoint whomever he wishes, and that of course means that there is not continuity or confidence that those who are being appointed are actually appointed for the right reasons: to get the best for South Australia in terms of training and skills. Therefore, we think it would be a retrograde step.

The bill also introduces a new section that would allow for trainees and apprentices to be faced with a six-month probationary period. Currently, anyone on a training contract that is less than 24 months (two years) will be subject to a two-month probationary period, and those on a training contract of more than 24 months will be subject to a three-month probationary period. We do not support the changes and we will be moving an amendment.

The opposition will be moving further amendments, minor ones mainly, to ensure that if the minister gives any directions to the commission they should be public, they should be transparent, and therefore should be tabled in both houses of parliament within three sitting days. We will also be moving some other minor amendments that have been filed, and which members would have seen, in reference to the South Australian Employment Tribunal. We will also be moving a more important amendment. We certainly will have some questions during the committee stage in regard to the recognition of other trade training. Those amendments, as I mentioned, have been filed.

In summary, there is a great opportunity to improve the training and skills in South Australia, and the commission could be an important part of that; however, the many changes that have been made to a bill which was ill-conceived—the minister did not even have the courtesy to wait for consultation before lodging it, resulting in, as I mentioned, over 40 amendments to his own bill—do not bode well.

But I hope, and the opposition hopes, that we will be able to get through some of the very obviously useful amendments, such as those around transparency, and have some other questions answered during the course of the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:50): I rise today on behalf of the Greens to speak on this bill. We recognise that this particular bill is a product of many years of review and consultation. The current Training and Skills Development Act has been in operation for more than a decade, and a review of the act did commence in 2016, but it was not concluded. Since that time the Marshall government has undertaken consultation through YourSAy, and that was set to conclude on 20 August. Indeed, I note that in the other place the bill was partially debated prior to that date.

While we appreciate many of the stated goals of the government in bringing about this particular amendment bill in terms of the Training and Skills Development Act, such as streamlining of processes and simplification, we do actually have significant concerns about some portions of this legislation and indeed will struggle to support it at the third reading without amendment.

Of significant concern is the amalgamation of the functions of the South Australian Training Advocate and the Training and Skills Commission into the newly established South Australian Skills Commission. The government has stated in the other place and in briefings, which I thank them for, that the reason for this amalgamation is to provide clarity, as at present industry would struggle to know who to contact.

We are assured that neither of these roles or functions of either the South Australian Training Advocate or the Training and Skills Commission are lost; however, that is not actually entirely the case. Through this amalgamation, while the functions and services remain, what we are losing is the independent voice and advocate for trainees and apprentices. That is hugely concerning.

This is not the first time we have seen this government through amalgamation of roles remove that independent oversight in specific fields. Indeed, it seems to be forming a quite disturbing pattern. We have seen this with the Public Trustee in a guardian amendment bill recently, where it was planned by the Marshall government that the Public Trustee and the Public Advocate were to be amalgamated.

Again, we were told that this would be simplification, yet they had very different and critical roles. Certainly, in that situation the parliament prevailed, and the attempt to amalgamate and lose that independent oversight and that absolute integrity that was required was indeed defeated by democracy. Democracy upheld the very vital and different roles of those bodies.

To a lesser extent we have also seen this approach as part of the Health Care (Governance) Amendment Bill 2019 and 2020 debates, where again the bill sought to remove and disempower independent oversight and advocacy bodies. Again, while I will not mention that bill too much because it is currently before this place, the previous debate saw this council uphold the roles, such as that of the Health Performance Council and Mental Health Commissioner, both bodies worthy of the support that this council has given them.

The Greens are quite concerned that employee and employer voices are not required to be represented on the South Australian Skills Commission. We do understand that the government seeks to appoint people based on a skills matrix, and they have certainly countenanced that and outlined it in the other place; however, we are not convinced that the South Australian Skills Commission is best served by being made up solely of those hand-picked by the minister.

To that end, it is my understanding that the opposition will be moving amendments, and those amendments would see both an employee and an employer voice, that being SA Unions and Business SA, which would have representatives as members of the commission. The Greens will be supporting those amendments.

We do have further concerns about this bill in terms of the extension of the probation periods for those undertaking traineeships. This means that we often have young and inexperienced workers who face great uncertainty about their training contract. While this has been amended in the other place already, we understand that some apprentices could still spend as much as six months of their traineeship under probation. Trainees and apprentices are already some of the most vulnerable members of our workforce. They deserve our protection. There is already a significant power imbalance that exists between trainees and their employers and, again, that is where the parliament can protect those most vulnerable in our workforce.

