HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 8 September 2020.)

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

The CHAIR: There are six amendments to this clause standing in the name of the Minister for Innovation and Skills. Minister, would you like to move one or all of them? It is up to you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I would be happy to debate them all together.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We would like to reserve our right to go through the separate clauses, but we can accept the amendments together.

The CHAIR: I will just explain this. We are on clause 7 and there are six amendments . If we choose to deal with them en bloc, we still only have three questions each.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is possible to allow latitude.

The CHAIR: Either that or we deal with them individually. It does not worry me. If it is tidier to do it individually, let's do it that way. We will deal with them individually. It gives them a new opportunity, but I will keep you to three questions. Minister, let's begin by moving the first amendment in your name.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 7, lines 13 to 15 [clause 7(4)]—delete subclause (4)

This is the removal of a certificate of proficiency. Concerns have been raised that the concept of a certificate of proficiency of all types of skills, as certified in the act, was confusing and did not sufficiently distinguish between apprenticeships and traineeships, and skills and experience obtained outside of the training contract.

The clauses throughout the bill have been amended to remove references to certificates of proficiency, and that has led to some consequential amendments. In their place, the amendment bill provides the South Australian Training and Skills Commission with the power to certify individuals' competence in a trade or declared vocation, whether obtained through the completion of an apprenticeship, traineeship or other pathway or through other training experiences.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 2 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 7, after line 31 [clause 7(12)]—Insert:

Higher Education Standards means the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 made under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 of the Commonwealth, as in force from time to time;

The protocols have been discontinued and replaced under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015. This amendment provides a definition of Higher Education Standards.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 3 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 7, after line 35—Insert:

(12a) Section 4(1), definition of National Protocols—delete the definition

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 4 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 8, after line 35—Insert:

(20a) Section 4(1), definition of spouse—delete the definition

This amendment deletes the definition of 'spouse' where there is no reference to a spouse in the bill. The definition was carried forward from the current act.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sir, you will see this is a theme through the amendments. I move:

Amendment No 5 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 8, lines 37 and 38 [clause 7(21), inserted definition of South Australian Skills Guidelines]—Delete the definition and substitute:

South Australian Skills Standards or Standards means the South Australian Skills Standards prepared under section 26, as in force from time to time;

The feedback received as part of the consultation process indicated the term 'guidelines' was confusing to stakeholders, who often view the documents as being optional or best practice guidelines rather than standards. The use of 'standards' provides clarity that the document must be complied with. The term 'standards' is widely employed in the employment, skills and training sector. Other examples are Standards for Registered Training Organisations, National Standards for Group Training Organisations, the Fair Work Commission employment standards are examples. There are 18 consequential amendments as a result of this change.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 6 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 9, after line 4—Insert:

(1) Section 4(1)—after the definition of Territory insert:

TEQSA means the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency established under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 of the Commonwealth;

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has been established since the introduction of the current act and is referenced in the amended act. This amendment provides a definition of the TEQSA.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 7 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 9, after line 28—Insert:

(2) Section 5(2)(a)—delete 'National Protocols' and substitute:

Higher Education Standards

This is an amendment following on from amendment No. 2 to add a definition of Higher Education Standards and amendment No. 3 to remove the definition of National Protocols.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 8 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 10, line 8 [clause 9, inserted section 6(3)(a)]—After 'pre-apprenticeships' insert:

or pre-traineeships

The bill currently refers to pre-apprenticeships but not pre-traineeships. It has been the practice in the past for pre-apprenticeships to cover courses that lead to both apprenticeship and traineeship pathways. The insertion of 'pre-traineeship' in this section provides greater clarity on the scope of these entry-level pathways. This is particularly important because this is responding to where the demand is coming from in some of the new industries in particular that are using the traineeship model as opposed to the apprenticeship model.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In regard to that, the minister alluded to the fact that this will encompass the area of flexibility that we talked about last night. Is micro-credentialing, as it is often referred to, incorporated in the term 'specified skill sets', or how do you think that will be elaborated in this clause?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That will be picked up by the reference to any other matter that the minister feels is needed, mainly because the national body is still defining the micro-credentialing. We are not in a position to actually confirm that ourselves because the micro-credential process is being managed nationally. Attending to this now means that once that is complete we will be able to immediately move forward. It will not hold us up at all. In regard to what is deemed a traineeship or an apprenticeship, whether it is counted by the NCVER is a matter for the NCVER.

Mr BOYER: With respect to clause 9 and the substitution of section 6—Declarations of trades and declared vocations, subsection (1) talks about the power the minister has upon recommendation from the commission to declare an occupation to be a trade or a declared vocation as the case requires. I was wondering whether the minister could give us an example of where that power may need be to used.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Last night, I used the example of the work that is being done by NECA and Larry Moore and John Adley at the CEPU and the Training and Skills Commission to develop a dual trade in refrigeration and electrical. Rather than needing two trades, two separate apprenticeships in order to have that dual trade qualification, the industry has been working together to remove duplication, because obviously there is duplication in the electrical trade and in a refrigeration trade. It removes the evaluation on-the-job training requirement so that it will be a five-year apprenticeship. That is going through the Training and Skills Commission at the moment. They will then bring that to me for it to be recommended to be a vocation.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 9 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 10, lines 10 and 11 [clause 9, inserted section 6(3)(c)]—Delete 'in a specified area in response to changing requirements of the trade or vocation'

The excessive detail in this section was determined to be confusing and ambiguous and would have potentially limited the ability to declare trades and vocations, for no purpose. This amendment reflects the increased breadth of higher qualifications that can be declared as pathways for an occupation. I used an example yesterday of the Diploma of Applied Technologies apprenticeship, a three-year apprenticeship, that has been declared.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 10 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 11, lines 8 to 14 [clause 11, inserted section 7(f)]—Delete inserted paragraph (f) and substitute:

(f) to facilitate complaint handling, mediation and advocacy in relation to the resolution of disputes relating to apprenticeships and traineeships, vocational education and training or international education, and to otherwise assist in the resolution of such disputes (including by providing advocacy services for parties in proceedings before the SAET);

Amendment No 11 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 16, line 9 to page 17, line 13 [clause 11, inserted section 19(1)]—Delete inserted subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The Commission's functions are—

(a) to advise the Minister on—

(i) matters relating to the development, funding, quality and performance of vocational education and training and adult community education; and

(ii) strategies and priorities for workforce development in the State with the aim of supporting employment growth and investment in the State (including the recognition of skills and qualifications gained outside of Australia); and

(iii) the State's role as part of an integrated national system of education and training; and

(b) to regulate the State's apprenticeship and traineeship system; and

(c) to prepare the South Australian Skills Standards and other information for the purposes of this Act; and

(d) to undertake complaint handling and provide, where appropriate, mediation and advocacy services in disputes relating to apprenticeships and traineeships, vocational education and training, higher education or international education, and to otherwise assist in the resolution of such disputes (including by providing advocacy services for parties in proceedings before the SAET); and

(e) to monitor, and report to the Minister on, the state of vocational education and training and adult community education in the State, including the expenditure of public money in those areas; and

(f) to promote the development of investment, equity and participation in, and access to, vocational education and training and adult community education; and

(g) to promote pathways between the secondary school, vocational education and training, adult community education, and higher education sectors; and

(h) to enter into reciprocal arrangements with appropriate bodies with respect to the recognition of education and training; and

(i) to monitor, and make recommendations to the Minister on, the administration and operation of this Act; and

(j) such other functions as may assigned to the Commission by the Minister or by or under this or any other Act.

Amendments Nos 10 and 11 better delineate the role of the South Australian Training and Skills Commission and the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) in relation to resolutions of disputes between parties to training contracts. The amendments make clear that the South Australian Training and Skills Commission will be responsible for complaint handling, mediation and advocacy, while the SAET will be responsible for conciliation. The amendments clarify the point of entry into the system of a stakeholder in the event that there is a dispute and will encourage mediation prior to any conciliation. The amendments amend the minister's functions to reflect these changes.

Mr BOYER: In clause 11, role of the minister, section 7, both paragraphs (b) and (c) talk about adult community education. Paragraph (c) in particular talks about, under functions of the minister, promoting, amongst other things, adult community education. I was wondering if the minister could talk about what he is doing to promote adult community education.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So you are actually talking about the clause, rather than the amendment. Does your question relate to the clause, rather than the amendment?

The CHAIR: It is probably best if we stick to the amendments.

Mr BOYER: I do not have questions on the amendment itself.

The CHAIR: What we will do is pass the amendments, hopefully, and then we can come back to the clause all over again. Shall we leave it till then?

Mr BOYER: That is fine.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 12 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 17, line 17 [clause 11, inserted section 19(2)(a)]—Delete 'skills boards' and substitute:

, skills

Amendment No 13 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 19, line 14 [clause 11, heading to inserted Division 3]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 14 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 19, lines 15 to 32 [clause 11, inserted section 26]—Delete inserted section 26 and substitute:

26—Commission to prepare South Australian Skills Standards

(1) The Commission must, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, prepare and maintain standards for the purposes of this Act (the South Australian Skills Standards).

