Construction Industry Training Fund (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:35): I rise today on behalf of the Liberal Party to speak on the Construction Industry Training Fund (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for managing and expanding the funds raised through the Construction Industry Training Levy to improve the quality of training in industry and coordinate industry-based training. The board does incredibly important work both in serving the construction sector and, particularly, in supporting young people considering a future in the industry.

The board provides access to subsidised training for apprentices, their employers and workers in the industry; promotes and supports careers in construction; advises the state government on industry training; supports training innovation, research and planning; and attracts our future workforce through vocational training and skills by supporting the Doorways2Construction program.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent contribution made by the Hon. John Gardner, member for Morialta, in his second reading and committee stage of the bill in the House of Assembly. I would also like to acknowledge the substantial work undertaken by the former Liberal government under the stewardship of the Hon. David Pisoni, the former Minister for Innovation and Skills.

The former Liberal government successfully implemented significant reforms to bring the Construction Industry Training Fund Act in line with equivalent legislation in other states and territories and with legislation governing the appointment of boards in our state education and training sector. This reform supported training growth across the industry and modernised the process for appointments to the Construction Industry Training Board, ensuring that the fund and the board were operating under an improved regime.

The bill we are dealing with today follows an independent review of the act undertaken in 2022 by PEG Consulting, led by Tahnya Donaghy and Ingrid Haythorpe. The issues paper was released in December 2022, outlining 31 recommendations. In response to the issues paper, 45 submissions from stakeholders were received. I would like to reiterate our thanks to all the stakeholders who have taken the time to assist the opposition in forming our view on this matter.

I note that Minister Boyer indicated that 30 of the 31 recommendations of the review will be implemented and that the remaining recommendation to investigate an alternative, more robust collection mechanism for the levy will be delayed by three years, pending evaluation of the other reforms introduced by this bill. The objectives of this bill include:

changing the composition of the board;

mandating the appointment of four employee representatives and four employer representatives, following consultation with key organisations;

increasing the project value threshold at which the levy is payable from $40,000 to $100,000 through regulations;

allowing the minister to present the board with the annual statement of the government's priorities;

establishing a cross-sector planning committee to advise the board on issues that impact the industry as a whole;

reducing the minister's oversight and approval of payments of board members and committee members;

enabling the allocation of moneys from the fund for the purposes of workforce attraction and retention activities;

changing the board's financial and operational reporting from a financial year to a calendar year;

streamlining reimbursement of expenses incurred by board members;

formalising the ability of the board to engage staff or services of the Public Service under an arrangement agreed with the relevant minister; and

mandating the review of the operation of the act following its fifth anniversary.

Consistent with the review's recommendation, the bill does not change the current levy rate, which is 0.25 per cent of a project's value. The opposition heard from stakeholders who felt that the application of the GST to the calculation of the project's value was a tax on a tax. Accordingly, the bill removes GST from the calculation, resulting in a reduction in the amount of levy payable for all project owners.

Under the current act, the levy is not payable on certain projects. Exemptions and exclusions are contained in the act, including on main or core turbines or generators to be installed at power stations involving the generation of electricity for the state's power systems and works associated with any operation under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, the Mining Act and the Opal Mining Act.

The review considered exemptions in the act and whether they remain relevant and appropriate. It suggested that exemptions for power generation and works performed by self-employed people in industries outside building construction do not meet the test of relevance or appropriateness and should be removed. We understand that government has accepted this approach and will proceed with these reforms. The review also recommended exemption for mining and petroleum works to be reviewed, and we understand the government has decided not to proceed with that course of action at this stage.

Many of the reforms in the bill are positive and can be seen as a natural evolution from the work done in 2018 under the former Liberal government. The Liberal Party heard from many stakeholders who were supportive of a number of pieces of reform in this bill, such as increasing the threshold at which a levy is payable from $40,000 to $100,000 through regulations, and establishing a cross-sector planning committee to advise the board on issues that impact the industry as a whole.

