HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-05-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2008. Page 2522.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:08): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. I also indicate that we recognise the importance of the bill as it relates to the future of South Australia. There are a few areas in the bill on which I will seek clarification, based on our consultation with various groups. There are some points which we understand cannot necessarily be enshrined in the legislation, but it is important that the minister's position is put in Hansard.

I thank the minister's staff for the three briefings provided to me. The minister's Chief of Staff, Mr Ryan, has had contact with me, including numerous telephone calls, in order to ensure that anything I needed was available to me; and I appreciate that. At any time we have had briefings they have been conducted in an open and forthright manner. I am grateful for the minister's meeting with me last week, where he even offered me coffee—which was above and beyond the call of duty.

I do note that some 43 amendments have been filed today. I confirm that I was provided with an indication of those amendments on Thursday last week and a copy of the amendments was given to me on Monday afternoon. Most amendments relate to terminology.

I acknowledge that the guidelines for applications under the Training and Skills Development Act, as it relates to the Industrial Relations Commission, were provided to me last Thursday. I know that they were an evolving process and that there was considerable consultation with people from Business SA and the unions in relation to the development of the guidelines; and I will talk about that in more detail later.

Representatives from Business SA have spoken to me on numerous occasions about this bill. I know also that they have talked to the minister and his staff quite often in order to ensure the best possible outcome from negotiations on the bill. I wish to note the people to whom I have spoken in relation to this bill. Obviously, I have spoken to representatives from Business SA (from whom I received a lot of information) and Unions SA (from whom I did not receive any communication after inviting them to make comment). I contacted nine industry skills boards, and I am grateful for the feedback I received from the Primary Industries Skills Council. The Motor Traders Association provided me with written comments, the Masters Builders Association replied to me by return email, and the Housing Industry Association and the Australian Hotels Association did not make comment to me. In his second reading explanation, the minister said:

[The bill] provides a legislative framework for our training system, higher education and community learning, and includes the provision of advice on workforce development, the registration of training providers, course accreditation, arrangements for traineeships and apprenticeships, and protections for students...This bill provides for a stronger role for the Training and Skills Commission, in consultation with industry training bodies, such as industry skills boards, and employee and employer associations, in providing high level strategic advice about the application of workforce development strategies that are informed by effective community engagement.

It is important that this occurs. I acknowledge at this time, also, as an adjunct to the release of the bill, the minister's presentation of a skills strategy for South Australia's future. The minister and I have been engaged in some radio and media contact about this matter, and in the briefing provided to me on Thursday last week we spoke at length about it. There is no doubt that that issue will arise in future issues.

The future workforce needs of South Australia are immense. We all in this place acknowledge that. There is a desperate need to ensure that the skilled workers we need are provided, and the importance of that plays to the economic future of the state. Certainly, both the minister and I agree—and we are on the public record as saying—that up to 300,000 people are required in the next 10 to 20 years to replace those in the baby boomers generation who are about to retire and for the economic opportunities that will be created throughout the state.

It is a challenge for governments, regardless of their political persuasion, to try to come up with that skilled workforce, and that is why the minister provided an opportunity for public consultation in mid-2006, with comments being received through to the end of that year, on a review of the Training and Skills Development Act 2003. As a result of that consultation, the minister chose to introduce a new bill, rather than make amendments to the present act.

I want to quote from some of the comments I have received. Part of Business SA's original comments in its submission in February 2006 states:

The training system, through the act, needs to be fluid enough to work effectively to ensure quality rather than imposing prescriptive regulations to manage it. In a global marketplace, the challenge is to focus on the outcome required, not on the process required to get there. It is therefore recommended to shift the focus away from front-end resource intensive regulation to a system based on monitoring quality assurance through a risk and case management approach...The level of protection through the act must not duplicate protection provided in other legislation and must be commensurate with having training and skills for the future. Individual protection should not be an excuse for the regimentation of the system to the detriment of those who are being protected. Consumer protection should not be dictated by the very small per cent of stakeholders who do not comply to the detriment of the vast majority who do.