(2) The Commission may, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, vary the South Australian Skills Standards (and must review the Standards at least every 5 years).

(3) The Commission must cause the South Australian Skills Standards, or the South Australian Skills Standards as varied, (as the case requires) to be published—

(a) in the Gazette; and

(b) on a website determined by the Commission.

(4) The South Australian Skills Standards, and any variation of the Standards, have effect from the day on which they are published in the Gazette.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a variation of the South Australian Skills Standards will be taken to include a reference to the substitution of the Standards.

Mr BOYER: Just a point of clarification: when do we get an opportunity to ask questions on other parts of clause 11, part 2—Role of minister?

The CHAIR: Once we have dealt with the amendments, we then come back to the clause as amended.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The industry skills boards have been replaced by differently named industry advice bodies such as current industry skills councils. The amendment reflects a broader scope of engagement by the commission and refers to the types of bodies that should be consulted, rather than the nature of those bodies. Feedback received as part of the consultation process indicates the term 'guidelines'—that is the guideline amendment.

Mr BOYER: I have what I think might be a helpful suggestion, Chair. We probably do not have a question on any amendments until amendment No. 20. The minister might like to move all the amendments up to there as a block.

The CHAIR: Alright, but we will still have to go through clause by clause. Thank you for that; it is helpful.

Amendments carried.

Mr BOYER: I might again ask the question I asked earlier about the roles of the minister and functions of the minister. I refer to clause 11, part 2, section 7—Functions of minister. Paragraphs (b) and (c) talk about adult community education. Can the minister tell us about the proposed changes to this act and what he is doing to promote adult community education and 'promote opportunities for adults to engage' in that in South Australia?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is a role for adult education in the current act and the amendments do not change that. Any delivery of adult education, or the foundation skills in particular, are a matter of government policy.

Mr BOYER: I understand section 7(f) is one that was amended. The bit I am asking a question about it is at the end of that subsection in brackets and relates to advocacy services. My question to the minister is: given that the independent Training Advocate is being rolled into the commission proper, will the advocacy services in this subsection, which the minister has a role to provide, remain independent of the commission that you are creating? Will the advocacy role that will be available to people be part of the commission and less so part of what previously was the independent Training Advocate?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It will be managed by the commission and it will be managed through the separation of powers between the regulatory and the advocacy parts of the process.

Mr BOYER: Just to clarify, minister, you are confident that there will be no loss of the independence of the advocacy with the transition from the independent Training Advocate to the skills commission, insofar as this clause is concerned?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes; the advice is that the advocacy will continue. Obviously, we have defined the roles of the skills commission and the SAET. We expect that there will be more mediation outcomes through this change and SAET will play a smaller role than it has previously.

Mr SZAKACS: Further and in addition to your answer to the member for Wright in respect of those existing functions of the Training Advocate that will be maintained and carried on through these amendments, I am interested in the functions of the minister in relation to paragraph (f) and that is particularly the provision of advocacy services for matters that may be the subject of a proceeding before the SAET. I am interested in what you envisage to be likely in the provision of those advocacy services when matters are before the SAET as opposed to those matters that are currently the subject of advocacy by the Training Advocate.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There will be no change to the delivery of services. It will be managed by the commission. Of course, the commissioner's role, once appointed, will be to confirm those processes.

Mr SZAKACS: Just to clarify, the processes I understand but specifically when matters are subject to a dispute conciliation or mediation before the SAET, which is an independent statutory body from the existing commission or Training Advocate, will the provision of advocacy services to parties be in any way different from what they are now or will this confer a new obligation upon the minister in addition to the existing act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The answer is there will be no difference.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 15 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 20, lines 15 and 16 [clause 13, inserted section 45A(2)(c)]—Delete inserted paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) has been certified by the Commission as competent in relation to the relevant trade.

Stakeholder feedback raised concerns that the concept of certification of proficiency of all types of skills in the act was confusing and did not sufficiently distinguish between apprenticeships and traineeships and skills and experience obtained outside the training contract. Clauses throughout the bill have been amended to remove references to certificates of proficiency. In their place the amended bill provides the South Australian Skills Commission with the power to certify an individual's competence in a trade or a declared vocation whether obtained through completion of an apprenticeship or traineeship or other pathways declared under section 6 or through other training experiences. This is particularly important for the licensed trades.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 16 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 20, line 38 [clause 14(4), inserted subsection (7)(b)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

I did refer to this in my second reading speech. Basically, it is about the change of the terminology from 'guidelines' to 'standards'.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 17 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 23, lines 22 to 24 [clause 16, inserted section 49(2)(c)]—Delete inserted paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) the Commission certifies the apprentice or trainee under the contract as competent in relation to the relevant trade or declared vocation.

Again, I referred to this in my second reading speech. This is about the removal of certificates of proficiency.

The CHAIR: If you would like to move amendment No. 18 as well, we can pass them en bloc if you would like.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 18 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 24, lines 3 to 11 [clause 16, inserted section 49(5)]—Delete inserted subsection (5) and substitute:

(5) If the Commission is satisfied of the competence of an apprentice or trainee, or a former apprentice or trainee, the Commission may, on an application under this section or on its own motion, in accordance with any requirements set out in the South Australian Skills Standards—

(a) certify that the apprentice or trainee is to be taken to have completed the training required under the contract; and

(b) if the contract is still in operation—terminate the contract and relieve the parties to the contract of their obligations under the contract.

(5a) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) applies whether or not the relevant training contract is still in operation.

Mr BOYER: We might need your advice if we may. There is some concern on our side about where we are up to in the bill, as opposed to the amendments, in terms of when we jump out of those amendments once they are all dealt with. We have a number of questions on parts of the bill that we have not dealt with yet in the belief that we were going to get a chance after we had dealt with the amendments, and we basically have very few questions on those, once we get a chance to jump back into the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If we miss anything out, we can just go back.

Mr BOYER: If you are okay with that. But I think we have some differing opinions about where we are up to. I know no-one is trying to do the wrong thing; it is where we are up to in the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can we go back to clause 11?

The CHAIR: It is difficult. Member for Wright, you had three questions on clause 11 and the member for Cheltenham had two. I am advised we can do it as long as we do it before we report progress. Just so we are clear, we have just passed clause 15. Clause 15 is standing as printed.

Apologies to everyone, we have just been discussing the process. I have been dealing with amendments in relation to each particular clause and then passing the clause as amended. That is what we have been doing. The opposition are indicating they have further questions on clause 11 as amended. That is possible prior to our agreeing to the title.

What I am going to suggest to the opposition is that from now on, as we work our way through, we deal with the amendments and each clause comprehensively. Is that a practical solution for you from here on? Bearing in mind that we will come back to clause 11, we are now up to clause 16. The minister just moved amendments Nos 17 and 18 standing in his name.

Amendments carried.

Mr BOYER: If I am looking at the bill correctly, in clause 16 section 49(6)(d) talks about a prescribed fee being payable, I think, for an application to vary a training contract. My question to the minister is: are both parties to the contract able to make that application, as in if it is the GTO, or whatever it might be, as well as the apprentice or trainee themselves?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that any party can submit an application, but the commissioner does not approve an application unless it is signed by all parties. That is the general practice.

Mr BOYER: What I am getting at is what the prescribed fee might be in terms of the amount, whether you know that. In the case of a trainee or an apprentice who might be one of the parties, who might be the party making the application, given that their wages are normally so much lower, what is their capacity to pay the prescribed fee, depending on what that might be?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Basically, the fee can be set at zero. That provision is in there to enable any decision to recover the cost of the process. It is intended that if there is a fee it would be cost recovery, but there is no compulsion to set a fee. It can be set at zero. That is something that would be done through consultation.

At the moment the government is throwing a lot of money into skills training and reducing costs for all those who participate. Again, it would be a matter for government policy if they decide to cost recover from that provision.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 19 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 24, line 29 [clause 17, inserted section 49A(1)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

I referred to this earlier. This is the change from the use of the term 'guidelines' to 'standards'.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 20 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 24, line 31 [clause 17, inserted section 49A(1)]—After 'total' insert:

or 25% of the term of the contract, whichever is the lesser

This refers to an amendment that came about through first being raised by the member for Ramsay in this place and then through consultation with industry. This caps the ability to extend a probation period to no longer than 25 per cent of the length of a training contract. Of course, I do remind the house that this extension of up to three months must be applied for; it is not automatic. The automatic default position for a standard apprenticeship or traineeship contract has a three-month probation period, and I ran through some of the reasons why this was recommended to have this flexibility for both the employer and the apprentice to make the process work.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, in your comments around the rationale behind the amendment, you mentioned that this was in amongst other things a product of feedback from consultation that asked for greater flexibility for apprentices, amongst others. Who and which groups provided the feedback from the consultation that this was a degree of flexibility that apprentices needed? Could you name those groups that provided that specific feedback?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It was raised by the expert panel that Peter Nolan was a member of that started the process of the review.

