HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Schedule 1.

Ms BEDFORD: I have a question on part 2, sir.

The CHAIR: Part 2—related amendments for training and skills, member for Florey? Yes, you have the call.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: You do not have any questions on development stuff?

Ms BEDFORD: That is why I indicated part 2. I do not have a question on part 1. I am trying to be helpful.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, my apologies; your question relates to schedule 1?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, schedule 1, part 2 thereof, so we are moving straight past part 1 to part 2; are we happy to do that?

The CHAIR: Related amendments for training and skills; is that right?

Ms BEDFORD: That is right, but there is a part 1 before it, which no-one seems to have a question on. My question relates directly to the training and skills development part of a business. Can the minister explain why this provision is necessary, given the Training and Skills Commission has already published a guideline in relation to section 51 for training contracts?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I thank the member for her question. This was recommended by the Training and Skills Commission. They have adjusted their guidelines for suspensions of apprenticeships and traineeships for the purpose of preventing cancellations during COVID-19. This has a finish date of 1 January 2021. It is much better for an apprentice to still have a connection with their employer and be able to continue their off-the-job training if the employer is put in such a position that they are not able to continue immediately with the salary of the apprentice.

Generally, outside the COVID-19 situation the suspension of apprenticeships and traineeships tends to happen by mutual agreement. Sometimes there may be a dispute, and then it needs to be settled by the South Australian Employment Tribunal. What this amendment is doing is enabling the changes that are reflected in the processes of the Training and Skills Commission to also be reflected in the options for the judge in the SAET. This is giving SAET the same flexibility to save apprenticeships and traineeships that the Training and Skills Commission has.

Ms BEDFORD: It is certainly good to hear that we are not going to be cancelling them, but is the effect of this subsection to allow the SA Employment Tribunal to suspend a training contract even if it is not agreed to by the apprentice or trainee?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It does not change the operation of SAET. It just means that, instead of having a blunt instrument that can only suspend for four weeks, it can now suspend for a longer period of time, which would be a preferred option for most employers. I think one of the things we are trying to achieve through this process is that we do not want the employers who have been doing the right thing for many years, particularly small employers who are genuinely in a situation where they simply cannot keep this apprentice on in the immediate term, to only be given the option of termination if agreement by both parties is not able to be achieved.

Generally, it is the Training and Skills Commission that is the negotiator or the arbitrator of such matters. Occasionally, when a mutual agreement cannot be reached, then it moves to SAET. Under normal circumstances, when it moves to SAET, it really is quite a bitter situation on both sides, I have been advised. In this situation, it would move to SAET because maybe there was not a full understanding of the options for the apprentice to move to a suspension and the intention of that, which is for the continuation to be available for that apprentice when we get past this difficult period.

Ms BEDFORD: Can the minister explain how this new subsection interacts with the federal government's JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments? For example, if a training contract is suspended, does this mean the trainee or apprentice is forced to apply for JobSeeker, does the employer apply for JobKeeper, or will the trainee or apprentice simply not be paid at all?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: JobSeeker is available if the apprentice loses their job, but bear in mind that this is about trying to prevent that from happening. This is actually giving the SAET an extra tool in the toolbox that they can pull out to try to get a fix for the future of this apprentice. Currently, it is a very blunt instrument—it is like a sledgehammer. That means that all they can do is suspend for one month. This is enabling SAET to suspend for the period up to 1 January next year. If they are suspended, they can immediately apply for JobSeeker. That is my understanding.

Many apprentices have moved on to JobKeeper, but JobKeeper is not a silver bullet. In the group training space, there is still a gap that the employer needs to pay. Some employers who have been hit quite severely have decided that they are not in a position to pay that, so those apprentices have been sent back to the group training organisation, which is the actual employer.

For those who may be interested, in the group training system, the group training organisation is the actual employer of the apprentice and then the apprentice is sent out to a host employer who then receives a monthly bill from the group training organisation. That covers the salary of the apprentice and covers the support that the organisation that is using group training gets when they take on a group training apprentice. They do have much higher retention and completion rates.