Those of us in this place know that laws are in place for those people who choose not to obey them, to ensure that there are opportunities to enforce the upholding of those laws, and that relates to training and skills development equally as much as to any other law that parliament passes. Business SA further said:

Part 4 of the bill will introduce even more rigidity and regulation, with registration of employers, compliance notices, higher penalties and expiation fees and the necessity for employers to appeal to the District Court against any disputed decision of the Commission with respect to registration of employers. Business SA continues to receive feedback from employers that they are deterred from taking on an apprentice as a consequence of existing regulations. The imposition of additional regulation, penalties and fees will further stifle the uptake of apprenticeships and create barriers to flexible skill development.

The document further states:

Business SA does not support the need to apply for registration before entering a training contract or having to appeal against any decision of the Commission with respect to registration to the District Court. This places more red tape and regulation on employers at a time when the government's policy is to reduce red tape.

The Premier talks about the need to reduce red tape. The document continues:

Registration of employers is in addition to the employer approval process, imposing additional burden on employers and additional administrative responsibility on Training and Apprenticeship Services where resources are already limited. In this bill the Commission may vary or cancel the registration of the employer either by application by the employer or if the employer contravenes the act, a corresponding law or the conditions of registration. There may be inherent problems in this if the employer is a group training organisation or employs more than one apprentice and trainee in that it may unnecessarily apply to or affect other apprentices or trainees under their employ—

Business SA has acknowledged that there must be a filtering mechanism, and, certainly from discussions I have had with the minister, we recognise that, too—

—to ensure that the apprentice or trainee is not at risk and is trained appropriately.

It is important that a safe workplace is provided in which the employer ensures that not only is the workplace safe but also that it provides a workplace which is stimulating for the employee and which gives them an opportunity to work safely with no risk of injury or persecution by the employer any other staff member. The document continues:

However, there needs to be a simple process with minimal bureaucracy, that doesn't involve enterprises having to complete a registration form, prior to taking on an apprentice/trainee, as it is an added administrative burden for them or for their intermediaries. Business SA is not convinced that the proposed up front registration process will [and there are some top points here]:

ensure employers understand their obligations under a training contract, particularly if registration is done online;

get rid of 'cowboys' in the system;

raise the importance/profile of the apprenticeship system for employers who are taking on an apprentices, and hence change the status quo.

Currently obligations under a training contract are listed in the training contract which the employer signs, yet there is still a lack of understanding by employers. It is likely given the proposed process, [as outlined in the bill] that the intermediaries [e.g. Australian Apprenticeship Centres, Apprenticeship Brokers] will complete the registration form for the employers and in rural areas, in particular, the registration form and training contract may be forwarded at the same time. Hence this would negate the intent. This will not change the status quo for existing employers who do not know their obligations.

That is a concern for us all. We must ensure that, when they are taking on young people on apprenticeships or traineeships, employers understand their obligations. The document further states:

There will always be employers and employees [and I note that, too] who rort the system. Business SA maintains that the current process of approval by Traineeship and Apprenticeship Services (TAS) remain. In addition an education process by the Australian Apprenticeship Centres or TAS for employers and apprentices/trainees when signing contracts, on a one-on-one basis may prove to be more effective. TAS can still use this information to form a register of 'approved' employers which could be made public, should they so wish, without the need to duplicate the information on the training contract and without the need for employers to complete a registration form.

I do understand from the negotiations that have occurred between the government and Business SA that there are some comments, and that the government is committed to registration of employers. The document continues:

Business SA have been given assurances that [they] will be active participants...in developing the registration...process.

Indeed, I am led to be believe that a meeting has been arranged with the CEO of the department to undertake that, and that will be made as simple as possible. The document continued:

[The government] will consider a formal review process being inserted into bill—

I am not sure whether that is there; I have not noted that, but we might talk about that a little later—

(possibly after a 12-month review) in order to evaluate whether the system of registration of employers is meeting its objectives.