I now turn my attention to the composition of the board. Prior to 2018, under the previous legislation the board appointment process was among the most prescriptive in the nation and had not been amended since the act's inception. Reforms introduced in 2019 enable board members to be appointed based on their merit and experience in the sector and not locking in the appointment of unionists, ensuring a board that is better equipped to serve the industry workforce, skills and development needs.

Changes to the legislation in 2019 also included the presiding member being entitled to vote, including having a casting vote in board proceedings, the board comprising up to eight industry representatives nominated by the minister following a public expression of interest process, as well as two independent members. Removal of the veto voting provisions enable decisions of the board to reflect a majority position, not the majority position of a prescribed sectional interest.

Currently, all appointments to the board are made by the Governor on the nomination of the responsible minister and comprise persons who have the knowledge, skills and experience to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively. With this bill, the government is seeking to change the composition of the board to comprise four members who represent interests of the employers and four members who represent the interests of employees.

The bill requires the minister to consult with prescribed employer and employee associations that identify nominees in this category. An additional four members will be independent of the industry and selected through an expression of interest process. Deputy members can continue to be appointed to the board as required.

The opposition does not believe that this clause, changing the composition of the board, adds value to the bill. It does not assist in ensuring that there is good governance for the Construction Industry Training Fund. We will, therefore, oppose this clause. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment later to remove and oppose the clause. However, if that amendment is not supported, we will also have a second amendment to highlight the particularly damaging effect the CFMEU has had on the sector and remove any possibility of a CFMEU representative on the board. I, therefore, also foreshadow that I will move my amendment later to also make sure the clause of not having a CFMEU representative on the board will be considered.

There has been much discussion and rhetoric in this place about the CFMEU, and the government has stated that it does not support the way that John Setka and those sorts of operatives in the CFMEU do business. The government instigated a review looking into any links to organised crime. We are asking the government to back up this rhetoric with support of our amendment. The government introduced an amendment which only prevents a CFMEU representative on the board while that union is in administration. In the opinion of the opposition this does not go far enough.

The funds expended by the Construction Industry Training Fund, soon to be more than $30 million of industry funds, needs to be applied for the best purposes of the industry by funding quality training initiatives that attract and develop a highly skilled workforce for our construction sector. We have no confidence in the CFMEU in its current composition and we believe that preventing any of their employees or officers associated with that organisation from being appointed to the board will improve its governance.

As I have outlined, most of the measures in this bill were broadly supported by stakeholders but some of them did object to the changes to the composition of the board. The Liberal Party has listened to stakeholders and we do not believe that expanding, particularly sectional interests, under these changes is in the interests of the South Australian people. The Construction Industry Training Board does incredibly important work, providing vital programs that service and support the industry.

I also note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has a number of amendments to introduce and the Liberal Party will be considering those amendments in line with our own amendments as well. With those remarks, I commend the board and I commend the bill, with the exception of our amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:46): I rise to speak on the Construction Industry Training Fund (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. The bill, as we have heard, implements all but one of the recommendations from the three-year review of the 2019 amendments to the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993. I do note, given the lapse of time that had existed between that particular review and a review of the act as a whole, the decision was made to do a review in its entirety.

In terms of the recommendations themselves, what we know is that the government has chosen to implement 30 of the 31 recommendations. My understanding is that that one outstanding recommendation applies to mining site exemptions and it was not deemed appropriate in the circumstances, but overwhelmingly I think it is fair to say that this piece of legislation now has been the subject of quite extensive consultation and review. There were about 45 submissions, I think, from stakeholders in relation to the first round of review, then there was an early draft with key government and non-government stakeholders to identify possible financial impacts and implementation issues, and that resulted in further changes which we are considering today.

The amendments overall, though, do seem to aim to ensure the continued effectiveness of the fund and its board in line with modern industry requirements and standards. Of course, one of the key changes, and if we can cut to the chase in relation to the positions of members in this place, does come down to the composition of the board. The board is to be comprised of 12 members, four representing employers, four representing employees, and four who will be independent of the industry, and these independent members will bring a variety of skill sets and perspectives to the table helping the board function in a more balanced and innovative way.