We have seen JobKeeper save a lot of apprenticeships and we are still seeing people take apprenticeships on during this period in industries that have not been affected by COVID. This is really a mechanism to enable the courts to extend the suspension process, rather than moving to that very blunt instrument of only a one-month suspension, which would then lead to a termination of employment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the Minister for Innovation and Skills is who asked for this clause?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This was asked for by the Training and Skills Commission.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What has informed the date of 1 January 2021 specified in (2a)(b)? Before the minister answers, perhaps I can explain that the other provisions of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill are set to expire on 30 September, which is also the date that the JobKeeper payment expires, if not sooner. According to the latest reports from the Prime Minister, it may be ended or reduced sooner. Why do we have this carry on for a period of a further three months beyond both of those times?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that that date was a decision of the Training and Skills Commission, which of course has chairs of the Industry Skills Councils sitting on it. The reason it is in the bill is because that was the advice from the Training and Skills Commission. They have used that time period, and that is a maximum time period; it is not the only option available to the Training and Skills Commission, nor is it the only option available to the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question is again to the Minister for Innovation and Skills. If you are an apprentice getting paid circa $500 a week, and your employer avails him or herself of these arrangements to suspend your employment up to 1 January 2021, how will you expect an apprentice in those circumstances—who may not be living with his or her family and who may have their own financial obligations, such as rent and perhaps car loan repayments on their ute, for example—to manage when the JobKeeper payment is slated to finish three months before that end date?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I suppose the state government is not responsible for the timing of the JobKeeper payment. However, this is an option for the apprentice. I accept that, yes, there will be apprentices for whom this option simply will not be suitable, but that puts them in a position that is no different from if they were immediately terminated from their apprenticeship. So this actually gives a light at the end of the tunnel for both the employer and the apprentice.

I can tell you that there are a lot of employers who get a lot of satisfaction out of having an apprenticeship completed, and when that does not happen—when an apprentice does leave for whatever reason—it is quite upsetting for some employers because they have made a significant investment and they have developed a relationship, particularly smaller businesses, where in many instances they are even treated as part of the family.

So it is not one size fits all. Again, it is another tool in the toolbox to help manage the situation we are in with COVID-19. When these employers took these apprentices on, they of course had no idea of how their business would be impacted. One of the areas that we had a lot of success with our Skilling South Australia program was in tourism and hospitality, and of course that has been hit the hardest. I think that anybody here in this chamber would think that it would be fair and reasonable for that employer, if they are able to get through this, to be able to come through the other side and to want to get back into the position that they were in previously, including the commitments they were making for skills training.

In answer to your question, the longer period of time for the suspension does give the apprentice and the employer more options. It is already available for a negotiated arrangement through the Training and Skills Commission, and the time frame in this amendment bill is there so that SAET has the same option as the Training and Skills Commission.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is the amendment interfering with any commonwealth legislation or agreements put in place between employees and their employer?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that the commission guideline is in line with the Fair Work Act.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just to be clear, there is no conflict between any federal award or any federal agreement and the Fair Work Act?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is actually separate to the Fair Work Act. The advice I have is that it is line with the Fair Work Act.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So none of the apprentices or trainees here are employed under any commonwealth award?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am advised that, if you are not on the government payroll in South Australia, you are employed under the federal system. The important thing here is, as I am advised, this guideline of the Training and Skills Commission is not in conflict with the Fair Work Act.

Mr PICTON: My question to the minister follows on from the questions from the member for Lee. As I understand it, the JobKeeper arrangements expire at the end of September, but these arrangements will last until January, so they will not be eligible for JobKeeper, presumably. What advice has the minister had in relation to what happens to these people between the end of JobKeeper in September and January? What advice have you received in relation to whether they will meet the eligibility criteria for a JobSeeker payment?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We do not know where JobKeeper and JobSeeker will be at the end of the period that was announced by the federal Treasurer. What we do know is that the economy is slowly coming back to life. We saw already the announcement in South Australia that there is now some limited outdoor dining. I was very pleased to catch up with Vasil at the Duthy Street Deli Cafe yesterday. He had people lining up to use his tables, spending more money in his shop. He was very, very pleased to see that there was movement now happening in the economy. You can imagine that multiplied right throughout the entire industry. We will see more opening up of the economy later on.