A further quote states:

The restructuring occurring in Australian industry clearly highlights the need for advanced knowledge and skill, a commitment to lifelong learning and the development of applied research expertise on an internationally-competitive basis. An educated and skilled workforce is integral to the future of Australia [and we would all agree with that]. Business SA notes the fundamental importance to the South Australian economy of the education and training system. This system has important implications for the state's economic investment and employment prospects. In particular:

South Australia's education and training markets compete with others on a national and global stage.

And, certainly I acknowledge the wonderful effort that has been made by Education Adelaide to have something like 25,000 overseas students, or close to that figure, studying in South Australia at the moment. The quote continues:

South Australia's education and training system must stimulate (not stifle, nor worsen, prejudice) South Australia's economic, investment and employment markets.

South Australia's education and training system must balance providing fair and effective quality assurance measures and protection for students, apprentices and trainees, with encouraging investment, education and training in South Australia.

The South Australian government cannot afford to support an education and training system that makes it less attractive for business to invest, employ, educate and train in South Australia.

We all want to ensure that the opportunity is ripe for anyone to come in and to grow business in this state and to employ people whether they are young or old. Business SA further comments:

The current system is stifled by an excessive focus on consumer protection as an excuse for over-regulation rather than economic pragmatism necessary for South Australia's economic survival, progress and prosperity.

Rather than creating education and training opportunities and ensuring fairness for all South Australians, the existing Act constrains the South Australian marketplace by creating barriers to flexible skill development. The current system in South Australia is still embedded in the 19th century. Focus on past models is still being imposed by too many stakeholders. The tragedy of the current over-regulated education and training system is that it is at the expense of the largely compliant majority of South Australian businesses—

we have recognised that and, certainly, we will talk about it: the overwhelming majority of people do the right thing within their businesses all the time—

and to the detriment of the majority of South Australian students, trainees and apprentices who are being protected. As with almost every other facet of economic and social life, the apprenticeship and traineeship system, born and raised in the old economy, is struggling to come to terms with its form and place in the new global economy.

Revised training and skill development legislation must ensure that South Australia's post-compulsory education and training sector has the capacity to develop a highly skilled workforce capable of supporting the economy and maintaining a high standard of living for all well into the future.

It is true to say that a few of the recommendations of Business SA have been adopted into the bill as it is presented before us. However, Business SA was frustrated that the bill fails to take advantage of the opportunity to create a framework for future skills development and growth in South Australia. Rather, its contends that the bill would appear to be driven by ideology and imposes additional prescriptive regulatory systems and penalties on employers and the training system at a time when greater flexibility and creative, innovative approaches to the development of skills in South Australia are so urgently required.

This bill does not acknowledge changes to the social and demographic landscape, where clients of the system—namely, the students, be they apprentices or trainees—are older and more street-smart and demand more flexibility. People understand their rights pretty well. Business SA insists on a model whereby a broad, flexible and innovative framework for the education and training system is created by the bill rather than a bill which seeks to perpetuate the prescriptive and inflexible systems of the past. This framework would then allow the Training and Skills Commission the capacity to develop detailed guidelines that can support the flexible arrangements that are required now and into the future, and ensure the protection of all parties.

However, it is fair to say that, since these comments were initially provided to me, things have moved forward. I know that the continual consultation that the minister and his staff have had with Business SA has allowed for the resolution of many of the issues that Business SA raised initially. I think there were something like 30 points of difference. Eventually, agreement was reached on nearly half of them, but we are still working through that. However, we still have to move things forward a little.

I want to mention some specific concerns that have been identified as part of our consultation. There is a lot of concern about the involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission. It is a basic premise of the Liberal Party that we do not support this provision. We certainly recognise the efforts in the past of the Grievance and Dispute Mediation Committee. Some information was forwarded to me in that respect by the minister's Chief of Staff, and I note that there were between 16 and 30 disputes in each of the last five years, which is a reasonable number when one considers that something like 34,000 people are in training in South Australia at the moment.