This change reflects not just the need for broader representation and diverse input in key decision-making processes for the industry but also the recommendations of that overarching review that I have referred to. I, too, note that the opposition has filed those two alternative amendments in response to the composition of the board and I will speak to that during the committee stage in more detail.

I think, despite what happened in 2019, the proposal before us strikes the right balance between industry expertise and external viewpoints that contribute to the development and training initiatives necessary for our construction sector. Just referring to the comments made by the Hon. Jing Lee, it is worth noting that it may very well be that in principle the changes made in 2019 may have not been problematic but of course with changes of government we can see that the make-up changes considerably and the balance between employer and employee representation changes significantly, and that is just based on politics.

There does not have to be necessarily anything wrong with the clauses that were inserted in 2019 but, rather, how a new government or a government chooses to fill those vacancies and the impact that has in terms of ensuring the effectiveness of the scheme. That certainly was the subject of discussion, as I understand it, as part of that review process. It is for that reason that I have said that I think this approach does strike that right balance.

There is of course the aspect that has raised, again, concern, particularly on the part of the opposition, in relation to the explicit exclusion of any employee or officer of the CFMEU while that union is under administration, and I will speak to that further again. That provision is, in my view, a kneejerk reaction to the recent publicity and, with respect, it has been milked to death in this place.

What I would note from the contribution that has just been made is that, yes, there has been a lot of focus and attention and discussion about the CFMEU and John Setka but much less discussion, particularly in this place, about concerns raised about other organisations or individuals who work for other organisations. I suspect that is because it does not suit the political agenda of those who are raising those issues.

But you cannot pick and choose—that is the bottom line. And you should not be picking and choosing when it comes to legislation—that is also the bottom line. It is easy pickings right now with the CFMEU and the opposition and other members in this place know only too well that concerns have not been limited to just the CFMEU. In relation to the specific issues of corruption: it takes two to tango—we know that—and so this cannot be an issue that is isolated just to a union.

We also know that the issues that have been highlighted in the other jurisdictions have not been found here in South Australia. So I do not say that lightly when I say it has been easy pickings—it has been—but in the absence of any consideration of the fact that there has to be two parties to any of the sort of conduct that the opposition has referred to, it cannot just exist amongst a union. They cannot do it amongst themselves alone and there are peak bodies and organisations in this sector and employers in this sector as well, and any sort of review that takes place in this place, in my view, should have been, and my position remains, systemic across the industry.

I make that point specifically in relation to the points the opposition continues to raise in this place on the issue of the CFMEU. If the principle is that organisations in administration should not have a seat at the table then that should apply equally across the board to all organisations. It is bad lawmaking. You are picking out one union today but there is absolutely nothing to say that it could not apply equally to another union or another peak registered organisation tomorrow. What do we do then? We come back here and we change the law again to include another reference to another named organisation in the legislation? It is nonsensical and it is a bad way of making law. That is the bottom line.

We cannot and should not create a double standard where one is singled out for exclusion while others may continue to participate, regardless of their governance or financial stability, regardless of any investigations that may be taking place into them and regardless of questions in relation to the credibility of others that have been raised that may at some point result in them being placed under administration as well. The point is, if it is going to apply to one, it should apply to everybody. Every registered organisation should be subject to the same rules.

For the member who is looking at me curiously, I make this point: why is it that an employer or an officer of any organisation under administration be allowed to sit on a board that is making critical decisions about the future of the construction industry if they find themselves in the precise same situation as what the CFMEU finds itself in today? It does not make any sense at all.

I will get to this in a little while, but I have also sought to clarify in my amendments that any exclusion would only apply for the specific organisation or branch or division under administration. That is something that was perhaps missed in the rush to appear to be coming down strong on the CFMEU more broadly. Again, that is something that I think was a kneejerk reaction to the noises that were being made in this place.

I would have thought, if at any point you were going to have them sit on a board when you are under administration and all eyes are upon you, I can see the irony of all eyes being upon you and you all of a sudden not being worthy to sit in one of those positions. However, in the event that a South Australian branch or division was not under administration, then the exclusion from the board would not apply under what I am proposing shortly.