I think the member for Lee and the member for Kaurna are failing to understand, either deliberately or otherwise, that this is an option that is put in place to help save apprenticeships and traineeships, because without this, the only option for the SAET is a four-week, or one month, suspension of an apprenticeship. If that is the only option, we are going to see terminations of apprenticeships. The Training and Skills Commission tells me that, once that connection with the employer is lost, it is a much more difficult job to re-engage, whereas when a suspension is in place, there is an incentive, through the relationship, for that relationship to continue.

It also means that the apprentice can continue with the off-the-job training that they are required to do as part of their apprenticeship. That is the advice I have. I am all for saving young careers, seeing more of them having opportunities and options. I have to say I am a very lucky recipient of the apprenticeship system, and I am very proud of the opportunities that we have been giving South Australians through the apprenticeship and traineeships system in South Australia.

We are in a very difficult period. There is not an answer for every single question. I would imagine that any employer who had a suspended apprentice, and who saw there was an opportunity for that apprentice to move somewhere else, would encourage that to happen if they were not able to re-engage that apprentice at that time. If they did not do that for some strange reason, the SAET is there, the Training Advocate is there to support that apprentice also.

This is about saving apprenticeships, giving additional options for employers and employees to stay in the job they love, to stay in the industry they love, to employ the people they employ and to continue growing their businesses.

Mr PICTON: There was a lot there, and there is a lot I am sure we do not disagree with. The key question we have is: what is going to happen to these people in terms of whether they will be able to receive any income whatsoever, whether they will be able to pay their bills or whether they will be able to buy food or pay their rent? It seems that what the minister is saying is, 'I think we are going to expect the economy to tick up by then and so there will be no issue whatsoever.'

If that is the case, then why do you need these provisions to go until January if that is your answer for how these people will be looked after; either that or, 'We don't know, and we're just going to hope that it all works out,' but that does not seem a satisfactory answer for people who will be in the situation, particularly if the concern is going to be that people are going to leave careers and leave apprenticeships. If they are not receiving any income, then they have no choice but to leave and do something else because otherwise they are not going to be able to put food on the table, pay their rent or pay their bills.

I would ask the minister again—and maybe he can consider it between the houses—if there is some advice he has, if there is some representation that has been made to the federal government, if there is some consideration as to what state government assistance could be provided to these people, between September and January how will these apprentices who have been suspended receive any income?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: First of all, January is an option. It is not the default position. Secondly, let's look for example at an apprentice who has no option but to go to SAET to get a suspension on their apprenticeship next week.

The only option that SAET have with the Labor Party's opposition to this amendment is that there will be a one-month suspension after which there will be a termination of that apprenticeship or traineeship. After that, of course, they will miss out on at least three months of JobSeeker salary. That is the scenario that the Labor Party prefers to the flexibility that we are offering SAET so that we can keep that apprentice in the system for a longer period of time. It is quite an extraordinary argument.

The fact is that support for salaries is being managed by the federal government. We know that there is a cut-off period at this time but, as I said, nothing is set in stone when it comes to dealing with COVID because we do not know where we will be in three or four months' time. There might be a second outbreak, there might be some irresponsible behaviour, there might be some other situation that causes an outbreak of COVID and we could end up with a second outbreak.

There still is no cure, there still is no vaccine and we need to be aware of that. That is why it is important that we continue with the social distancing and that we continue being responsible with how we behave as employers, as members of the government, as members of the parliament and as employees, as shoppers and as people who will be attending entertainment venues as they start to open.

We have to be very conscious of the fact that we are still at risk until there is a vaccine for this crisis. We face a very difficult situation in managing this but I think it is fair to say that Australia is managing this exceptionally well. As a matter of fact, international media is saying that Australia is managing this exceptionally well. There have even been situations where international media has singled out the City of Adelaide as doing well in a country that is doing well in this situation.

We are focused on getting the best possible outcome for South Australians and that includes apprentices and the employers of apprentices. We want this to be a process that is supported by the industry, supported by those participating in apprenticeships and traineeships, and this is in the bill because it was the advice from the Training and Skills Commission that this was required in order to give maximum flexibility to apprentices and trainees.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I propose to bring this to a conclusion by moving a small amendment to this subsection to basically bring the terms of this clause into line with the rest of the COVID-19 emergency powers bill. I move to amend part 2 of schedule 1, new subsection (2a)(b) as follows:

After the words 'on or before' delete '1 January 2021' and replace with the words '30 September 2020.'