We will be seeking comment and confirmation from the minister on why the Industrial Relations Commission is now the body that will control the dispute resolution process. A comment had been received by me that, with the lessening of the workload of the IRC, it appears as though the government has created this role for it.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister puts a different perspective, and I am looking forward to his contribution in that respect. The Training and Skills Development Bill should be entirely focused on the training needs of South Australia, and that is why we were rather intrigued that it places strong importance on that but also talks about the legislative capacity to fine employers. We are a little disappointed with that, especially noting that the maximum penalties increase from $2,500 to $5,000.

I now wish to briefly talk about registration of employers. I acknowledge that there will be an automatic transfer for those who already have training contracts in place, and I think that automatic transfer will be applicable for a five-year period, but it is an additional impost on the willingness of some employers to give someone a job. How will they promote this requirement? That is the question that I am asking in terms of ensuring that all those enterprises out there are aware of the need to have this registration in place. There are many people who will have automatic registration by virtue of having contracts in place, but there are many potential employers out there who will not be aware of it. It will be an enormous education program for the minister and the government. I am sure they will put the resources into that, but it will be a challenge for them.

Considerable debate has taken place about the interpretation of a definition for 'apprentice' and 'trainee'. The groups with whom I have consulted are not entirely pleased, and feel that the already established list of occupations endorsed by industry at the national level should have been used. I will be seeking comment from the minister on that matter.

Another point raised with me was the fact that, as it stood in the draft bill, employers were to be penalised for late lodgement of training contracts. I understand that that has changed a little, in that now the employers are the last people to be involved in the signing of the contract and they then have four weeks to ensure that the contract is lodged. However, there were a lot of concerns about the fact that, again, it was a potential impost upon employers and it might have been to the detriment of employment opportunities. It also reflected an increase in the fines, with the penalty increasing from $2,500 to $5,000.

Some questions have been asked about the process for the issue and administration of compliance notices. It is not quite as clear as I would like, so I would appreciate it if the minister could outline that for me. I acknowledge that some of the expiation notices and penalties have been removed by the amendments that have been introduced today, but only in some relatively minor areas.

With respect to the disputes and grievances procedure, I acknowledge that the Industrial Relations Commission has prepared the guidelines and also the attached rules, but I will be seeking clarification from the minister on how that is all intended to operate. I must admit that there was some confusion in my mind as to the level of IRC's involvement in taking that grievance and dispute situation away from the GDMC. There was a lot of concern within the opposition party room about the IRC's involvement. I understand that it will involve the approach based on one of the recommendations, I think, from Business SA whereby a panel will be formed representing employers and employees who will be part of—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay. The minister tells me that it was his directive. However, there is still the issue that, when the conciliation conference is held in the initial stage of any grievance or dispute, that panel is not used at that level, as I understand it, and it will just be the IRC commissioner who is involved.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No? We'll sort that one out, too, by the sound of it. There was a reasonable level of concern raised by a few people on the lack of ability to undertake a trade other than through a training contract. It was felt that this did not provide the necessary flexibility that might have been provided if the minister was given some form of discretionary powers, and given the fact that we have such a dire need for people with skills and trades to come into South Australia.

There might be some wonderfully innovative processes out there which allow people to receive recognition or accreditation without necessarily having been in a training contract to give them the formal acknowledgement of the skills that they possess. I am wondering whether the minister might have a comment on that, too. They might not be out there at the moment, but there might be opportunities for some discretion to be shown and some key understanding of the recognition of skills to exist.

Serious and wilful misconduct was also talked about, and the inability for an employer to terminate an employee who was found to be doing seriously the wrong thing. I recognise that the Industrial Relations Commission intends to hold a conciliation conference within seven days. The minister has confirmed with me that, if the conference cannot be held within that time frame, there is an opportunity for an extension of the seven days. I think, on my reading of legislation, it provides for another seven days. I am not sure whether that can be multiples of seven days, because there will be great challenges sometimes in bringing the parties together.

Not all of these disputes will occur within the metropolitan area. Sadly, some of them will occur in the regions. I understand that there will be a willingness to travel to the workplace to potentially have these conciliation conferences. It is important that they are provided in a place where parties feel comfortable. I understand that there would be a reasonable level of—not real intimidation, but nervousness attached to appearing before an IRC commissioner.