On the surface, it does seem reasonable that a probationary period is extended to be as long as 25 per cent of the total traineeship or apprenticeship, especially as this is unlikely to affect most traineeships significantly, due to their length. However, for some undertaking an apprenticeship, which can take two years, this means that they could be spending six months under probation—six months of uncertainty. That is not a viable proposition to put our most vulnerable workers in, to sign away those current rights that they have, placing them into quite a precarious position.

The Greens certainly do not think the way to achieve flexibility and to streamline and simplify should be about watering down protections for apprentices and trainees. Again, I will therefore flag that we will be supporting amendments to keep the current 60 days' probationary period for a training contract that lasts less than 24 months and to ensure that the maximum probationary period for a training contract lasting longer than 24 months is 90 days.

Finally, I would like to add that the Greens do share the concerns of the Labor opposition in regard to the rather odd way in which ministerial directions are being handled under this bill. It is genuinely bizarre that under the bill as it currently stands any directions from the minister are to be published in an annual report. This means a direction from the minister might not be published for up to a year. The Greens do not think this is acceptable, and so we will again be supporting those Labor amendments to ensure that the directions are laid before both houses of parliament within three sitting days.

I will be seeking to move that this bill be referred for proper scrutiny. We have seen two stages of the YourSAy consultation put out, but it is a bill that in fact came back before the parliament, before those consultations were concluded. As the Hon. Clare Scriven has raised, there have been 43 amendments from the government to their own bill already, and certainly lots of constituents have contacted the Greens. I do not think the Greens have been told the actual bill that we are here debating in the Legislative Council. They cannot possibly have been told in terms of extending their quite enthusiastic support for its passage, and yet they do not necessarily know the exact detail of the bill that they have been told that they are supporting.

It does demand further scrutiny. Vulnerable workers and apprentices demand our protection as a parliament, and that is why I move:

Leave out all words after 'That' and insert:

the Bill be withdrawn and referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation for inquiry and report.

I do so because this bill deserves more scrutiny than it has been given so far. It has been put out for consultation half baked and brought before this parliament in a form that is not the form we are now debating here. It is quite concerning to me as well—and I certainly ask the government to respond to this in second reading summary—as to whether the provisions in this bill leave us out of step with the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 requirements legislatively in terms the role of the Training Advocate.

I have some concerns that we are not only leaving young vulnerable apprentices and trainees in the lurch, but we potentially are thumbing our nose at the federal law. With that, the Greens look forward to the referral of this bill for proper consultation to a committee, and we reserve our rights, should the bill go through committee stage, to have many more questions as it progresses, and certainly we will not support it without the Labor opposition amendments being supported at that third reading stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:00): I rise on behalf of SA-Best in support of the government's Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Our economy is officially in its first recession for almost three decades, and it will probably be the deepest and harshest we have ever experienced.

Debt is expected to surpass $1 trillion, which is unprecedented and unlikely to be paid off in decades. The June quarter GDP results show the worst fall on record—worse than the global financial crisis and worse than most economists predicted. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 7.9 per cent, and also the worst youth unemployment rate at 15.5 per cent. That translates to 20,300 young people currently looking for work, and there will be a new influx of year 12 graduates in a few weeks' time.

South Australia is particularly vulnerable, given our limited GST revenue, our recent losses of manufacturing and an over-reliance on large federally-funded road and defence projects. Our mining and agricultural industries are not on the scale of, say, Western Australia, so we have not been able to weather the storm like Western Australia has. Pre and post COVID-19, South Australia needs to accelerate its ability to respond to the changing nature of industry by adopting new technologies. We need a modern training regime, a system that is flexible and agile, to support and reskill South Australians for the opportunities from growing and emerging industries such as space, defence technology, manufacturing and health care.

At this critical point in South Australia's economic recovery from the impacts of a COVID-19 induced recession, governments need to provide as much help as they possibly can. Now more than ever we need to focus on a sustainable, long-term economic rebuild of South Australia. A skilled workforce is the key to the economic growth, and industry diversification is crucial to this. This bill is a step in the right direction and particularly timely, given the federal government's budget announcement last week of $1.2 billion funding for apprenticeship training.

Under the new federal wage subsidy program, businesses that hire a new Australian apprentice or trainee will qualify for a 50 per cent wage subsidy. These boosting apprenticeship commencement subsidies, effective from 5 October, are available to businesses of all sizes in all industries and locations until a cap of 100,000 is reached.