I do that not to add to the frustration of the minister but because it is clear we have uncovered in the course of these discussions a situation where an employer and an apprentice can find themselves before the Employment Tribunal and the apprentice can have their employment paused, if I can put it like that, without remuneration for a period beyond 30 September. That is important for two reasons: one is that it is a period beyond all of the other periods which are canvassed in the COVID-19 emergency powers act and bill; and, secondly, we also know that that is the absolute drop-dead date that we have been advised by the federal government that the JobKeeper payment will be available.

There is also now uncertainty that if their apprenticeship is basically paused but not cancelled their employment seems to be stuck in some sort of uncertainty which, of course, then means that that apprentice may not be able to access the JobSeeker payment from the federal government because they are not technically unemployed and are, instead, being confined to some fate like General Zod was in Superman II, stuck in a phantom zone where there is no access to either JobKeeper or JobSeeker.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, Terence Stamp was impressive in that role. I would hope that the government see fit to support this minor amendment. I will foreshadow that in moving the amendment I would be very grateful for the support of the government. If they do not support this, I am not going to call a division, and we will just have a crack at it upstairs. However, I do think that given the way in which the Deputy Premier has dealt with these bills here so far, I think we can say that she has been pretty collegiate and quite helpful and has accepted amendments basically to give effect to a hard end date of 30 September, and doing so here for the purposes of this clause would be reasonable.

The CHAIR: It has been moved. Attorney, do you wish to speak to that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the amendment?

The CHAIR: The proposed amendment, yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that the government—that is, the government of two—have considered that, and indicate that, whilst I think there is some merit in trying to coordinate some consistency in the COVID regimes that are going to operate, in this instance we are trying to develop a process which enables, in a COVID situation up until January, a protected regime for the trainee or apprentice. That is the whole exercise that is here.

So, it is slightly different, and it is to give them access to be able to have that continuing suspension, and if it ceases in September in reality, and say the JobKeeper payment—or there is no other supplement to be able to support the trainee in that circumstance and they seek other employment, they are not going to be seeking a remedy of suspension of their traineeship, they are wanting to be able to get out of it and go. That is the way I understand it has been explained.

The only option to them then, if they want to continue to protect their right to have the traineeship, is to make four-weekly applications to the SAIT and rely on the non-COVID situation to be able to argue that, so they would not be able to argue the fact that their employer was not available, and things of that nature, would they. It would have to be back to the non-COVID base model.

A proposal that introduces a 30 September date may on the face of it have some basis for support on a consistency argument, but it does not recognise the significance of what we are trying to do here to give SAIT an option to protect the interests of the apprentice and/or trainee, and to be able to give them a process that gives that for a period longer. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendment. I can see why it has been put. Having discussed it with the advisers, it really introduces the component that I think is going to be adverse to protect the interests of the trainees and apprentice persons. I then have to indicate that we are going to decline that amendment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is regrettable. I do appreciate the Deputy Premier's contribution. I think she has misconstrued the point that I was making, which is unsurprising because she was in the midst of discussing the amendment with the member for Unley, so I do not think we can reasonably expect her to be across the nuance, such as it was, of my argument. But the point I was making is not whether they would have the opportunity to go off and find other employment.

I think we can be honest: we are likely to be in a situation in the state economy where an apprentice leaving an apprenticeship in order to try and seek other employment, because their employer cannot keep them on the books, cannot keep remunerating them in some way beyond 30 September, I think is going to find it pretty tough, because I do not think there will be many industries which are going to be springing back to pre-COVID levels very quickly.

My point was not that. My point was that I understand what the Minister for Innovation and Skills is doing, and under the circumstances I think that can be seen as reasonable, where employers want to hang on to their apprentices but they cannot actually afford to keep them busy, let alone pay them. So I understand that. I understand that there is a restriction around four weeks with the employment tribunal, and that should be amended.