There is also a need for the minister to define the suspension of a wages liability while the suspension is on. In our discussions we have talked about the fact that any employee who is suspended, and pending the conciliation conference, will not be paid. I seek some confirmation of that.

In terms of the powers of the IRC to order an employee to pay compensation for any breach of the training contract (and we will go into that when we go into the committee stage) my question is: what does that actually mean? How broad is that intended to be? That in itself creates some concern amongst employer groups.

My next point concerns the ability for people from employer associations of which the employer is a member to be able to attend conciliation conferences, dispute hearings, and take part. I am told, in my discussions with the minister and his staff, that there is an opportunity for these people to be there to support the employers, but there were some fears that, by payment of a gratuity in relation to the membership undertaken of that employer association, it could create some difficulties, and it might require decision to be made by the Industrial Relations Commission. I am wondering whether that can actually happen.

One point which has only just been made obvious to me is the requirement that an employer must employ an apprentice or trainee in preference to a junior employee. I want some comment on that; that is in the later portions of the bill, I think. I know that the obvious preference for all of us is to ensure that young people are given some surety by going into a training contract, but I can also understand that there would be some apprehension amongst potential employers out there who might just want to see the demonstrated work ethic of a young person. The best way of doing that is to give them an opportunity as a younger employee and, then, once they have actually proven themselves—and I think we all have a responsibility to prove our worth—enter into a training contract, which will give them the qualifications they need in the future.

Schedule 2 of the amendments as it relates to the Fair Work Act was brought to my attention. Why does clause 7, in amending section 155 of the Fair Work Act, insert the term 'or any other act'? We certainly understand that it was necessary to insert the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 into the amendments of the Fair Work Act, but why the inclusion of any other act? I seek comment from the minister on that. With those few brief words, I conclude my comments and I look forward to continued debate on the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:35): I have had a longstanding interest in this area. I was the minister many moons ago and, as the current minister will agree, it is a great privilege to be minister in this area which, even though it does not always make the headlines, is a very important one. I acknowledge the detail in this bill but I am going to focus more on some general aspects relating to training and universities.

In South Australia we have an excellent TAFE system, although over the past 20 years or so it has had a fair whack around the ears. That was driven to a large extent by misguided federal policies and financial constraints. When I was the minister I used to have to fight hard to protect TAFE against the treasurer of the day. We all know that treasurers are tough cookies and that they are always trying to squeeze a dollar out of every government agency. It used to be argued that TAFE was over-funded and I argued that it was not; in the end, I was able to demonstrate that.

I do not think that, even today, many people in South Australia appreciate the great TAFE system we have, even though it has diminished somewhat in some areas—for example, in engineering and other areas. I hope that will change. I do not have a problem with the private training sector, but some of that sector has cherry-picked programs in which TAFE has traditionally been involved. We had the previous federal government introducing its own training colleges. I think that was an unwise and unnecessary move. They should have used the funding to boost TAFE. It was an unnecessary duplication which I think was driven ideologically, which is always a dangerous driver, on the basis that they did not want the union to have too much say.

In my experience—and this was after having been a minister when I was on the councils of TAFE—I found the union to be very amenable and reasonable, and I never found the union to be difficult in any way, shape or form. In fact, I was quite surprised by that argument that the federal government could not support TAFE because of union power. I never saw much exercise of union power then nor have I seen it over the past several years.

One problem we still have in relation to training and higher education is an obsession that people have in our community about everyone having to go to university. That is not in any way to put down universities.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That is right. A lot of smart people do not go to university. I spent 16 years at university in part-time and full-time capacities, but I do not believe that everyone needs to go to university; in fact, I have a feeling that probably too many people go to university for the wrong reasons. It reflects this obsession with going to university—and there is nothing wrong with people aspiring to that, because we need lawyers, doctors and people in many categories of professions which the universities normally train—but the downside is often that, for people involved in the trades and technical areas, there is an implicit (if not explicit) put-down. I have come across cases where parents have cried when their son has said that he wants to do carpentry. I do not make up these stories; these are real experiences where I have seen people get quite upset because their son wants to be a carpenter. It would be the same obviously if their daughter wanted to be a carpenter.