Mr SZAKACS: Just to clarify, was there anything that arose from the consultation process that indicated that apprentices either needed or supported this clause for the purpose of greater flexibility?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The people I had consultation with used examples, and I raised those examples in my reply to the second reading contributions last night. There were distinct advantages for better outcomes through having this flexibility for both the apprentice and employer. Do not forget: when an employer moves into this space, they do not do it because they want it to fail; they do because they want it to work. They want the skills. They are prepared to participate in the skills training process. We have given them support to do that, with the $200 million that we are spending over four years. Obviously, we are also very keen to make sure that those who start continue. There are a number of issues that can even affect an apprentice's decision to sign on for four years or an employer's decision.

Surprisingly, one of the issues that was raised—and I cannot remember who raised it—was that sometimes the apprentice is forced to make a decision about moving into this contract or signing this contract even before they have an opportunity to go to TAFE because TAFE is not always as flexible as the non-government providers and cannot fit them in at a particular time, and they have to delay the start of their apprenticeship or traineeship. That is another example raised as to how this would help both the apprentice and the trainee.

This is about completions and outcomes and making sure that we can help people get the process started, whether that be an employer who is taking on an apprentice for the first time or, alternatively, an apprentice who has had some unforeseen circumstance that may have kept them away from work for an extended period of time.

Mr SZAKACS: You keep referring to Peter Nolan. I might ask you to clarify something around that in a latter clause to not cloud the issues on this one. Were any members of the expert panel or, to use your language, any of the people you met with as part of the consultation process representing solely the interests or the voice of apprentices? Were any members of that expert panel or members you met with part of the consultation representing solely apprentices? You have talked about apprentices wanting and needing this, but unless the apprentice has a voice at the table to tell you that, I am at a loss how you can determine whether that is truly what an apprentice is asking for or whether it is in fact someone else speaking for an apprentice.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not think anybody solely represents the interests of apprentices. Having trained 20 of my own, I know that you certainly are very focused on wanting to get the right outcome, and you do know what works. What needs to be remembered here is that South Australia is a small business state. Consequently, it is often a very personal relationship that employers have with their apprentices. I think group training organisations are very switched on as to what works for their apprentices and what their apprentices need. Whether or not apprentices want it is completely different from whether it supports apprentices.

This entire act is about supporting apprentices to get the skills that they need so they can be valued as employees. It can increase their salaries and their wages and opportunities because, unfortunately, we inherited the highest number of people without tertiary education in mainland Australia. Of course, vocational education is tertiary education. One of the quickest and most effective ways of correcting that is to make sure people have the skills that industry needs so they can fill the demand that industry needs to grow.

Mr BOYER: What safeguards are in place to make sure that apprentices who are obviously a little bit more vulnerable at the negotiating table are not going to be taken advantage of by the ability, now, under the proposal in this bill to have their probation period doubled, in some cases, from what it is currently?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That obviously would be managed by the commission, but the good thing about this bill is that, for the first time, we have prohibited employers. So if an employer were in any way using any part of the bill for improper motives, it would be my expectation that the skills commission would deem them unfit to have apprentices immediately.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, can I ask for some details? Can you provide examples in this area where not having this provision—the amended provision being the 25 per cent probation—has been an issue?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think we have gone through that, both last night and again this morning. I want to give some interstate comparisons. In Queensland, the probation period may be extended past six months from the commencement of the training contract. In the Northern Territory they permit the qualification of level 3 to level 6 apprenticeships to be extended for not less than three months but not more than six months, beginning at the end of the nominal probationary period. They can actually go up to nine months, is how I read that.

New South Wales allows an extension of apprentice or trainee probationary periods up to a maximum of three months beyond the initial period. Again, we have an additional period that can be applied for, which is exactly what we are doing here. Victoria does not set an upper limit, so for probational periods for apprenticeship training schemes I am advised that there is no upper limit. What we are doing is not revolutionary. We are not reinventing the wheel here; it is common practice around Australia. It is happening in Labor states as well as Liberal-run states, so it has bipartisan support.

The criteria that the commission will use to assess applications to extend a probation period will be worked out in the development of the regulations and the relevant South Australian skills standard. There is currently a guideline that deals with probationary periods, and a similar standard will be developed to replace it. Again, it is nothing new. It is just adding additional flexibility, with the aim of increasing apprenticeship outcomes for apprentices and industry.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, I did not get the chance to thank you for listening to what I said in my speech about my concern regarding the probation—and now, with this amendment, it has changed to 25 per cent. To clarify—because, as you said, it must not exceed six months—in a traineeship example, which we have all experienced here with trainees in our electorate offices, the 25 per cent would then stay at the three-month mark; is that correct?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I was advised that a 12-month traineeship—that is the one you are familiar with—actually has a two-month probation period, not a three-month period. It will enable it to go for three months, so it will not be any more than 25 per cent of the length of the contract.

Amendment carried.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, under what circumstances or for which necessary reasons could you indicate that subsection (3) under this section would be exercised; that is, the specific gazetting of individual cohorts?

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): We resume the committee. We are currently considering clause 17 as amended. I believe the member for Cheltenham had started a question. Perhaps, for the benefit of the committee, if you could repeat the question for us.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, the question I had was in respect of clause 17 and new section 49A(3), which provides that the commission may, with gazettal, provide for a cohort of training contracts to be specifically extended. Could you explain under what circumstances you would consider it to be necessary or appropriate for the commission to do so?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am sorry but I did not hear all your question.

Mr SZAKACS: Sorry, I will try again. This clause provides for, by gazettal, the commission's ability to extend a cohort of contracts and skills, in a blanket way, for the extension of the probationary period. Under what circumstances, or for what purpose, would the commission need to exercise this power?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I guess that is there after a consultation process. There is no desire to apply that clause, but it is there in case it is needed. As per the points I made earlier, we are trying to futureproof this as much as we can. We know that things are changing very fast in this space, with the changing economy. For example, we know that jobs in creative industries have grown 20 per cent in the past five years in Australia. What was seen as cottage industry not that long ago is now a major contributor to the GDP and one of the nine pillars of growth in the state government's growth plan for South Australia.

That is an example where there is not a vocational pathway that combines on-the-job and off-the-job training. Industry is calling for it. We are not sure what they want yet. We are not sure what we need to do to make that work, so that clause is there as a safety net or insurance to make sure there are no unintended consequences that may lead to the restriction of new pathways into vocational skills.

While I am on my feet, I just thought I would use the opportunity to expand on those who participated in the expert panel: Andrew Clarke, Master Plumbers SA; Peter Nolan; Clare Pollock from Flinders University; Renee Hindmarsh, who is a training advocate—and of course that covers the point you raised earlier about somebody who specifically represents apprentices; and Mark Glazbrook. They were the members of the expert panel who did the bulk of the grunt work to get this process going.

Mr SZAKACS: Your response is that this futureproofing came out of the consultation that occurred with that group of individuals. Did they provide to you any examples or advice outside their request for an open-ended capacity for the commission to determine a more lax period of probation for a certain cohort or class?

If they did not, did you ask them for examples, perhaps from other jurisdictions, as to why such a blanket futureproofing was required when the rest of the bill already provides, on a case-by-case scenario, the ability for the probationary periods to be increased by consent? There is a very specific difference here.

This is not by consent. This is a commission, which we will get to in a moment, that will wholly and solely be appointed by the minister. What we are asking here is for the ability for a commission to have a blanket approach to a whole category of contracts, on top of what is already a dramatic change in the way that probationary periods will be extended under the proposed bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think what the clause attempts to do is make provision for any future changes that might happen in the Fair Work Act, for example. It may also enable a collective bargaining situation, where there might be a union that is working with an employer group or whatever to deliver, or work towards, a new industrial agreement for a traineeship or an apprenticeship, for example. Again, it may very well be, in a situation where you have industry and unions very keen on introducing a new pathway, enabling an efficient way of doing that when there is a consensus that this is what the industry needs and there has been involvement and participation of all those involved in getting the outcome.

Mr SZAKACS: I have to say that it is peculiar to think that a union, through enterprise bargaining, would want to unilaterally extend for an undefined period the probationary period without any caveat or protections thereafter. My final question in respect to this clause is: will there be guidelines that the commission will need to follow? Clause 1 of this section provides specifically that the extension by consent needs to be per the guidelines. This clause does not provide the guidelines that need to be followed. My question is: are there guidelines and, if so, why is that not explicit in this clause? The second part of this question is: would you explain in detail what, by definition, a specific class of training contracts envisages?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Again, this is in the theme of flexibility and agility. It may very well be that the guidelines may be different for a different category. For example, it may be different for the new dual apprenticeships, the dual trades that we are working on. It may be different for the tech sector. What the bill aims to achieve is the ability for an expansion of the vocational education system through paid traineeships.