While I support the majority of this bill and welcome the improvements to the board's composition, its mandates and the very sensible raising of the threshold at which the levy is payable to projects valued at $100,000 or more, the exclusion of organisations should apply to all, not just one. I make that point again because this is, after all, about fairness, consistency and ensuring the best possible governance for an industry that is crucial to our state's economy and growth, and I suggest that is where the focus of this debate should be.

In relation to the changes to the threshold, the information that I gathered from the briefing that I attended was certainly that that would result in changes to the way that levies are paid. I think it is fair to say that DIT is the biggest contributor to the fund but, under the current arrangement that exists—again, going to the recommendations—it has been difficult to follow the money, primarily because of the provisions that result in payments in stages.

The bill's proposal, I think, in relation to the three changes that are interrelated in this respect, namely redefining the project donor to make clear whoever it is that benefits from the project, raising the threshold and requiring those up-front payments, work hand in hand and meet the objectives of the recommendations of the review. With those words, I indicate my in principle support for this bill, subject to those amendments, and I look forward to discussing them further when we get to the committee stage debate.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:58): I rise briefly to offer my in principle support for the Construction Industry Training Fund (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, noting that there are many amendments under consideration. I extend my thanks to the government for the briefing on the bill, which was useful in outlining the structure and purpose of the fund and its significant role in the construction industry. Most of these measures are uncontroversial and designed to improve the flow of moneys into the industry.

The construction training fund is a statutory authority for the construction workforce with a duty to contribute to a safe, skilled and sustainable workforce. The fund collects a training levy on building and construction projects and, under current legislation, this levy is payable on projects greater than $40,000. This bill seeks to increase that amount to $100,000, which means that smaller, mainly residential projects would be exempt from the levy, which should reduce the cost and red tape for these projects, a positive outcome for customers renovating their homes.

Most of the measures proposed arise from recommendations made as part of an independent review. One of the key findings of this review was the need to change the model for allocating moneys. Previously this had been based on the level of contribution from a particular sector within the industry. That has now been replaced with a funding model based on industry intelligence and best evidence, which should provide greater flexibility to meet the specific funding needs of large-scale projects. It would be useful to have further information about how these moneys are being used to support apprentices and employers to improve the employment outcomes and attract more workers to the industry.

One of the areas of contention was the composition of the board, which ideally should consist of a range of representatives from both employers and workers. The proposed composition has equal numbers from both sides, with an additional four members independent of the industry. One concern is that these members have the necessary expertise and skill to continue to grow the quality and quantity of our construction workers and that hopefully the board can begin to address why an increasing number of trainees and apprentices never go on to complete their qualification.

This bill should ensure that the important work of the industry training fund will continue to support and uphold the construction workforce into the future.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:00): I want to thank all members for their contributions. I am happy to indicate that when it comes to the committee stage it is the government's intention to support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and oppose the amendments put forward by the opposition.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, lines 1 to 5 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (1aaa)]—Delete subsection (1aaa) and substitute:

(1aaa) An employee or officer of an organisation, or of a branch or division of an organisation, must not be appointed as a member, or as a deputy of a member, of the Board while that organisation, branch or division (as the case requires) is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth in respect of its operations in the State.

The amendment effectively does what I have just spoken to in my second reading contribution; that is, alter the government's position in the bill as it stands by not naming any particular registered organisation and instead giving that broadbrush application to any employee or officer of an organisation or of a branch or division of an organisation that is appointed—or deputies—while that organisation, branch or division is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act of the commonwealth in respect of that state.

For the benefit of those members who have not followed the debate in the other place, the opposition moved amendments to the composition of the board when it comes to, effectively, union representation and, in the alternative, preventing the CFMEU specifically from holding a position on the board. The government was successful in its alternative amendment, which effectively limited the inability to appoint the CFMEU members, but only for the length that the union is in administration, as per the terms of the federal legislation under which they have been placed under administration.