That is crazy, because not only do we need those skilled people, but in the not too distant future, if not right now, people such as plumbers and those other skilled tradespeople will be earning a lot more than many of the people who went to university anyway. But simply to make money is not a justification for going into a trade. If you do not enjoy it and you do not want to make a contribution, then it is better that you do not go into the trade.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, I won't comment on that. I have a niece who is a dentist, so we will say no more. We still have this underlying lack of respect and lack of appreciation for people who have a trade or technical training, in contrast to Germany and Japan where they value those people. The next time members fly to Sydney, they might like to reflect on the skills of the aeronautical engineer and the maintenance staff at Qantas, Virgin Blue, etc., and the skill of the people who maintain a jet engine which is quietly ticking away while passengers are travelling up in the sky.

The people who do things like stonemasonry—for example, the recent work over the last 10 years at St Francis Xavier Cathedral—are highly skilled, talented people and yet in our society we have this tendency unfortunately to put those people down and say, 'They're only tradespeople,' or, 'They're only technical' as if somehow they are not very smart.

I use the phrase 'equal but different'; people have different talents but nevertheless should be regarded as equal. However, we have not reached the point where we value technical training and trades in the same way that we value the efforts of someone who has been to university. What concerns me at the moment—and the minister might want to comment on this—is that I am hearing reports from interstate of a commitment to, or a focus on, accelerated training. For example, the traditional training for a chef, say, at Regency Park here is four years. I am told that interstate it is either happening or is about to happen where they want to put those people through in eight months. That is ridiculous.

Training and education involve experiential development; it is not just cramming something into someone's head. I would be very wary of moves to accelerate training to a point where people are simply trained or educated (so-called) in some sort of express lane. I think it is highly dangerous, and I am told that it is happening in relation to pilot training. Because of the shortage of skills, there is a push by some sections of industry to rush people through, get a qualification and put them at the controls of a jumbo jet. I would like to be assured that the person who is flying the aircraft that I am travelling in has done a proper course and is properly experienced, not someone who has done a pressure-cooker course in order to get a quick qualification.

I think that there is a very real risk at the moment with the shortage of skilled people that there will be increasing pressure for these pressure-cooker, quick-fix, 'Quick-draw McGraw' courses and training, and the consequences of that will be inflicted on the community for a long time to come. I am also concerned—and it is not something that is easy to legislate—about the terminology used to describe people who are trained. The Germans talk about the 'meister tradesperson', the person who is qualified, has experience and has a certain status.

We throw around terminology in this country; we talk about a chef, for instance. To me, there is a difference between being a cook and a chef (and I know there is a TV program that has both) but we need to protect those terms. It is not simply status or snobbishness. In engineering, there is a difference between somebody who is a civil or mechanical engineer who has done an in-depth course of many years of study at a high level and someone who fits discount brake pads on your car. In our system, we do not protect those titles. The universities are at fault too, because nowadays just about anybody can be called 'professor'. It used to mean something. In America it means basically anyone who teaches in a university.

You have to be very careful because otherwise you devalue these terms so that they mean nothing, or very little. Likewise, with the a doctorate; we are now getting 'doctorate of education', for example. To earn the traditional PhD, you had to make an original contribution, or a contribution to theory in an original way, and also undertake original research. Now we have these programs based upon course work only offering so-called doctorates—they are very careful not to call them PhDs—on-line on the weekend and, in my view, the universities risk bringing themselves and the system into disrepute.

The other matter that concerns me about universities is the so-called issuing of double degrees. They are not double degrees: that is a con. They are a one-and-a-bit degree. They are not two complete degrees, because they give people so much status for the first degree that they have almost completed the second degree, and I think that is a con. It is a form of academic dishonesty, and then someone goes out and says, 'I've got a double degree.' They have not done two degrees' worth of study; they have got what the university has issued—two bits of paper—and it is, in my view, as I say, a form of intellectual and academic dishonesty.