BAE in Britain, for example, for 30 years has had a six-year apprenticeship where you end up as an engineer. It is called a degree apprenticeship. We have started that process, working with Flinders University, I think it is, and a private provider and TAFE in delivering a set of units that are common in engineering regardless of what discipline of engineering you end up in. That can be done through a three-year apprenticeship, which actually gives you credit towards an engineering degree if you wish to do that.

Another classic example where guidelines may be different for a particular industry is the defence sector. I would hate to be in a situation where we do not have the ability to bring new higher apprenticeships into the defence sector that is going to be in this state for 50 years because we have only one set of guidelines that may not have anticipated the opportunities the defence sector was going to bring in upskilling South Australians so they could work in the defence sector. I get back to the premise of the bill and it is about ensuring that we can get as many people as possible into paid skills training.

Mr SZAKACS: Just to clarify, I appreciate your overall rhetoric around the system and I appreciate your passion around this, but my question was specific: will there be guidelines attached to the exercise of this power by the commissioner? And a very important question for the committee stage, because we cannot interrogate anywhere else, is: as the mover of the bill, how do you envisage, by definition, the class of training contracts? What does that mean? Please give any detail you can, because it is not defined.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The class will be determined at the time of the setting of the guidelines. I do not know that I can be clearer. This is a much higher status for vocational education than South Australia has ever had. This is lifting the status and the ability of the body that is responsible for vocational education—traineeships, apprenticeships and any other form of paid vocational pathway that we may develop over time—to be able to meet the needs of industry to make sure that people are being skilled in those areas.

We have been successful with our nation-leading growth and commencement of apprenticeships and traineeships because we have been agile and we have not had a one size fits all. We have not had boxes that employers must go to to change their business in order to meet the demands that are required in the box. We have actually delivered a very flexible system that is driven by industry and has engaged industry to participate in the skills training process. I have to say, the alternative to not being flexible is saying no to people who want to enter industry through skills training.

If I can paint a picture for you, many of the industries calling for vocational pathways now, in their infancy were built with people who had bachelor degrees and PhDs. Now those industries are so big that you do not actually need a PhD or a bachelor degree to participate in them and be a valuable contributor, but there are skill sets that you need. This ball of knowledge has been squeezed into a sausage, if you like, and we have sliced skill sets off the end and that is a skill set that can be delivered through a vocational education pathway. Then, that vocational education pathway is the start of someone's vocational education.

The ambition, of course, was for that cert III. Most people, particularly those of my vintage and similar, did the cert III and that was it. You did not think about going on to get more qualifications in the field in which you had your cert III when you did your apprenticeship. What we know from the research and from the work that the Training Skills Commission has done is that is not going to cut the mustard anymore. It is not going to keep people up to date with their skill levels. Putting any brake on the delivery of vocational education is not going to take South Australia into the 21st century.

That is the intent of this clause. There is nothing tricky about it. It is just about ensuring that there are guidelines and making sure those guidelines are tailored to the occupations or the industries where we are seeing the development of new pathways.

Mr BOYER: Minister, are you concerned at all that employers are going to take advantage of the ability to increase the probationary period, which is included in this bill, to six months in some cases, and the ability the bill is also going to provide, I understand, to terminate a contract at any time during that six months, without cause, in writing? Are you concerned that we are going to have employers just take advantage of those abilities that this might provide them without any good reason of actually needing to do so?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I do not understand what advantage there would be. Certainly there was no advantage in taking an apprentice on for three months or six months when I was doing it on a regular basis. You had the advantage when you were able to bill out their skills later on in the apprenticeship cycle. This is not automatic. You need to actually apply to the skills commission in order to get this extension. So the skills commission would need to be convinced that this is a requirement to save the apprenticeship. That is why it would be done.

My guess would be that it would be something that would be dealt with very early on in the process, once the process was started to lengthen a probationary period, and it would be based on the best outcome for the apprentice, because this is all about keeping apprentices in jobs and in apprenticeships.

Just say for some strange reason somebody had come up with a business model and worked out that they could make shitloads of money by having apprentices for six months and then sacking them, I do not think that they would continue to be a registered employer. They would actually quickly become a prohibited employer. So I thank the member for allowing me to clarify it and perhaps give it a bit of an animated explanation, but I can assure you this clause is all about saving apprenticeships.

Mr BOYER: I guess the advantage to the employer I was alluding to was that, if the probationary period were extended from three months to six months, they would have an additional three months in there in which they could terminate the contract without cause and just in writing. But my question here is: in that process that you explained about how the employer must actually make a case to the commission as to why the extended probationary period is necessary—and I think you said it would basically need to make a case that it was needed to save the apprenticeship—what voice, if any, does the apprentice actually have in that process?

I guess there can be situations where the employer thinks it's not going particularly well, so 'I need to keep my apprentice on probation for a longer period'. The apprentice says, 'I don't think that's necessary. It's going fine. I should be off my probation after three months and one day.' What is the mechanism for the apprentice to actually be heard so that their side of the case can be considered when the commission makes a determination?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The commission has a mediation role here, so that type of thing would be either done by agreement or mediation.

Mr BOYER: What mechanisms are there for the trainee in that mediation process to have some form of representation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It all has not changed from what they have now.

Dr CLOSE: If we look at new subsection (3), there is a reference to the capacity of the commission to vary a specified class of training contracts in order to be able to extend the probationary period. I would like to understand what the parameters are in the definition of a specified class of contract. Could you rule out, for example, that all second-year apprentices could suddenly have a varied probationary period?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: For the member's benefit, a second-year apprentice would not be in a probationary period. The probationary period starts when they start the apprenticeship, so there will be a first-year apprentice on probation for three months. That is the standard. The employer or the apprentice could apply to have that probationary period extended to six months but, again, that is an application process.

Dr CLOSE: If I can clarify, when I said second-year apprentice, I meant to say a two-year apprentice. When you have different classes of apprenticeships, could it be that for every apprenticeship that is of a certain length of time, the commission could simply by notice in Gazette vary the probationary period? If that is not the case, then could you give an example of what would be a case of a class of contract?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I did deal with this earlier. It is actually to deal with any changes in industrial relations. If changes in industrial relations changed the variation of that period, this clause enables that to be dealt with.

Dr CLOSE: Final question: is there any capacity for review, for appeal or for any mechanism, other than the fact that this power is being extended through this act, to prevent a decision that people might object to suddenly becoming law through simple gazettal?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think we need to be realistic here. At the moment, the only alternative that the apprentice and the employer have is three months, and that is it. The reality of the matter is that if an employer is unsure about the apprentice, for whatever reason—and I have explained in earlier contributions I have made to this debate that it may very well be that there may have been leave without pay because of an accident or an illness in that three-month period.

At the moment, the only option that the employer has for not exercising their entitlement to a three-month probationary period working with that apprentice is to terminate the contract. That is the only option. This provision enables that employer to say, 'Look, I really like Louisa. She's a great apprentice, but she has only been here for six weeks. She had this awful situation and I want to help her through this, but I don't want to be forced to make that decision in six weeks' time. I would much rather know that she wants to be here and that I can make this work, so I need another three months.' That is a classic example of where I can see this being used.

You also have to put yourself in the position of a small employer who has been whingeing about not being able to get the right skills for their business. They have finally been convinced to take on an apprentice, but they think, 'Three months? I don't know if I'm ready to make a decision in three months. I have never done this before.' So their choice is to say, 'No, I'm not going to take the plunge,' or to know that they have the ability to apply for a three-month extension to make sure that they absolutely know they can commit to this, they can do this and they want this to happen.

This is actually about getting more apprenticeships in the system and saving more apprenticeships. I just do not understand the cynical view that seems to be expressed that every employer is a bastard and all they want to do is rip these kids off. That is not my experience at all. Employers take great pride in working alongside tradespeople who they have trained. I was at Axiom this week and you cannot bump into anybody running that place who did not start as an apprentice. They are so passionate about apprenticeships and traineeships. They have schools they go to and they say, 'We are ready for another one,' and off they come.

I can see in that situation they may rarely use that. As a matter of fact, they might be comfortable bringing forward the date for the probation period. They might be happy to do it within a couple of weeks. It might surprise those opposite that my boss signed me up in two weeks. He was so happy with what he got, he did not want me to get away. He signed me up in two weeks on my apprenticeship. I have my apprenticeship papers on the wall and the evidence of that. I can understand the questioning coming from those opposite, but I just want to assure them that this is actually a good thing. This is about making it easier for the process so we get better outcomes.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, there seems to be a lack of clarity around new subsection (3) in regard to what the training contract of that class actually means. Can I suggest that between the houses you come back to us with clarification because it seems very unclear to us what you actually mean on that point. I am not asking you to labour it now, I am just asking if we could—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We can do that.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 18 and 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I accept that my reading of this clause might not be accurate, but how does this clause differ in terms of what, if any, supporting information or evidence needs to be provided to the commission to make a decision? How has that process, if at all, changed from the current situation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There has been no change.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I see that clause 21 proposes to delete the entire section 22 and substitute it with the word 'provided'. I was wondering if you could explain to us—

The CHAIR: Sorry, clause 21 or amendment 21, to be clear?