The amendment that I am moving seeks to remove any reference to any specific union, and instead apply that limitation to any or all organisations, employees or officers or deputies while that organisation—whoever it may be—is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act in respect of the operation of the state.

As I said in my second reading, it applies specifically to the division in question. It might be, like I said, the CFMEU today, but that does not mean it will not be another union or another employer organisation or anyone else in the future. Frankly, I do not care if it is John Setka, John Adley, Will Frogley, the HIA, the concreters association. I do not care who the individual is; I just want to make sure that there is equal application in law to all of them, so we know that everyone is being governed by the same laws.

That makes sense to me, and I think that is a good way of making laws. We are not politicising the issue, and having to come back here, indeed, if next month or in six months' time we find another organisation in the same position as the CFMEU finds itself today. Again, to be clear, we are talking also about limiting it to that division of the organisation that is indeed under administration, because it may very well be that there are other divisions of that organisation that are not under administration, as is the case here. That makes sense to me. I think that is a sensible way to approach this issue.

I also think it is the most appropriate way of approaching this issue, given that we simply do not know what will happen in this industry tomorrow or in six months' time or in nine months' time or in 12 months' time, and we should not be coming back here every time this issue arises amending legislation the way that we are seeking to do today because we want to target one particular union division that is under administration at the moment. That is bad lawmaking, and that is the premise of this amendment.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lee–2]—

Page 5, lines 1 to 5 [clause 6(1), inserted subsection (1aaa)]—Delete subsection (1aaa) and substitute:

(1aaa) However, a person who is an employee or officer of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union must not be appointed as a member or deputy of a member of the Board.

For the record, we have been contacted by stakeholders who have really serious concerns about the CFMEU and the dominance and the harassment and other unacceptable actions by CFMEU; hence why the Liberal Party in the first instance has listened to stakeholders and want to actually introduce this particular amendment to address and highlight the particular damaging effects that the CFMEU has on the construction sector, and remove any possibilities of a CFMEU representative on the board. That is the intent of this particular amendment.

However, having listened to the argument and presentation of the amendment by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, we feel that her amendment is very reasonable because it is not targeting one single union or one single organisation to potentially have a negative impact on the industry. I still insist on moving the amendment. We will not divide on it, but I would still like to put the amendment for the record.

I also want to indicate that as the government minister has mentioned, I have indicated that the amendment moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros is sensible. It does have the broader coverage of organisations that may have terrible practices, and this provision will be able to cover those organisations that may be under administration, and not give them the rights, but protect the governance and integrity of the board. With those comments, I will leave it up to the Chair to call.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a couple of quick questions for the opposition member who is still insisting on moving the amendment that she has put forward. Can I ask the Hon. Jing Lee: is the intention of the amendment that she has put forward that no-one from the CFMEU can ever be a member of this board?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: From the advice that we have from stakeholders, they feel that the draconian practices of the CFMEU can have a negative impact on the construction industry. So for better governance, it is our view, and that of the stakeholders who have been guiding us in this process, to not have the CFMEU on the board.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I ask the honourable member: is it the opposition's position that they do not wish to see the CFMEU returned to South Australian control? Because if this amendment is successful, they will never have that opportunity; there is no incentive. So is it the opposition's position that South Australians should never have control of the running of the CFMEU again?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In the first instance, I think we have already spoken a lot in this chamber as well as in the other place about the impact of the CFMEU on the industry. We are not having a blanket rule-out of not allowing them to be in South Australia, but the fact of the matter is that they are problematic at this current point in time. The previous bill that was handled in the House of Assembly at the time did not take into consideration these sorts of safeguards. That was why we introduced it in the first place. We brought it up in this particular chamber just to reiterate that the opposition believes there ought to be better safeguards against an organisation like the CFMEU.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might put it a bit more simply: does the opposition wish to see the CFMEU run by South Australians?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: It is not for me to comment today because I believe the fact that we are moving to supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment today—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You are still putting yours, so that is your position.