I think the universities have to be very careful that they do not move away from proper standards, rigour and integrity. People need to remember what the universities are there for; their fundamental role is to seek truth and that means unequivocally, without compromise, trying to find out the answers to questions and issues. They are not there to turn out people for McDonald's, although that in itself is not a bad thing. They are there to engage in, as I say, the search for understanding, awareness, knowledge and a process of discovery but, sadly, more of our universities are becoming education factories, where you receive a piece of paper after you have done the prescribed work. They might as well give the people the certificate at the start and, if they are not careful, they will end up giving it to everyone because we are moving to a system where every player seems to get a prize.

Ironically and sadly, the students are being cheated because they have crowded teaching situations. A tutorial is not a tutorial if you have 30 students in it—that is nonsense. A tutorial should not be any more than about 15 students. How can there be meaningful interaction in a class of 30 students? We are seeing lectures with 200 or more students in them. That is more like a Billy Graham crusade than a lecture. The use of on-line learning has its place, but it is not a substitute for social interaction and personal development at a university.

University should be about developing as a person, not only acquiring knowledge and skills but also developing as a person in a liberal way, with a commitment to truth and all those elements of the civilised person. Now with on-line delivery, if we are not careful, we will end up with a robotic output of graduates. So I think the universities face a big challenge. Also, I think there should be an independent audit of the quality of training and teaching in universities. At the moment, it is basically self-assessment and, not surprisingly, they almost always give themselves a high rating. There should be an independent body checking university standards.

I have raised this issue previously with federal ministers without success. I do not think universities should be above scrutiny. I do not think they should be exempt from an independent audit of academic standards and proper assessment, given that we have already seen, as I have said before, these trends towards watering down academic standards and the quality of teaching in some of our universities.

Returning to training more specifically: one of the great things that we have in this state—and I am proud to have been involved with it—is the bipartisan approach to create the Construction Industry Training Board and, despite attack from several quarters (including Bob Day and others), it survived and, without it, we would have very few apprentices, or a lot fewer apprentices in training. There have been very few complaints from people who have been critical of having to spend a few dollars when they put in a building permit to help, at the same time, fund the training of apprentices.

There is a big difference between an apprenticeship and a traineeship. You can call things whatever you like, but, at the end of the day, what you want is a quality of training, not simply a length of time issue, which is to what I was alluding at the start. Having employees on apprenticeships and traineeships in your business is a costly exercise. It costs employers to have apprentices and trainees, particularly in the first year, but it should not be an excuse for cheap labour. Many of our companies, the progressive ones, commit to training but, unfortunately, we still have this poach mentality where companies want to poach people rather than train their own. The old training levy which was phased out did have merit in that it required a contribution from all employers and all those who used trained and skilled people to pay their way. Sadly, that is not the case now because many are prepared to poach and pay a little more to avoid training.

Sadly, we have made the training system more expensive. I like the system where it is easier and cheaper to get into TAFE and universities. I like the Irish model where it has gone from being potato capital to technology capital by making it easy to attend TAFE or university. I have never supported HECS. If you have HECS, then it should be at a very low level. I think if you have a fair tax system (which we do not have but should have), then you pay back: the more you earn, the more you pay back for the benefit of the education and training you have received. At the moment, we are crucifying young people by putting the burden of HECS and other fees on them, at the same time that they are trying to buy a house or maybe wanting to have children.

It is a foolish approach and it is really designed to help people of my generation who are comfortably off and who are quite able to contribute towards the education of our young people and they, in turn, over their career, through a fair tax system, pay back towards the cost of the training which they enjoyed and from which they benefited. I would like to see the HECS system phased out, or at least cut back drastically. I as minister contemplated a HECS scheme for TAFE, a modest one, given that we had one for universities, but if we can avoid having them in either sector, then that is something I would prefer to happen.