Mr BOYER: Sorry, clause 21. Are we on amendment—

The CHAIR: No, we are on clause 21. I think you are talking to amendment 21.

Mr BOYER: No, I am not. If I am right, it is the top of page 27.

The CHAIR: Yes, sorry, continue.

Mr BOYER: Deleted section 52 dealt with functions around change of ownership and I understand they have not found their way back, from what I can see, into the proposed bill. I am just wondering what happened to those functions around change of ownership. They have been removed but not included anywhere else in the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It will be brought back in in amendment No. 26 and clause 24, new section 54M(a). We were wondering if anyone was going to pick that up, so you get the prize.

Mr BOYER: One final question on clause 21, minister, and thank you for answering my question around the deleted section and change of ownership. My reading was that the deleted section may also have included information around it being an offence for undue influence or pressure to be applied to anyone to enter a training contract—or has that found its way into the bill elsewhere?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So part 4C, clause 31, new section 70G.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, can you explain what the difference is between this amendment in clause 22:

(2) If it is necessary for an apprentice or trainee to re-attend a course previously undertaken by the apprentice or trainee, the employer has a discretion as to whether time spent re-attending the course is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the wages payable to the apprentice or trainee.

How does that differ from what is in the current act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was silent in the act. It was generally dealt with with the award, I am advised. That clarifies what I understand can happen in practice under the existing act. It just clarifies what happens in that situation. I am advised that it is the type of situation where there has been a difficult situation for an apprentice and an employer, where there may have been some reconciliation. If they were sick and they could not go, obviously they are entitled to sick pay and so forth. They would be given time—I think that tends to be what the practice is—on the boss's dime to go and finish off. However, if there were circumstances that were more to do with the poor behaviour of the apprentice, I think that what tends to happen, as I understand it, in industry is that apprentices may be prepared to do that study in their own time.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: For the sake of clarification, minister, you said that this is new as an amendment as part of the whole bill; was there a specific employee association or other stakeholder that requested this?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We do have to correct my last answer. It was in the original bill. It is now in part 4, division 2, section 46(11). That is where it was before in the previous legislation. It is no change, so it is no wonder that it has been the practice in industry previously.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 negatived.

Clause 24.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 22 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 30, line 23 [clause 24, inserted section 54F(1)(b)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 23 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 33, line 25 [clause 24, inserted section 54J(1)(a)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 24 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 35, line 18 [clause 24, inserted section 54L(2)]—Delete 'expiry or termination' and substitute:

completion, expiry or termination (as the case requires)

Amendments carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 25 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 35, line 29 [clause 24, inserted section 54M(1)(a)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, this I assume will be a similar response for a number of other terminology changes for amendments Nos 27 through to 35. I note the definitional change from 'guidelines' to 'standards'. Could you just explain the rationale and what that means in either practice or technicality?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have done that several times during the debate but basically the feedback was that people were suggesting that 'guidelines' tended to be viewed as just that, not compulsory, not necessarily needed. In order to remove that ambiguous impression or that ambiguous view that 'guidelines' had become, we changed the word to 'standards'. We have done that right the way through wherever the word 'guidelines' was used.

I think it is important that people know where they stand and they know what the rules are and what the laws are. Removing the word 'guidelines' and replacing it with 'standards' makes it very clear and I think it also gives the Training and Skills Commission the authority it needs to do its work, because it does not need to explain to everybody who has breached the guidelines that, 'No, they are actually compulsory.' I think it makes the employer's life easier. It makes the trainees' life easier; they know what the expectation is. They know that what they are being asked to do is a standard and not a guideline. They know that if a standard is being breached, it is actually a breach of the act. This just spells it out and makes it very clear.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 26 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 36, after line 6—Insert:

54MA—Transfer of training contract where change of ownership of business

(1) A change in the ownership of a business (or part of a business) does not result in the termination of a training contract entered into by the former owner but, where a change in ownership occurs, the rights, obligations and liabilities of the former owner under the contract are transferred to the new owner.

(2) If a training contract is transferred under this section, both the former owner and the new owner must, within 21 days of the transfer or assignment, notify the Commission in writing of the transfer.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

Expiation fee: $315.

Amendment No 27 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 36, line 11 [clause 24, inserted section 54N(1)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 28 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 37, line 29 [clause 24, inserted section 54O(2)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 29 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 38, line 28 [clause 24, inserted section 54P(3)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 30 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 39, line 9 [clause 24, inserted section 54Q(1)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 31 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 39, line 18 [clause 24, inserted section 54Q(3)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 32 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 39, line 22 [clause 24, inserted section 54Q(4)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 33 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 39, line 24 [clause 24, inserted section 54Q(5)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 34 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 39, line 37 [clause 24, inserted section 54R(1)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 35 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 40, line 30 [clause 24, inserted section 54T(1)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment No 36 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 40, after line 31 [clause 24, inserted section 54T]—Insert:

(1a) A training organisation or recognised higher education provider is substituted as the nominated training organisation for an apprentice or trainee if, in accordance with any requirements set out in the South Australian Skills Standards—

(a) the employer and the apprentice or trainee agree on which registered training organisation or recognised higher education provider (as the case requires) is to become the nominated training organisation for the apprentice or trainee; and

(b) the employer and the apprentice or trainee seek the acceptance of the registered training organisation or recognised higher education provider (as the case requires) in respect of the nomination; and

(c) the registered training organisation or recognised higher education provider (as the case requires) accepts the nomination and agrees to be the nominated training organisation for the apprentice or trainee.

Amendment No 37 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 41, lines 24 to 29 [clause 24, inserted section 54W]—Delete inserted section 54W and substitute:

54W—Commission may notify certain bodies where contravention of Act

The Commission may, if satisfied that a registered training organisation or recognised higher education provider has contravened a provision of this Act, notify 1 or more of the following bodies of that fact:

(a) the Department;

(b) AQSA;

(c) TEQSA.

Amendments carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): The committee is now considering clause 24 as amended.

Mr BOYER: Broadly speaking, the concern from us on this side is that we appear to be moving away from a registration process for employers seeking to perhaps take on an apprentice or a trainee that takes a more in-depth look at whether or not they are appropriate to employ apprentices or trainees before that is done and moving now to a system where, whatever the act is, it means they would be a prohibited employer. It is already perpetrated.

They are then added to a prohibited list after the fact. Is that a fair assessment of what is happening here? How are the same protections that were in place under the existing act to make sure that the right employers were chosen or allowed to have apprentices and trainees preserved in the bill that you are proposing?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Do not forget that every business is subject to SafeWork SA. The registration for an employer for an apprentice obviously would not be given to anybody that was in breach of the SafeWork SA act. That would rule anybody out who was an unlawful employer or an employer who had a poor record when it came to occupational health and safety.

The registration process, as I understand it, is more about the ability of the employer to deliver the on-the-job training. Remember, it is a two-part training process: it is classroom and it is on the job. This system of a declaration for registration was recommended back in the review that the previous government undertook of the act in 2016. We are implementing that recommendation on the encouragement of those who participate in the skills and training sector.

When we came into office, some employers were saying, 'It is taking up to three months to get registered. I have said I am ready for an apprentice and it has taken three months.' We have been able to get that down to less than two weeks, but it is still a process that holds the process up. Other states like New South Wales, for example, are using the system of a declaration.

Why we are confident to do this is that 97 or 98 per cent of those businesses that were visited through the system that we have in place at the moment that the current act provides for got the tick of approval—they got passed—but there was no prohibited employer status in the current bill, I understand. So this actually strengthens the commissioner's ability to deal with any employer who is not fit to have an apprentice or does not have the ability to have an apprentice. They would then be given the title or the category of a prohibited employer.

Mr SZAKACS: Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The key point here is that we really do want people in jobs as soon as possible. We are confident that we have protections in place to make sure they are getting the appropriate training. The more efficient registration system that we have been able to implement so far has actually seen 1,000 businesses in South Australia over the last two years take on apprentices for the very first time. We want to improve those figures. We want to get people in apprenticeships and in jobs as soon as possible, and that is the motivation. The evidence we have is that this is a safe and reliable process based on what our physical visits established and experiences we have seen in states like New South Wales.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This change concerns me greatly, and it particularly concerns me because we are talking often—not always, but often—about young people. It may be the first time they enter a workplace as an apprentice or a trainee, and I am very concerned that we prohibit them after they have done the wrong thing.