Apprenticeship training, unlike many university degrees, is a guarantee of top quality training and an occupation as a qualified tradesperson on completion. Apprentices and traineeships equip mature age and young people with lifelong skills to share in South Australia's economic wealth through gainful secure employment. Additionally, there is no HECS payable and trainees are paid and work on the job throughout. Apprenticeships and traineeships are a real win-win.

On the weekend, media showed that COVID-19 has hit all South Australians hard but it has hit our youth are hardest. Young people are often employed in the gig economy, in hospitality and retail roles with no annual leave or other entitlements or resources to fall back on. The number of entry-level jobs was already in decline and youth unemployment has remained high since the GFC. The federal government apprenticeship subsidy and this bill should be a huge boost to South Australian employers and together are very positive initiatives to address our current horrendous adult and youth unemployment rate.

It is incumbent on governments to facilitate retention and recruitment of apprentices and provide as many incentives and as much support as it can to employers and employees alike to create and support jobs in the sectors showing signs of recovery and future growth. A flexible apprenticeship and trainee system is increasingly important in supporting new and emerging industries that find it difficult to recruit and retain skilled employees in South Australia.

It was pleasing pre COVID-19 to see that national training data released by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed South Australia was exceeding the national apprenticeship commencement rate and that this was trending upwards.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Because last week was so bad.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, at least it is going in the right direction.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Pangallo is on his feet and should be heard in silence.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: I'm sorry, I was overcome with the absurdity of the government's—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, Mr President. I will repeat that again, Mr President, in case you may have missed it. It was pleasing pre COVID-19 to see national training data released by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed that South Australia was exceeding the national apprenticeship commencement rate, and that this was trending upwards. It was also great to see there was a 90 per cent increase in apprentice and trainee commencements from existing workers, showing an upskilling and retraining mindset of South Australian businesses.

The Born to Build schools program conducted by the Master Builders Association was well on the way with 20 participants and 15 training contract outcomes before COVID hit. I would urge the government to continue to support this great initiative. It is important that we continually adapt to build strong partnerships between industry, the secondary and post-school education system, and the contemporary environment in which apprenticeships and traineeships operate.

This bill introduces an expanded scope of trades and declared vocations to better accommodate new and emerging occupational pathways in South Australia, and I look forward to seeing graduates take up those professions that did not even exist when the apprenticeship system was first introduced into Australia from Britain.

I welcome the establishment of a South Australian Skills Commission headed up by a new statutory appointment, the South Australian Skills Commissioner. This new dedicated role will advise and assist the minister in relation to the training and skills portfolio and report each year on the performance of his or her functions, and provide a better balance between the obligations of employers and employees.

The commissioner will have the power to declare an employer a prohibited employer and preclude him or her from employing apprentices or trainees where it is demonstrable that the employer is unfit for prescribed reasons. This is a welcome addition which will increase the accountability of employers and provide new safeguards to protect apprentices and trainees from unscrupulous practices that have been evident in this sector in the past.

I support the transfer of VET regulatory powers and international student compliant handling services to the commonwealth, and the streamlining of training contract and training plan approvals for quicker turnaround on applications. It is also sensible to permit the parties to a training contract to seek an extension of the term of the probation period for the apprenticeship or traineeship up to a maximum of six months.

I note the government has consulted widely on this bill, which has its origins in Labor’s 2016 review of the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 and draws on the Training and Skills Commission's 'Future-proofing the South Australian apprenticeship and traineeship system' report and accompanying recommendations. I, too, have consulted widely to ensure there are no intended or unintended negative consequences from this legislation and that industry and employee groups see this bill as a constructive and positive reform. I am particularly grateful to the candid advice of David Nagy from Apprentice Employment Network SA, which supports the bill, as it is often difficult to gauge what employees think of such changes.

Although I had concerns about there being no specific industries or peak bodies represented on the commission, I am advised the membership is advised by the eight Industry Skills Councils, comprising over 100 members, and that stakeholders support this structure. Bodies such as Business SA, the Motor Trade Association and the Master Builders Association are on the respective Industry Skills Councils, and I am satisfied the minister's responsibility to appoint suitably skilled and qualified board members will draw on the expertise of the Industry Skills Council members.

I look forward to monitoring the contribution this bill makes to the apprenticeship and traineeship sector in South Australia as a vital element in South Australia's post COVID-19 economic recovery. As such, SA-Best commends the bill to the council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (18:11): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Given the very eloquent contribution of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I thank him in particular for his contribution to the debate. There were a number of questions that the Hon. Ms Franks raised which I will be better prepared to respond to during the committee stage of the debate, which I look forward to.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 11

Noes 10

Majority 1

Motion thus negatived; bill read a second time.