My concern is about what actually happens to the apprentice beyond 30 September if such an order should be made for that apprentice that their suspension continues beyond 30 September, because they will be in some situation where they cannot access the JobKeeper because that is finished, and because they are not technically fully unemployed, because they have a relationship with the employer, they may not well likely be able to access the JobSeeker payment either. We do not have any advice here whether there is some potential to get that sort of government assistance when they are without remunerated work, so in the absence of that I suggested this.

If it comes to light that extensions need to be made beyond 30 September, perhaps on the basis that there has been an extension to JobSeeker, or there is some other arrangement that is going to be specifically provided to help financially assist apprentices beyond 30 September, let's revisit it, just as we will all the other provisions in the COVID emergency powers bill if that is necessary. We are sitting in June, we are sitting in July, we are even sitting in September, I think, before 30 September.

We can revisit these matters as quickly as we are visiting them now, but I think, if we do not know anything different, we may be consigning some apprentices to a fate of not being able to access any financial assistance from the federal government because their employment has been suspended for some period between 30 September and 1 January. But, I understand the government's position, and they do not want to move on that. Perhaps we will give it a crack upstairs.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The important point here is that this whole process is managed by the Training and Skills Commission; that is the first call. It only ends up in SAET when there is a dispute that normally ends up—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Chair, I do not mean to be uncharitable but I think I closed debate by making another contribution on the amendment that I moved, did I not?

The CHAIR: What is your point of order, member for Lee?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: He is asking questions on my amendment.

The CHAIR: He can speak on it, too. There is that opportunity.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not aware of any instance where an apprentice who has had an apprenticeship with an employer suspended for whatever reason—the recession of 1993 was the one we had to have, I recall, and that was a pretty tough time for apprenticeships as well—was refused a termination at their request by the Training and Skills Commission because they had another job to go to. It is just ludicrous to suggest that that would even happen. They are about keeping apprentices in jobs.

If an employer does not have the capability to supervise an apprentice or the ability to pay an apprentice, and the apprentice gets another job, the Training and Skills Commission says, 'That is fantastic. Where do we sign to transfer the apprenticeship to the new employer?' That is what happens in reality. What the member for Lee is suggesting is some fantasy that might happen in academia.

It is just ludicrous to suggest that a suspended apprentice will not be able to be out in the workforce looking for a job during that period. If this amendment to the Training and Skills Commission, as proposed by the Attorney-General, does not get through, the only option that those opposite are leaving for that apprentice is a termination and that is not a good option for the apprentice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know whether it is wilful ignorance or something else, but that is just not true at all. The proposition that is before us right now is whether the amendments moved in this bill will exist up to 30 September, which would occur if my amendment was successful, or to 1 January 2021. It is not some situation of precluding somebody from going out and entering the workforce, which is a euphemism for joining the unemployment queues post 30 September. There are not going to be shed loads of apprenticeships and traineeships available for the remainder of this calendar year. That may come as a surprise to the Minister for Innovation and Skills.

In that environment, if someone is without their normal apprenticeship, if they are without remunerated work from their employer because they have entered into one of these arrangements in the Employment Tribunal, then what do they do? They go along to Centrelink and they are not able to access the JobKeeper payment because, as we have heard from the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer, that has a hard end date and will not be extended past 30 September.

You only have to read the Financial Review or The Australian or any of the other national media to know that that that is the case. But because they are not technically unemployed, because they have some relationship with an employer because of their suspended apprenticeship or traineeship, then it is unlikely, we are led to believe, because of the absence of any advice from the government, that they can access the JobSeeker payment. So what do they do?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It's not true.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, if it is not true, furnish the advice to the house that demonstrates that post 30 September they should be eligible for JobSeeker because when this question was asked to the Minister for Innovation and Skills he said, 'That's not a matter for us. That's a matter for the federal government.' Well, it is a matter for us because we are making laws that will affect how people survive over the remainder of this calendar year. I do not see that it is particularly onerous on the minister or the government to accept this.

If something changes in the meantime, let's come back and fix it up and we will give the minister the extension through to 1 January, or some other date as may be appropriate, but I do not understand why this needs a special carve-out for the minister because we are told the Training and Skills Commission has asked that it be extended so long. We have taken the position in this place that all the provisions that this parliament is putting into place to respond to the COVID-19 emergency should finish at that date.