What I am very concerned about is that the checks should be done prior to registration and maintained for prevention and to make sure the wrong people are not engaging people. Minister, as you know, I have some background with our screening system and particularly our working with children checks. I note it is often young people involved. Did you consider having people who have people come in as apprentices or trainees undergo a working with children check?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think the concern that the shadow minister has is unfounded. The facts are that occupational health and safety is managed by SafeWork SA, so a 16 or 17 year old can go and work for a company without any checks from any other body. They can work doing the same thing, on-the-job training, on a shonky, dodgy arrangement where they are not getting qualified training, they are not getting accredited training, but they are doing the same on-the-job training that an apprentice would do. That can happen now.

What this simply does is enable the skills commission to have a registration process that is based on the ability of a business to manage on-the-job training. Do not forget that currently we have the Skilling South Australia program, with many of our support products that we offer. Businesses get inspections and visits from staff. The 200 staff in the skills unit visit those companies to work out what it is we can do to remove barriers and bring enablers in so they can get on board with apprentice training.

SafeWork SA provides for occupational health and safety. Every workplace should be safe and must be safe, and it is their role to do that. That is not the role of the registration process for employers. The role of the registration process for employers relates to their ability to deliver on-the-job training. I have just been advised that working alongside a child or supervising a child does not make the work child-related, according to the screening.sa.gov.au site from your previous department, shadow minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: You say 'working alongside', but this person is responsible for the trainee and the apprentice. Perhaps you could clarify that for me while you are doing that. Can you clarify what will make an employer prohibited?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We have covered that. Some examples are, obviously, unlawful conduct and breaches of the industrial relations act. I also suggest that failure to offer on-the-job training would be another issue. It could be an employer who was not able to offer the full scope of on-the-job training that the apprentice would need to be suitably qualified at the end of that period.

That does not mean that the employer could not be a host employer managed by a GTO. This is where GTOs are very handy for small employers. They can have an apprentice for six months, 12 months, in their business and that apprentice could then move on to another business to gain the experience they need in other areas of the skill sets that they are developing through the apprenticeship. They probably would not be able to employ an apprentice directly in that case.

We have worked with the GTO sector and employers who want to get behind the apprenticeship system but know they do not have the full scope to have someone directly employed. It has been very successful.

Mr BOYER: Still on clause 24, but more specifically, 54C provides a mechanism for 'the application of a prohibited employer' or an application made by that employer, who may previously have been declared to be on the prohibited list, to appeal that finding. Can the minister tell us what involvement in the appeal process, as I understand it, the apprentice or trainee in this particular case may have to be a part of it?

If can use an example, the person now on the prohibited employers list previously had an apprentice or a trainee. For reasons of alleged poor conduct, behaviour or treatment of that apprentice or trainee they found themselves on the prohibited employers list. They appealed that and it is considered by the commission, I understand. What role is there for the apprentice or trainee who might have been involved in those allegations to be part of the appeal process and have their say about whether they believe that employer deserves to come off the banned list?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Obviously, that will require a set of standards. That will be one of the new commissioner's tasks, to design those standards. Whenever any penalty is imposed, it is standard practice that there is a pathway to appeal. I suspect some prohibited employers may be able to rehabilitate, and obviously they would work with the commission to do that.

I think the appeal process was probably more about a situation where there is a dispute. I am not a lawyer, but I am just imagining from my own business experience a dispute about what the commissioner might have imposed that the employer might not agree with. That would be a matter for SACAT, I would imagine.

The prohibited employer could also revoke it but apply conditions, so they might restrict some activities or some training. For example, they might say you will be a prohibited employer for a directly employed apprentice but you are not a prohibited employer for the purpose of being a host employer for a group training organisation because we know how good group training organisations are at managing their apprentices to make sure they get completions and make sure they get the training they need. That may very well be a basis for removal of a prohibited employer status, for example.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I would like to clarify your comments towards the end of that last answer about whether it is right that there are circumstances in which an employer might be on the prohibited employers list in one scenario but in the group training organisation scenario they might still be able to have an apprentice; is that correct?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I stand corrected. A restricted employer would mean in that situation that you would be able to be a host employer as a restricted employer, and that would be based on the comments I made earlier that your on-the-job training might not have the scope for a four-year apprentice to get all the on-the-job training they require in order to be satisfactorily qualified in the field they are studying.

Mr SZAKACS: We have heard a number of answers from the minister to questions from those on this side of the house regarding the old registration scheme. The minister has constantly pointed us back to the fact that, in his opinion, the registration scheme as we know it under the legislation is effectively to ascertain the availability of an employer to train or deliver on-the-job training.

But what he has failed to do through each question that has been put to him is to mention that the registration scheme under the current act also has a fit and proper test. I am not sure whether he has declined to answer or to discuss that because it is not something that is as palatable to these changes, but a fit and proper test for an employer to employ an apprentice is quite a fundamental position that the Labor opposition takes.

There is a raft of available remedies that the current act and the new bill provide for the revocation of such licensing, but to say the fit and proper test is no longer important is quite remarkable and not to talk about it is even more remarkable. So, minister, do you acknowledge that the current scheme, which this seeks to amend, has a fit and proper test and would you give some insight as to why a proactive fit and proper test for a prospective employer is no longer important?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: As I said earlier, this was actually identified in the previous government's review of the act in 2016, and I am sure that review would have been well represented by the union movement in the outcomes that were recommended in that review.

The amendments do not diminish the robust protection of apprentices and trainees. Protections have been maintained through excluding prohibited employers from registering, allowing the making of regulations to address any deficiencies or identified risks among certain categories of employers, providing the South Australian skills commission with the discretion to refuse to register an employer if, in the circumstances, it is inappropriate to register them.

In addition, section 75 of the act makes it an offence for a person to make a statement that is false and misleading, whether by reason of inclusion or omission of any particular or any information provided under the act. The maximum penalty is $10,000. So I hope that clears it up. States like New South Wales, which have the model this amendment will move to, have a safe and proper environment for their apprentices who are getting the right training through this declaration process we are introducing in South Australia. It was recommended in the 2016 review.

I have to emphasise the fact that this registration would not apply to somebody taking on a young person at the same age without contractor training, and that is because SafeWork SA deals with the occupational health and safety issues. We have other acts of parliament. I am sure the Attorney-General would be able to advise the house of other acts of parliament for criminal acts that will protect employees in their place of work. This is about their ability to provide the on-the-job training.

Mr SZAKACS: I appreciate the minister's desire to make things a bit clearer, but it is just clear as mud. My question was: does this amendment revoke the fit and proper test under the current legislation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The fit and proper test is part of checking for whether somebody should be prohibited or not.

Mr SZAKACS: I will take that as a resounding, 'Yes, it does.' Minister, I appreciate that the next couple of questions might not be available to you tonight. It would be great if they were. If not, would you take them on notice between the houses? In the last financial year, how many employers were denied registration or failed to be registered upon application? In addition to that, how many employers had their registration revoked?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We will see if we have the exact figures for you, but I have been advised that about 97 or 98 per cent get their registration. If we look at new registration applications declined in 2019-20, we had 'employer not licensed or registered to operate a business in South Australia'—and, obviously, that is something that would come up in the declaration process and the checks that the department would do—35 businesses. These are employers who were not registered to operate a business in South Australia—a bizarre situation that they would then attempt to employ an apprentice. So they are 35; nearly half of those who were denied were in that category.

'You have not responded to our request for contact to arrange to visit the worksite': my understanding is that the registration process does not stop the department from taking action if it wishes to visit a worksite. It does not stop them from doing that, and they are 14 at that level. I think that is another important point that it was something deliberate that the department has asked for that has been denied.

'The employer cannot provide relevant training in the vocation applied for': in other words, no such apprenticeship exists. Again, in that instance, 13 would be picked up through the self-declaration process in the assessment of that application. 'The employer has not responded to a request to contact the department to discuss the application': again, that would be picked up. I would imagine that this would happen either before or after an inspection, so the process may not have even started.

'The request for information has not been provided': there are seven at that level. 'The persons who are to supervise the work of the apprentices or trainees': I suspect that refers to them not having the qualification, or they felt that the supervision was inadequate for the skills training. Four of them were denied at that point. 'The employer has withdrawn the application': there are three in that category. 'Unwilling to employ and train for the full term of the contract': that is obviously a question that would be asked in the self-declaration, too. 'The employer does not have an office in South Australia': it is a bit hard to employ an apprentice in South Australia if you do not have a presence here in South Australia. So that gives you an idea.

Regarding your question about renewal of applications declined, 'an employer was not licensed or registered to operate a business in South Australia', they were denied renewal again. That is something that can be assessed through the registration process that we are proposing. 'An employer has not responded to requests to contact DIS to discuss the application again': there are nine at that level. Again, it does not require a visit to a business to achieve that outcome.