The CHAIR: Order! Let the Hon. Ms Lee finish.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: We put our amendment in for the record that we feel strongly that an organisation like the CFMEU is not the best representative for the Construction Industry Training Board and not acting in the interests of South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Two more very quick questions. I know that when the Liberal Party room meet, there is the ability for members of the Liberal Party room to give notice that they do not intend to support a particular position. Are the amendments that the Hon. Jing Lee is putting forward the universal view of the whole of the Liberal Party room?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: First of all, we do not comment about what happens in our joint party room. It is the advice from the shadow minister that I put this amendment through today, but having said that, because the amendment put by the Hon. Connie Bonaros was not put in the lower house, in view of that, we are now supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment rather than putting this to a vote. I just wanted this particular amendment on the record to show how serious it is, how seriously we feel and the stakeholders feel about the CFMEU's negative impact on South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I genuinely do not understand what is happening with the Legislative Council at the moment. Often it is a mystery to observe and occasionally I do not quite have a complete understanding of what is going on, but to have someone putting amendments that they—if you put an amendment, that is your view and that is what you want to happen.

I am going to ask a question—and the Hon. Connie Bonaros referred to it earlier—about the fact that the amendment that is the Liberal Party's position that they are putting forward in this chamber today would seek to ban the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, any member or any employee or officer of that union, from being on this board—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question is: how does the honourable member and how does the Liberal Party justify, for instance, banning completely members of the forestry division from taking a seat on the board? I have raised this before. I will be very interested, because I am sure it will get media in the South-East if this amendment is actually put, that the Liberal Party position—and no-one in the Liberal Party has come out against it—is to ban the forestry division of the CFMEU from having a seat on the board.

There are thousands of forestry workers in the South-East that the Liberal Party is seeking to disenfranchise by virtue of putting this amendment. I am very happy, as I said before, to talk to the media in the South-East, and then the Hon. Ben Hood can go out and defend why his party is seeking to disenfranchise thousands and thousands of forestry members, not just in the South-East but from other parts of South Australia, from having any possibility of being part of the democratic process or representing a board.

I am really keen to see if the Hon. Dennis Hood can talk the Hon. Jing Lee out of putting the amendment forward, because if this amendment is put forward I can absolutely guarantee that we will be campaigning on the fact that they are seeking to disenfranchise thousands of workers in the South-East who are good hardworking people and, I have to say, represented by unionists like their divisional head, Brad Coates, in the South-East. To put an amendment that would seek to disenfranchise him and them I think would be reprehensible, and we will certainly be publicising that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I share the Attorney-General's confusion about what the Liberal Party position is. We have been told that we cannot know what the deliberations of the Liberal Party either upper house party room or joint party room are. I assume that this amendment came from the joint party room. I note that they are not subject to cabinet-in-confidence in terms of their decision, and generally the idea of parliament is to understand what the positions are of members who vote in this place.

So it would be highly unlikely that it is the policy of the Liberal Party that we are not allowed to know what their joint party room decides, particularly when they put an amendment before this place that is in the name of a Liberal member and that she intends to progress—she has not withdrawn from the debate—but says that she will not be voting for. It is not us who have caused this confusion. I call on the Liberal members of this place to remove the confusion and then we will move on to other organisations that have been put into administration lately or have had talk of it, and I will be having some questions on that as well.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: As I explained earlier, we had major concerns about the CFMEU at the time, before the government moved an amendment in the lower house to actually capture the bit about the CFMEU under administration. That is the bit that ought to be very clear. We feel that if an organisation, any organisation, is under administration, they should not be part of a board. That is really the intent.

If it makes this proposition even more clear—and I have explained this before, I have put it for the record—at the same time, we have relooked at and considered all the amendments proposed by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and the Liberal Party wish to put on the record that we will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment because it has a broader coverage of all organisations, all unions, and does not single any out. That is a better, sensible proposition, and we are accepting that proposition. If it would help the chamber, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing this amendment before the place, and I clarify the Greens will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments. I reflect upon the debate so far and the confusion that has been brought to this place by amendments, made on the floor in the other place, that sought to play politics with the CFMEU. I remind the Liberal opposition that it was only just a few short weeks ago that their former leader, the member for Black, actually talked about how, when he was leader, he was considering calling for his state Liberal Party to be put in administration. Indeed, it is not an unusual argument, given the New South Wales Liberal Party's position at the moment.