That is to give us the comfort that six months after the declaration of the emergency, from 30 March to 30 September, if they need to be extended we can come back and have another chat about it; we can reassess the environment at that point in time. But if the minister and the government feel that the Minister for Innovation and his clause is so special that it must stand above and beyond everything else that we have done in both chambers, well, I disagree, particularly in light of the potential of leaving lowly paid people without any form of renumeration and without any form of financial assistance.

I would have thought a good minister, in wondering how this was going to impact the livelihood of an apprenticeship, would have made sure that he knew exactly how an apprentice or a trainee would survive without the paid remunerated work that is part of their apprenticeship and traineeship, not merely fob it off and initially say, 'I am told that they will be able to get JobKeeper'—well, we know that that is not true—and then not be able to provide any accurate advice to this place about whether they can access the JobSeeker payment, which by that time may well be halved from current levels as well.

They may go from lowly paid—although of course industry standard apprenticeship rate—to getting not just even less from the current JobSeeker rate by 50 per cent but nothing at all. That is why we are proposing the amendment.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is just a ludicrous argument from the member for Lee. From a childhood of privilege, he is suggesting that he is an expert on apprenticeships and traineeships. I wonder how many he has employed in his lifetime. How many have you employed yourself? Have you done an apprenticeship? Have you employed an apprentice? No.

The CHAIR: Minister!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The answer is no.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: He is shaking his head. The answer is no.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister, can you just take your seat for a minute. I remind the minister and all members, in fact, that they are addressing me, the Chair—and, yes, I have employed an apprentice in the past, so thank you. Continue.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. My comments about apprenticeship training were directed to the member for Lee, just to clear that up, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The point here is that what we are offering with this amendment is a benefit for the trainee and the apprentice. They are the sole beneficiaries of this situation. To suggest that the Training and Skills Commission or the South Australian Employment Tribunal would leave an apprentice in the situation where they were not able to access whatever welfare was available at that time because they had a suspended apprenticeship is just nonsense—it is just absolute nonsense.

It is, again, the Labor Party trying to be relevant during this very difficult period. This was a practical, non-controversial matter that was put forward in this bill on the advice of the independent Training and Skills Commission, which is advised right across the training sector by industry. It is the first time we have had so much involvement by industry on where we need to be for skills training in South Australia. As a government, we simply provide the money. It is the industry that owns the system. It is industry that is getting the outcomes that we are seeing in apprenticeships and traineeships.

I tell you what, it is a bit rough taking a lecture from that side of politics about traineeships and apprenticeships after the mess they left in the training system here in South Australia, and they still do not have a policy for skills training in South Australia. They went to the last election without one and they do not have one now. I think I would put a lot more value on the advice that was coming from the Labor Party if they actually had a skills policy, because at least then I would have some evidence that they were thinking about what they were saying before they said it, that they had some considered research and advice about a skills policy that they were putting up to deliver skills here in South Australia, but they do not. This was written on the back of an envelope in a desperate attempt for the Labor Party to feel relevant during this debate and so we do not support it.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you wish to speak again. Before you do speak, I am going to make a correction to a statement that I made a moment ago, and that was that we had engaged an apprentice. In fact, that is not the case: he was a trainee under a certificate for agriculture course. I just put that correction on the record. Member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I propose that we get on and move this amendment because what started out as—

Ms Bedford: Goodwill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —a genuine gesture of goodwill, as the member for Florey interjects, has quickly been debased by what was initially a personal attack from the member for Unley, which then only slightly lifted into some partisan politicking. It is not lost on any of us on either side of the chamber about what it says about the minister that he would resort to that, rather than specifically address the concern that was coming from this side of the house about the livelihoods of apprentices and trainees. I put the amendment and, of course, I do not expect the minister to support it. It is well beyond his comprehension or capacity to feel any sympathy whatsoever for these people.

Amendment negatived; schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (19:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I wish to again thank all members for their contributions to this debate and for the army of advisers from different departments who have been here waiting patiently during the day and at various stages and who have been available to assist the committee in its deliberations with valuable advice and information.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 19:45 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 May 2020 at 10:30.

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