'You have not responded to our request to arrange for a worksite visit': there are six people in that instance. 'You have not responded to our request to make contact regarding your application to amend your scope': there is one person. 'The persons who are to supervise the workplace or trainee were not to satisfaction': obviously, there was not confidence by the department that there was somebody there who could actually do that.

I think that gives you an idea as to how so much of that assessment can be done through a signed declaration that has severe penalties if you leave things out by omission or you do not tell the truth. Attorney-General, I think there are even legal consequences out there for signing statutory declarations that are false.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Indeed.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So it is a pretty big sledgehammer, and the benefit to that, of course, is that it gets people into apprenticeships quicker, in safe environments that can actually deliver the skills training that industry requires.

Mr SZAKACS: May I clarify one point before I ask my final question? Minister, I am happy to check this in Hansard, but do the statistical numbers you just read out include employers who have failed to be registered as well as employers whose registration has been revoked? It was not clear from your answer, sorry.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was new applications, and applications that had been renewed.

Mr SZAKACS: I asked whether you had with you the number of employers whose registrations had been revoked in the last financial year.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We can bring that back.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you for your detailed answer. I appreciate that, but what has become abundantly clear from that answer is that under the amendments that you are proposing there will be hundreds of employers, not counting those who have had their registrations revoked, who have been disqualified for a variety of reasons and failed to be registered for a variety of reasons, including failing to meet a fit and proper test under the current legislation.

Under your scheme, we will have this laissez-faire approach where they will be given the capacity to employ young people—at times children and at other times young adults—and the only time that they will not have the capacity to do that is under two circumstances. One is in this fairyland that the minister proffers, where a declaration will cover the illegality, or otherwise, of employer behaviour. Because of course that works, does it not? Someone is going to say, 'I am a wage thief.' Someone is going to say, 'I run and don't respect safe systems of work under various pieces of legislation.' Sure, that will work.

The second is that everything will be fine until it is not. How serious does an event have to be for the minister to wear the blame, and wear on his scalp when something goes wrong under this scheme, that an employer has not failed a registration process but been caught out doing something wrong? How severe? How bad must something be before an apprentice suffers at the hands of the minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is so sad that somebody hates the private sector so much. It is just extraordinary. The people who actually employ South Australians. What a cynical view of the wealth generators in this state we have from the member for Cheltenham. There are 9,406 applications currently registered. The declines that I just read into Hansard totalled 88—not hundreds, but 88. I do not know where you did your maths—not hundreds, mate.

Mr SZAKACS: Sorry, I am not a tradie like you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Eighty-eight.

Mr SZAKACS: Not including those that had been revoked. Not including those that you are taking on notice that have been revoked.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham, you have asked your question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So you just made up that number? You have just made up the number of those that were revoked, have you? Just made that up? The facts are that this system works extremely well in New South Wales and it gets people into apprenticeships quicker.

It was recommended by the review that was put together by the previous Labor government in 2016. I can assure you it would have had plenty of union membership on that review and they recommended it. The only reason I can think that the member for Cheltenham is raising such concern about it is because it is not his idea. When it was the union's idea during that review in 2016, what a great idea. Now—

Mr SZAKACS: Glass jaw.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —we agree that it is a great idea.

The CHAIR: Member for Cheltenham—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What a great bit of work on that review you did in 2016; it is a pity it was not acted on.

The CHAIR: Minister, just for a moment, please. Member for Cheltenham, you were given great deference during your comments and opportunity to ask questions, so let's give the minister that same deference for his answer.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think I can wrap up by saying that I have a different view of employers in South Australia from the member for Cheltenham.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, what will be the trigger for the commission to look at an employer and determine whether they are to become a prohibited employer? What is the mechanism to trigger that examination by the commission?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think I covered this earlier, did I not, to a degree? I think there will be several trigger points. Obviously, a report form the RTO. Don't forget these apprentices go to RTOs, either on a block release or one day a week. Certainly, under our Skilling South Australia program we have additional resources in place to support apprentices. GTOs are aware.

If we saw that there were a lot of non-completions in that organisation or, regarding the debate we were having earlier about the ability to apply for the probation period to be extended, if we saw that the way that was being operated and those applications were being made was raising red flags, there would be a number of triggers that the very experienced skills commission would be able to identify.

We do have access to some wonderful technology now, artificial intelligence, that makes it much easier to identify people who are doing the wrong thing or people who are not meeting the expectations of the skills commission, and of course a complaint by an apprentice would also be acted on very quickly. There are various mechanisms that would trigger an investigation into an employer, if there were concerns, to see how they were operating as a registered employer of apprentices or trainees.

Dr CLOSE: Could the minister give some examples, or any examples, of feedback that he personally received from the union movement about this proposition?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We invited everybody to participate. We wrote to SA Unions. A submission is all we got from SA Unions. There was no request to meet from SA Unions, as far as I understand. We got a submission from the AMWU. I will let you know what their views are. I think I might be able to share that information with you.

The notes I have from SA Unions say they are supportive of the introduction of prohibited employer, despite concerns with employer registration. That is understandable. They are reflecting the views that you have been reflecting this evening.

We cannot seem to find a reference from any other union on that matter. Business SA was supportive of the registration process, and of course the expert panel was also supportive of that process. If we find something we will let you know.

The CHAIR: Between the houses, I take it, minister?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 38 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 42, line 25 [clause 26, inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendment carried.

Mr BOYER: Minister, on my reading of the current act, and comparing it with the bill, it appears that a requirement that a suspension for serious misconduct under this section not last longer than seven days has been removed; is that correct? If I am wrong, where is that retained?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You will see that in section 64(2)(c).

Mr BOYER: It would appear that the requirement to notify the employment tribunal of a suspension for serious misconduct has been changed from 'immediately' in the current act to 'as soon as is reasonably practicable' in the bill. Can you explain to us why the change from 'immediately' to 'as soon as is reasonably practicable'?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is just bringing it into modern practice. It means 'as soon as physically possible' basically. 'Immediately' is not always possible, but if 'as soon as physically possible' is possible then that is the expectation. It does not change the intent at all. There is still a requirement to do that at the earliest possible time.

Mr BOYER: Has the time frame in which an employer must notify an apprentice or trainee that they have suspended their apprenticeship or traineeship for serious misconduct changed or is it the same in the bill as it is in the existing act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that there is no change.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 27 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 39 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 45, lines 22 to 24 [clause 30, inserted section 70B(1)]—delete 'if satisfied that an applicant for recognition of qualifications or experience in a particular trade or declared vocation (other than a prescribed vocation)' and substitute:

and in accordance with any requirements set out in the South Australian Skills Standards, and if satisfied that an applicant for recognition of qualifications or experience in a particular trade or declared vocation

Amendment No 40 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 45, line 28 and 29 [clause 30, inserted section 70B(1)(b)]—Delete inserted paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) certify to that effect.

Amendment No 41 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 46, lines 3 to 7 [clause 30, inserted section 70B(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 31 to 37 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 42 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 52, lines 17 to 27 [Schedule 1, Part 2]—Delete Part 2

Amendment No 43 [InnoSkills–1]—

Page 56, line 7 [Schedule 1, clause 19(3)]—Delete 'Guidelines' and substitute:

Standards

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Clause 11—reconsidered.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Subsection (4) before us provides:

(b) up to 10 persons appointed by the Minister who, in the Minister's opinion, together have the abilities and experience required for the effective performance of the Commission's functions.

Minister, why have you removed union representation?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The bill does not change the fact that members of the commission are appointed by the minister. That is the case at the moment. The process for appointment has been amended to a broader merit-based appointment process regardless of association or connections of individuals.

As with the current act, the minister is required to ensure the commission members have the abilities and experience required for the effective performance of the commission's functions. The skills matrix has been developed to capture the optimal mix of strategic expertise, legal and economic leadership, project management, and regulatory and advocacy skills and experience that will be required of commission members.

The merit-based approach to selecting the commission members reflects and expands on the modern appointment process enacted in equivalent jurisdictions around Australia; for example, the New South Wales Skills Board Act 2013 establishes the New South Wales Skills Board, which requires members appointed by the minister to have sound knowledge of skills development and higher education, high levels of experience in market operations and a strong understanding of financial risk and project management.

In the Northern Territory, the Training and Skills Development Act 2016 establishes a nine-member commission, appointed by the minister, that is capable of representing the interests of industry and employers and has the knowledge of and experience in areas relevant to functions of the commission.

The approach to have a commissioner and a merit-based commission also reflects most up-to-date approaches taken at a national level with the introduction of the National Skills Commissioner supported by advisory committees through the National Skills Commissioner Act 2020. In this example, the act gives the minister the power to appoint each member of the advisory committee, with members only being appointed if the minister is satisfied they have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience.

Similarly, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Act 2020 proposes that the Australian Skills Quality Authority's current three-commissioner leadership structure is replaced with a single national VET regulator CEO, supported by a 10-member advisory panel.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, anyone who has spent time in this chamber knows how you feel about unions. You have made it very clear time and time again that you do not support people's right to organise and be represented. Who apart from you wanted unions not to be represented on the commission?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I covered that in my previous answer. The fact is that this is modern practice. There are no organisations that are represented on the skills council. It is purely a skills matrix that will be used to develop the skills that the skills commission needs to carry out its function. You will also notice that there is no requirement in the bill for somebody from an employer organisation to be appointed to the skills commission either. I think it is fair to put that on the record because it is consistent with the motivation for updating the act to work as modern acts and modern boards and commissions work around Australia.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Minister, that may well be your rationale as to why you have chosen this course, but I think you have made clear many, many times what your ambitions were going to be. My final question for this clause is at (4)(b). It says up to 10 persons are appointed by the minister to the commission. Why is there no minimum number of people to be part of the commission? Why is there no minimum?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is no particular reason. I do not know that there is minimum in the current act. I am not sure that there is, but I think that it reflects the ability for there to be some flexibility for any future cabinet to decide on the size of that commission. We have put a restriction on the maximum size and there is no minimum currently.

That has been confirmed: it is no change from what was there originally. I think the original act was 2008. It would have been the Labor government at that time, I think, that put that act in. There is no change in the way the process is, but I can guarantee and assure the house that chairs of industry skills councils will occupy eight of those seats on that commission, as they do now.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, I want to talk specifically about your comments around the need for a merits-based board. I note that under the current act the Governor, upon your recommendation, appoints nine of the 11 nominees. You are burdened with the obligation to appoint one after consultation with the United Trades and Labor Council (SA Unions) and one with Business SA. Nine of 11 are appointed by you. My question to you is: from a merits perspective and from a skills perspective, what does the current board lack, and taking that into account, how bad must the exercise of your judgement have been in the appointment of those nine of 11 members?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I will take that as a comment.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, you may take that as a comment, but I will ask you to clarify because it was most definitely a question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It was a slag; I am not going to respond.

The CHAIR: I do not want to get into a slanging match.

Mr SZAKACS: I will ask the minister to withdraw.

The CHAIR: Ask the question. Perhaps rephrase the question, member for Cheltenham.

Mr SZAKACS: I will ask the minister to withdraw his comments.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I did not say he was a slag: I said that was a slag.

The CHAIR: No, you said it was a slag. I do not think that is—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If he wants to ask a question without a personal inflection, then I will answer it, but if he wants to put a barb in the end, I am going to ignore it. I will take it as a comment. So it is up to him how he wants to conduct himself.

The CHAIR: Okay, so here we are. We are very nearly at the end of this and the member for Cheltenham I think has asked a question.

Mr SZAKACS: I am back on my feet and I will ask the minister to withdraw.

The CHAIR: What did the minister say that so offended you?

Mr SZAKACS: Slag.

The CHAIR: Well, he did not—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I did not call him a slag.

The CHAIR: No, you did not; that is right. I do not feel the need for the minister to withdraw that, member for Cheltenham. Please ask your question.

Mr SZAKACS: Thank you. You are welcome to take the comment. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, questioning your decision-making capacity as the minister to appoint nine of 11 people to a board who have failed so dismally from a merits perspective. My question is: has a merits or gap analysis of skills been undertaken and, if not, why not?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We are not suggesting it is lacking skill sets at the moment. This will simply clarify the skill sets the government believes are required in order for the skills commission to do its job.

There is no doubt that the Training and Skills Commission, as it stands, has done an exceptional job. I am not aware of new apprenticeships and traineeships being declared in previous years at such a rate as they are being declared under this new commission. We have direct industry connection, we are getting our intelligence almost from the factory floor. All we are doing is bringing the skills commission up to a national standard, and we are removing any obligation for somebody to be appointed to that board on advice from a body that may not be as relevant now, whether that be Business SA or SA Unions.

The fact is that there are far more people, particularly in the private sector, employed; I think union membership in the private sector is about 9 per cent. I know that organisations like Business SA do not represent the volume of businesses that they do represent, and why should we be putting a prequalification on somebody joining that board because they might be a member of a particular club or association?

This is modern practice. It is about getting the best skills on the board. Again, the process came out of the advice of the expert panel that helped us develop the process to where it is now.

Mr SZAKACS: This is my final question, Chair; thank you for your indulgence. Minister, you have summarised just how well a job this board is doing, the commissioner is doing, because of the delivery of X, Y and Z that you have walked us through ad infinitum tonight. At the same time you are cutting your nose off to spite your face in tinkering with a board that, in your own definition, is performing exceptionally. It seems illogical to do that at this juncture.

Your reflections on Business SA and SA Unions are also interesting. I am not sure whether this is something you express privately to Business SA, about their lack of footprint in respect to representing businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, in the state. Likewise with SA Unions, it might be an unfortunate and inconvenient truth to the minister, but there are over 200,000 union members in this state. It is the largest single membership-based organisation not only in this state but in this country, and for the minister to sit there with a straight face and say that trying to keep the representatives of 200,000 workers, members, off a board is anything other than rank ideology is ridiculous.

The CHAIR: There was no question contained in that, as far as I could tell, member for Cheltenham.

Mr SZAKACS: It was a question more in the form of a statement.

The CHAIR: Okay; we will take it as a statement.

Mr BOYER: Minister, was any specific feedback given during the consultation period by any of the stakeholders who were part of that consultation that requested that the independent Training Advocate be abolished and, if so, who provided that feedback?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The Training Advocate's role is not being abolished. It is being merged with the skills commission. Obviously, feedback from consultation identified that there is currently confusion in relation to dispute resolution and educating parties about apprenticeships and traineeships. The overlap between certain functions performed by the Office of the Training Advocate and those of both the Training and Skills Commission and the department through delegation from the Training and Skills Commission was also identified as a source of confusion by various stakeholders.

The amended structure will assist in modernising the state's vocational education and training system, lifting the status of apprenticeships and traineeships, increasing industry leadership and accountability. This amendment structure will also provide for a single point of accountability. Business SA would have written, I think, to the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Clare Scriven in the other place supporting the amalgamation of the Training and Skills Commission and the Training Advocate. There are others that I cannot bring to hand at the moment, but we will see if we can provide those to you later.

Mr BOYER: Minister, why is the requirement for any direction that you or any future minister may give to the commission to be printed in the annual report and not tabled in parliament, as I understand is usually the case with any directions given by ministers to bodies like that?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is no requirement for it to be in the annual report at the moment. The annual report is published in parliament.

Mr BOYER: Minister, in regard to remuneration of members of the commission, I understand they will be entitled to remuneration, but allowances and expenses will also be determined by you as the minister. Can you tell us what the remuneration for commission members might be?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It will be in accordance with the DPC circular, as is the normal practice.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, many pieces of legislation that establish important commissions or boards or committees have a skills and experience matrix as part of the legislation so that, in the minister contemplating appointing people to positions on the commission in this case, they are doing so against a skills matrix so as to make sure that there is a range of experience and skills represented. That clearly is not in this piece of legislation. Has that been considered in the process? Has anyone suggested that? Have you considered it and discounted it, or might you be open to such an amendment?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have already approved a skills matrix, and I would be happy to provide it. I have already approved it. I have signed off on a skills matrix in anticipation.

Dr CLOSE: But it is not in the legislation. You have some sort of policy that you have decided upon, or is it somewhere in the legislation and I have overlooked it?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I can table it now if you wish; it is here.

Dr CLOSE: No, I am wondering about the status of the document, sorry. You are saying you have a skills matrix but it does not appear in the legislation; is that correct?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Again, getting back to the need for this to be a piece of legislation that enables an agile skills training system in South Australia so that we can expand the opportunities for vocational education, those things may change over time. So what we have tried to do is enable the legislation to be the spine that is needed for the Training and Skills Commission to operate and for skills training to continue to grow in South Australia but be agile enough to be responsive to industry very quickly. That is the reason why it is not in the legislation.

Basically, there is a reference in the act that up to 10 persons appointed by the minister who 'in the minister's opinion', together with 'abilities and experience required for the effective performance of the Commission's functions'. This is really about getting the best possible outcomes and enabling the commissioner to do their job with an appropriately staffed commission.

Dr CLOSE: I ask that the skills matrix that has been approved be tabled, as was offered by the minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We are happy to do that.

The CHAIR: Are we tabling it now, minister, or in due course?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We can table it now; we have it here.

The CHAIR: Right, let's do it. I think we are at a point where I can put the question that clause 11 as amended be agreed to.

The committee divided on the clause as previously amended:

Ayes 23

Noes 20

Majority 3

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. (teller) Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E.
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Gardner, J.A.W. Piccolo, A.

Clause as previously amended thus passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (21:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 23

Noes 20

Majority 3

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. (teller) Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E.
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Gee, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Gardner, J.A.W. Piccolo, A.

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.


At 21:39 the house adjourned until Thursday 10 September 2020 at 11:00.


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