I wish to draw members' attention to the fact that being put in administration, or indeed having your former leader wish he had have been able to put your party into administration, comes as no surprise to those on the crossbench over here, and that is why we will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros and look forward to more informed and enlightening debates, where the Liberal Party does not bring forward amendments they are not even prepared to support and vote for themselves. I ask them to reflect on just what it means to take the actions of one member or a particular point in time and extrapolate them, on the basis of unstated, unknown stakeholders, and reflect upon an entire organisation, because in fact you may well be holding a mirror up to yourselves when you do that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have bitten my tongue in this, but I think I need to say something here. There is a very significant difference between the Liberal Party in South Australia and the CFMEU, and that is the Liberal Party is not under administration—at all.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Yet!

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is pure speculation—that is what that is, and the Hon. Mr Maher knows better.

The CHAIR: Ignore the interjections.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is pure speculation. There is no suggestion that the party should be under administration.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, there are the musings—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Just sit down, the Hon. Dennis Hood. We will wait until there is some quiet.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The fact is the Liberal Party is not under administration, has never been under administration, never will be under administration. The CFMEU is under administration. Those are the facts. They are two completely different things. The Liberal Party, frankly, is not mentioned in this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I was not going to ask my question, but I am still intrigued to know, so I might try to work it through. I am just trying to get my head around this whole confusing situation we have confronted. We have heard a lot around consultation the Liberals have engaged in. Who exactly have they consulted with? Who are these stakeholders that have told them to go down this path?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lee, you can choose to answer that if you wish. Otherwise, I am going to move on and put the amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given what just transpired, I think it is important to note for the record that the amendments that were actually put by the opposition have absolutely nothing to do with anyone who is under administration at all and everything to do just with the CFMEU, regardless of which division you are talking about. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the current position when it comes to the administration of the CFMEU and which arm of the CFMEU is indeed under administration.

We are talking about the construction industry arm of the CFMEU, which has nothing to do with the other arms of the CFMEU. The Attorney, the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Tammy Franks are 100 per cent right in their assessment of this and that is the reason I moved this amendment in the first place, because this is precisely a demonstration of what terrible, woeful, lawmaking looks like.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the record, the government will support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment. We thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for riding in and saving, to a certain extent, the opposition—it was a valiant effort. Given that the amendments were originally put, I can absolutely assure members once more that we will make sure the forestry workers in Mount Gambier know what the Liberals tried to do, even though the Hon. Dennis Hood did his best to save the Liberals from themselves once again today.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, after line 43—After subclause (5) insert:

(6) Section 5(5)—after paragraph (e) insert:

(ea) is, or becomes, an employee or officer of an organisation, or of a branch or division of an organisation, while that organisation, branch or division (as the case requires) is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth in respect of its operations in the State; or

(7) Section 5—after subsection (5) insert:

(5a) The appointment of a person as a deputy of a member is, by force of this subsection, revoked if the person is, or becomes, an employee or officer of an organisation, or of a branch or division of an organisation, while that organisation, branch or division (as the case requires) is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth in respect of its operations in the State.

For the purposes of today's debate, it might be worth explaining what the amendment does. Section 5 of the current act provides for circumstances that would render the office of a member of the board to become vacant. That includes things like when they die, when they become bankrupt, when they are found guilty of an indictable offence, when they resign, and so on and so forth.

The amendment I am proposing does two things: first, it extends that list to include a member who is or becomes an employee or officer of an organisation or of a branch or division of an organisation while that organisation, branch or division, as the case requires, is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act.

There is then a further provision, which revokes the appointment of a person as a deputy of a member if that person is or becomes an employee or officer of an organisation or division—the same words are used—whilst it is under administration. I do not think I need to explain that any further. I hope we are all clear about what that means. I think it speaks for itself in terms of its application and in keeping with what was moved in the first amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 29), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.