People who study and train at TAFE or university have to make a big sacrifice, and many of those young people are now working flat out just to make ends meet, let alone complete their study requirements. They are the range of concerns I have. Ultimately, the quality of our society will largely depend on the quality of the training system we have, whether it be TAFE, the private sector or universities. If you want to have a cheap training system, you will end up with a cheap outcome. We should lead the world in terms of training and higher education, and regard it as an investment, not a cost. I get sick of people talking about the cost of education, the cost of training. They rarely talk about the investment, the positive side that comes out of it through having trained people and people who can achieve in life.

Obviously I was not able to go into all the detail of the bill, but I wish the minister well as he seeks to reform and revise the training system. It is a challenge. It requires change all the time because of the dynamic nature of our society, but it is a great area to be involved in, even though it rarely makes the headlines, but without the trained and skilled people, you would not have a headline.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:54): I rise to speak briefly to the government reforms of the training and skills sector. In fact, it is scrapping the old training and skills act and introducing entirely new legislation. I do have a couple of concerns. The member for Fisher has provided a prelude by referring to universities. This legislation is not really about universities, but I notice that clause 44 does make it an offence for institutions to hold out they can grant degrees. It does seem an anomaly to me that a person can hold out that they have a degree, yet it is not a criminal offence. It might be, if they are doing that in the course of commerce, it is misleading practice, but if I have a business card printed with 'Dr Hanna' and I do not have a doctorate there is nothing to stop me handing it out.

I note in clause 67, when there are disputes, that legal representation, and indeed any representation by a registered agent in the commission, is banned. I am always very hesitant to support a system where there are absolutely no lawyers or advocates. I do recognise, however, that there is scope for a person to get in someone if they really need representation, perhaps because of a disability, and so on.

This is a moment to recognise the good work that has been done by members of the current Grievance and Disputes Mediation Committee. Over a number of years they have solved many dozens of disputes, generally by mediation. Privately, I have queried the minister as to why we need to go to a new model entirely in the Industrial Relations Commission. I understand that there is a valid point where a remedy is granted, such as an order of payment and it cannot be enforced through the committee, so a person would need to go to legal processes to have enforcement of payment. I can understand the transfer of the mediation of training and skills disputes, apprenticeship disputes, and the like, to the commission.

I pay tribute to the people who have been on the committee over the years, representing different interests. One of my constituents, Mr Brian Mowbray, has been an active member of that committee—which has done a lot of good in a very informal and inexpensive way. It has been a success story. I hope that some of the people with such experience can find their way onto the assessor role in the Industrial Relations Commission when that is constituted.

I raise a question with the minister about the workload of the Industrial Relations Commission. Is this bill just a means of providing extra work for the commission? As a result of John Howard's unfair changes to the industrial relations laws, the commission has had a lot less work to do—we know that. Is this a means of providing them with a bit more food for their jurisdiction so people are not going home at 3 o'clock?

The other question is perhaps not so significant, but I do not understand why the training and skills commission that will be constituted under this legislation will have 11 members. I think that is an expansion from nine to 11. I wonder why we need so many people. After all, it is an advisory role. Perhaps that means there will be more points of view, but I find that once you get a group bigger than seven or nine at the most you start to get a committee that is unwieldy and inefficient.

I raise those questions for the minister to address. I do not think I need to go into a detailed interrogation when we look at the bill in detail, but I think those points need to be addressed.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:59): I rise to comment on the bill and to say something about some of the comments made in the house about the bill. Obviously, I hang around in a different circle from the member for Fisher. My parents saw my apprenticeship as a way out, a great thing. It was not frowned upon as taking an easy option. As a matter of fact, I made over 100 job applications before I was offered an apprenticeship in the first instance. It took my older brother Simon equally as long. He was fussier than I. I was happy to get any trade, but he wanted to be an electrician. He ended up back at school, and the school council at the time was made aware of a position at SA Brewing (as it was then) for an apprentice electrician. He applied for the job and was fortunate enough to get it. In our family, we valued the trades system. Although my brother and I have gone down different paths, we both have used those tools. I seek leave to continue to remarks later.

Leave granted, debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT