HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 May 2008. Page 2894.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (11:04): Early this century the school leaving age was raised from 15 years and the Democrats opposed it, and one of the chief reasons was our concern for the impact on both students and teachers of forcing those who were not academically inclined to stay at school without appropriate subjects and supports. When the Rann government increased it yet again, I decided to accept that particular bill because I was assured that these students would be properly catered for and, from that perspective, this bill is an essential follow up, perhaps even a companion bill, to the bill that raised the school leaving age.

In his second reading explanation, the minister has understated the importance of this bill. It is an important bill, and it is a good bill. Nevertheless, with the minister having understated it, I will pick out one sentence in his explanation that I think is probably the centrepiece of what it is all about. He stated:

Our state must balance the need for a flexible and responsible training sector with ensuring that the interests of apprentices, trainees and students are protected.

That is absolutely fundamental and what this legislation is about. It is about protecting people, particularly young people (as many of them are), from exploitation and assisting a group of people who are often reasonably powerless because of their age to deal with what can be legalistic situations.

So often when people speak about higher education they are talking about universities, yet it really is only a very small percentage of students who go on to university. Far many more are involved in other forms of higher education, and TAFE is one of those. I know that very often businesses get better value out of TAFE-trained employees who have hands-on practical experience and they get them at a lower salary than a university graduate who knows only the theory. From my perspective, industries need workers who are willing to get their hands dirty rather than getting a piece of paper from an academic that tells them how it is that people get their hands dirty.

For some decision makers TAFE is considered inferior to university, when in fact I consider them to be very much equals but operating in different fields. Rightly they provide different courses with different curriculums with different outcomes, and I say 'viva la difference'. So many educational facilities unfortunately aspire to universities, and I was one who in the 1970s attended a college of advanced education, which had a very important part to play in the education system. However, they all wanted to be unis, and they became unis.

TAFE in many ways fills that role that the colleges of advanced education did in the 1970s. I know that this bill deals not only with TAFE but also with the registered training organisations, the RTOs, but I am particularly interested in TAFE. My husband is a TAFE lecturer, and I suppose you could say that, over the last 35 years, I have heard a lot of pillow talk about TAFE.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It was on last night, was it? Good. Partly because of that, I am a very fierce defender of TAFE. It is a system that has had a very rough trot over the years, particularly during the years of the Howard government at a federal level. That government's insistence that education had to make money (a nonsensical philosophical approach), I think, was one of the most unjustified philosophies that emerged during the 1990s. This, of course, was fed by that monster, competition policy, which, by the way, having criticised the Howard government for what it did in terms of education, I have acknowledged was instituted by a Labor federal government.

The Democrats had a bumper sticker some years ago which read, 'Education is an investment not a cost', and that remains my position. The Rudd government has promised an education revolution, and perhaps we will see a proper investment finally made, but I hope this does not turn out to be a non-core promise. The TAFE system has been lumbered with a primary requirement of generating revenue. If the Rudd government does live up to its promises, I think we will see a change, and hopefully we will find that TAFE is required to deliver education and training as its utmost principle rather than generating revenue.

Most students in this sector of education tend not to be political activists, unlike the student activism we see on university campuses. Very often the study is part time on top of holding down a job, an apprenticeship or a traineeship, so asking questions and challenging those in charge is not easily done. We also have (not necessarily in the TAFE system) overseas students who study here to learn English, and I think in many cases they are at an even greater disadvantage because they have a language barrier in the first place and the fact that they are not even Australian citizens.

If something goes wrong it is very easy for these sorts of students—the non-politically active TAFE students and overseas students learning English—to have a problem. Most of them are not likely to buck the system, and we therefore need to have protections in place. Again, it is why this bill is important. We need to have a watching brief to ensure, for instance, that we do not have financial fraud going on in an RTO, and that certainly can happen if there is not adequate oversight. As an example, my very first trainee about five years ago was doing his training through an RTO and, about six months into that traineeship, the particular RTO went bust. Fortunately, the Department of Treasury and Finance was able to sort that out in terms of the traineeship being able to continue.

Overall, we need to make sure that we have protections in place for any students who are being taught by an RTO with that as a risk. As I say, my husband is a TAFE lecturer, trained in the New South Wales system. He taught at one of these RTOs in the 1990s, and he was dealing with students who were apparently, according to the website and that sort of thing, being taught in mechanical skills, and there was not a lathe in sight, just a few vices and files, and you cannot teach students all the skills that would be required in these trade areas without a lathe. Those students were obviously being short-changed.

I want to see TAFE being a pacesetter in skills and training, and I want to ensure that those sorts of shonky operations are, first, kept out of the system; and if they do get into the system, they are shut down very quickly. TAFE has been put through a lot, and I give an example of the recent waste of money putting all TAFE lecturers through police checks because of our concerns about child abuse. Most of the lecturers in our TAFE system do not even teach minors. This was money that could have been spent on education. Where lecturers would be teaching minors, possibly through the extension of the school system, obviously, you would need to do police checks.

What happened, I believe, was simply an exercise in transferring into police coffers money that ought to have been devoted to further education. I was contacted by someone in the university sector who had been subjected to similar police checks, and he suggested that SAPOL had set up a new money-making business called Police Checks Incorporated! TAFE lecturers always find there is another plan. Someone's new concept has to be introduced and the lecturers have to use up their time attempting to adjust to this new theory and this new framework, and right now it is competency-based skills.

I do put on record that I fear that, because of this change, at the beginning of the next year there will not be enough lecturers ready and available with those skills to deliver the courses, and it will be interesting to see how the government deals with that at the time. I also have a lot of doubts about competency as a measuring stick, because it sounds like we are expecting less of students. I predict that in five years someone will publish a paper that says competency-based learning was the wrong way to go, and lecturers will have to go through a new round of adjustments. I know that some of what is required of TAFE is because of national agreements, but I do wonder why various ministers reach these sorts of agreements in the first place.

I also retain my concerns about what appears to be the deliberate downgrading of facilities and courses at Panorama TAFE. Members may recall that I asked questions about this earlier in the year, and I have also written to the minister about it. I have asked about a Diploma of Information Technology course which failed to deliver the agreed industry placements necessary to allow students to complete the course.

It is tough, to say the least, when courses are axed part way through, leaving students without academic advice being made available to them. I am aware of courses associated with Panorama TAFE being dragged from one campus to another, with both lecturers and students being left out of the loop. I do not know whether this bill can deal with that issue. As I said earlier, I want TAFE to be a leader and not a follower. These sorts of things make it difficult for TAFE to be relied upon.

This bill rightly puts in place some industrial relations protections for young people. Again, I go back to my husband's experiences when training apprentices in New South Wales in the 1970s. On numerous occasions he told me about students who were being used as cheap labour by their employers, and the only training they received was the day they spent at the TAFE college.

I am pleased to see in this bill the existence of the Training Advocate recognised. I would like to see a much higher profile for this office, as it offers an excellent contact point for all parties concerned with training. Young men and women transitioning from school to work through traineeship and apprenticeship programs are vulnerable. Many are navigating the workplace for the first time. They need to be assured of their rights in the workplace and in the training place. It is not good enough for employers to keep them on the books and use them as cheap labour for two, three or four years.

We need to ensure that a high level of training and supervision is delivered, both at work and through the RTO. Many young people would benefit from entry-level positions across a broad range of industries and, in a time of skills shortages, we should see a strong emphasis on supporting these people to become engaged and productive members of the community.

While I regard adequate inspection and supervision important, Business SA has expressed concerns about what will be required of it as a consequence of this bill. It says that its members will have to make 2,000 site visits each year before signing off on apprenticeships. I would be interested to hear in the minister's response his take on that allegation.

Business SA and the Motor Trades Association have written to me expressing disquiet about a number of aspects of this bill. I note these concerns for the record, although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. The Motor Trades Association argues the need for a compulsory dispute resolution process to be put in place before the Industrial Relations Commission becomes involved. It has also raised questions about fairness for employers when appearing before the Industrial Relations Commission. It also argues that the unfair dismissal provisions would hinder the dispute resolution process.

Business SA acknowledges that the current act—which will be repealed as part of the passage of this bill—constrains flexible skills development, but it says that the bill fails to overcome the problems of the existing act and is ideologically driven. Business SA raised a number of other concerns, principally about a decrease in the representation for business on the commission. It does not like the registration system proposed in the bill and it does not want the IRC used for dispute resolution.

I am not arguing the case of these two organisations. To the contrary, I think that using the IRC in the way proposed in this bill is a very good idea, and I like the idea of no legal representation in the dispute resolution process. After all, a young man or woman on apprentice wages would not have the money to hire a lawyer and would be at a distinct disadvantage if we did allow it. That power disadvantage is something that members ought to consider in deciding whether to accept the concerns raised by some industry bodies.

However, as I said, I recognise that Business SA and the Motor Trades Association have raised these concerns. I expect that, in speaking to the bill, the opposition will argue its case; and I see that amendments have been placed on file by the opposition today. We will no doubt further tease out these arguments during the committee stage of the bill. I indicate Democrat support for the second reading.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:20): The Greens support this bill. We believe it is a sensible rewriting of the current act. It would be clear to all members that a healthy economy and a healthy society requires a diverse range of skills. Those skills should be acquired through a range of methods, including formal training, on-the-job training and training programs that combine an element of both of those. I think that this legislation seeks to strike the right balance between the competing interests at stake.

It seems to me that the key objective of the bill should be to ensure the quality of training. The bill should also seek to protect the rights of trainees who are generally young and more vulnerable workers, but it needs to do that in a way that balances the rights and needs of trainees and apprentices with the expectations of their employers as well. It also seems to me that the bill before us is not a radical departure from the existing legislation. In fact, I am appreciative of the government providing me with a comparative table which shows that the provisions of the current act and the provisions of this bill are similar in most respects.

I have had very little correspondence from organisations in the community, but I have received a detailed submission from the Motor Trades Association South Australia. I took the opportunity to raise the group's concerns with the government during the briefing that I was given.

It seems that the Motor Trades Association's concerns fall into two main categories. At one level they are concerned about additional red tape—for example, they are opposed to the registration provisions in the bill—and they are also concerned about the dispute resolution provisions. I note, from the amendments just tabled by the Hon. David Ridgway, that it is the dispute resolution provision that is the focus of the opposition's proposed amendments.

I would also like to put on the record my thanks to Steven Griffiths, member for Goyder in another place, the shadow minister for employment, training and further education, who has been very diligent in his role in keeping me and (I am sure) other crossbench members informed in relation to his party's position. If we could have that level of diligence from all shadow ministers, it would make our lives a lot easier.

The amendments (even though we have had them for only a short time) seem to be fairly straightforward. They relate to the creation of a new division of the Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia: the Training and Skills Division. I note from some very recent correspondence this morning from the shadow minister's office that the estimated cost of such a new division could be in the order of $750,000, which does make it an expensive exercise because, as I understand it, the number of disputes is not very high. I do not recall the exact figure but I recall that it was over 100 but less than 200 per year, which makes creating that new division an expensive exercise.

Nevertheless, I am sure the opposition has some powerful arguments that it will present to us as to why a new division is appropriate, and I will listen to those arguments with interest. In the absence of compelling arguments from the opposition, the Greens' position is to support the bill as it is, but we look forward to hearing how creating a new division in the Industrial Relations Commission will improve this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (11:24): I would like to join the Hon. Mark Parnell and put on record Family First's thanks to Steven Griffiths in another place for his diligent assistance with understanding the opposition stance on this bill and, indeed, arranging briefings with some of the bodies lobbying on this particular piece of legislation. We are very grateful for that.

In short, though, I rise to support the second reading of this very important bill. We are here considering a review of the Training and Skills Development Act 2003 and the recommendations for change that come about as a result of that review. From the outset, when investigating this bill, it was apparent to Family First that this was a high-level bill, if you like, in the sense that there has been very little lobbying from individuals or families but a great deal of lobbying from the major lobby groups.

A failure to train and skill the next generations—and indeed the present one—is bad for the state, the economy and families and, presumably, it is bad for the environment as well. Hence, it is important that priority is given to highly strategic thinking on providing training for tomorrow. Otherwise, where will our doctors, nurses, mining engineers, business leaders, innovative farmers, counsellors, welfare workers, environmental scientists, and the like, come from?

I hope we do not end up in a situation where we have to rely to an unhealthy extent on costly foreign labour simply because we do not have sufficiently skilled South Australian workers for our needs in the future. Indeed, looming large on the horizon is the much-touted mining boom, and there is a clear need to have the workers we need trained for the challenges of that impending boom, lest we have to import workers from interstate or, indeed, overseas to fill those significant skills shortages.

If that is the case, it will not be a good outcome for the state or for South Australian families or business. It is disappointing, therefore, that families are struggling either due to family members who cannot find work because they do not have sufficient skills or because they are under the burden of rising costs when industry or business passes those costs on to families due to skill shortages. Worse still, if we have children in state care being accommodated in hostels or even left in abusive homes, families suffer there also. So, we need to get the training and skills right today for the needs of tomorrow.

In many cases, the needs of today cannot be filled. To that end, I believe the government has the right focus on this bill, and that is in depoliticising the training and skills development board by reducing, if you like, factional interests and, instead, getting people on the board with the right skills to do the job.

I might add that, in briefing, we were told that a high-profile identity would be picked to bring profile to the board. I hope that choice is very carefully made. There is a case for having high-profile people on these boards at some level but, surely, what is important is the merit that that person brings to the job rather than their status in the community.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It's one of their celebrity mates.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. It is very important to have the appropriate skills on the board rather than somebody who is well known. I do, however, have one concern about this board and would appreciate the minister's answer to this question. If the board is independent, does that independence flow through to taking responsibility if we have a skills shortage in the years ahead? To put it more directly, can the government pass the buck to this board if we have a problem in relation to a training and skills shortage in the years ahead?

If the answer is that the government can do so, then I think this is difficult. We elect governments to govern, and it is of concern to see a trend towards advisory boards being scaled down—not just in South Australia, to be fair, but indeed across the nation—in various arenas and instead seeing independent commissions established.

The desirable thing about an advisory board, as the name suggests, is that it advises the minister, and the minister makes a decision and wears the consequences. Family First is very comfortable with that arrangement. Having an independent commission suggests that the commission is responsible for the decision it makes, abdicating ministerial responsibility in some cases or, at the very least, reducing it. We would appreciate an answer from the minister on the question of ministerial accountability on this issue.

After all, the National Centre for Vocational and Educational Research (NCVER), a major national independent research body, tells us that in 2006, of 121,710 students in vocational education training (VET), some 87,850 (or approximately 72 per cent), are in TAFE or other government training; so, leaving aside the community and other sections into which government also has input, the implication here is that a clear majority of training responsibility falls to the government in relation to the provision of training and skills development services. To be fair to the minister, funding for these students is mixed between state and federal levels, but the question of the independence, and therefore accountability, of the Training and Skills Commission, I believe, is, indeed, valid.

I turn to the question of outputs from training. The NCVR tells us, based on 2007 data, that there are some 34,870 trainees and apprenticeships statewide, and just under 71 per cent of those are based in Adelaide. In the briefings, we were told that some 7,500 of those training contracts are not being completed. NCVR data shows 10,610 completions in 2007, which makes some 24,260 incomplete, from simple arithmetic. That, in theory, leaves 16,760 more contracts of training incomplete, as I said—not just 7,500. However, Family First accepts the argument put by the minister's office that a non-completion in a given year does not mean that the course is not under way.

Stepping away from the statistics and the semantics of 'contracts of training' and 'training contracts', in layman's terms, apprenticeships and TAFE courses are being started, but they are not being finished at rates that would be desirable—according to the government, some 7,500 per annum. Indeed, the government tells us that this is an undesirable output situation, and Family First agrees. Whilst there will always be attrition in this type of area, where we can improve, we should try to improve. I ask the minister how that non-completion situation compares with other states and territories across the land.

I am aware of the opposition's amendments to the bill, and will properly consider those at the committee stage. I observe that the opposition's amendments reflect a difference of opinion with the government about whether we should dis-establish, if you like, the Grievances and Disputes Mediation Committee that operates under the present legislation and give its jurisdiction completely to the Industrial Relations Commission or, rather, create a separate division of the IRC called the 'Training and Skills Division'. The Liberal position, we are told in a draft letter from the minister, means:

A preliminary estimate of the costs of setting up a separate division, with a division head and an expectation of appropriate resourcing, is in the order of an additional $700,000 per annum to taxpayers. Statistics (Appendix 1) from 2007 show a total of 87 cases heard by the GDMC. On this basis the cost of establishing a separate division is about $8,000 per case.

I guess the comment to be made is that that is not an insubstantial amount of money. However, it may be, after hearing the opposition's arguments, that it is also a very appropriate amount of money that needs to be spent in order to provide the appropriate facilities and resources to ensure that it functions appropriately. So, we are certainly not ruling out support for the amendment and we look forward to the committee stage.

I am being told that the IRC has the capacity to subsume this number of cases within its existing caseload, due in part, perhaps, to the diminished caseload thanks to the removal of unfair dismissal laws by the former federal government. If that is true, it makes me immediately concerned about whether we have been funding a body without enough work to do for some time. I think we ought to explore that a little further in the committee stage, and further comments on that from the minister would be useful.

On a related note, much has been made of the point that the IRC has given undertakings that it will be able to handle these disputes in the timeframes discussed. We are legislating here on the basis of a promise that it will reach these matters in reasonable timeframes and, from what I know about the courts, delay is almost synonymous. The IRC, to be fair, can be faster than, say, the Supreme Court, but I would appreciate knowing more about the resourcing and caseload capacity of the court, along similar lines to my previous questions, so that we can be certain that these guarantees from the IRC are rock solid and actually turn out to be what is promised.

The last thing I want to record at this point is my concern about situations where, say, an employer finds an apprentice is clearly breaching trust in the workplace, such as—the worst case, I guess, or one of the worst cases—stealing money from the employer, which in the ordinary employment context would be grounds for instant dismissal. Yet here we are looking at a situation where that apprentice is merely suspended until a hearing is held, and that suspension, as I understand it, would be with full pay.

I am sure that members can begin to see my concern about the IRC being up to the task of mediating and resolving these disputes quickly, because in some cases family businesses—as a lot of training providers are—are going to be throwing away money to a person who has committed a gross breach of trust against their organisation, as in the instance I described of an apprentice stealing money, equipment or whatever it may be, and this will be a significant cost to family businesses, as the accused waits for their day in court.

This is a tricky balance between employer and trainee rights, but I do raise that concern which I think relates back to the question of how quickly disputes can be heard. If they can be heard very quickly then the cost will be relatively minor and perhaps appropriate, but if disputes cannot be heard quickly then that cost could be very significant for small training providers and family-based organisations. So, we have a real concern about that.

Justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied, and that applies here as well as in any other court context, and this is our concern about the live issue that continues about this bill. Having placed those concerns on record, I indicate Family First's support for the second reading. Family First very much looks forward to the committee stage, and we are certainly open to the opposition's amendments and we look forward to its arguments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (11:35): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate our support for this legislation, with some amendments, which other members have already referred to. They relate to the establishment of a separate division within the Industrial Relations Commission, a training skills division. I will come to that later in my contribution.

We have training and trainees here, and it is only just recently that I have noticed that the government has given members in this place additional resources to cover equipment for the government trainees who work in our offices. I am pleased to see that, but it took some considerable time, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr President, from correspondence I had with you and others, to actually get the Treasurer and the government to come to the party to provide its own government trainees with resources.

There is a little hypocrisy, I think, that we are dealing with this legislation, yet there was an issue to do with trainees, training and skill development and that we actually had to put a significant amount of pressure on members of the government to come to the party. However, that is a side issue from this bill. This bill follows the review of the Training and Skills Development Act 2003, which led to a discussion paper being released some time in 2006. In response to that paper, the minister has proposed a new act of some 79 clauses, nine clauses dealing with associated amendments to the Fair Work Act.

The Liberal Party has consulted extensively on this bill. I know that others have thanked Mr Steven Griffiths, in another place, for the work he has done in negotiating and consulting on the bill , and I would like to add my thanks. The honourable member has had ongoing discussions with two groups in particular: Business SA and the Motor Trades Association. Initially, Business SA had some 30-plus areas of concern, but many of those dissolved throughout the debate and evolution of this bill and now only a few significant concerns remain. These relate to the involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission in considering disputes between employers and employees, and that is the nature of the amendments I will be moving, probably this afternoon.

The focus of the Industrial Relations Commission should not be to resolve disputes relating to training contracts. In its detailed response to the bill, Business SA put forward the suggestion of creating a training disputes tribunal; unfortunately, upon investigation, the legislative technicalities of this were found to be somewhat impractical. As an alternative, I will move an amendment later today to create a training and skills division within the Industrial Relations Commission. Such an arrangement would allow representatives of employee and employer groups to be involved in a panel.

The concerns expressed by Business SA mainly revolved around the general idea that this bill is being promoted as 'visionary'. In South Australia at the moment we are facing the economic threat of a major skills shortage, so to be visionary, when looking at this bill, we must realise that in coming years we are likely to recruit people from many other parts of Australia as well as from overseas. We may even find that we have a number of young people involved in training and skills development who come from non-English speaking backgrounds. That is the main thrust of it.

The minister quoted the cost of this particular new division as being some $700,000 and about $8,000 per case. While that does seem excessive, if we do have the boom in mining that I think we all expect to come at some point in the next couple of decades—it is certainly not here yet, and will not be here in the life of this current government, but we may see it at some point in the future—along with the associated booms in population, housing, development and a whole range of other areas, we will need a significant increase in migration to cope with that (indeed, the federal government has already flagged a significant increase in that area).

Many of those people will have children and they, as well as others, may enter into apprenticeships and training programs and may find it more difficult to cope with our language and laws and the way we work. So, while at present the $8,000 per case seems an expensive process, if we do get this boom in employment and economic activity we will have significantly more trainees in our system. If we have the same percentage of disputes, we are likely to see significantly more cases than we see currently.

Given that I will move these amendments this afternoon, I ask the minister to explain how minister Caica arrived at the figure of $700,000 for the establishment of the division—and I know she will probably not be able to answer that in her summing up. As I said, it is clear that in achieving economy of scale it will not be the disputes we have today; but, as the boom grows and we end up with more employment and more people, with a bigger society and community and workforce, we need to be properly visionary and realise that the level of disputes will grow. So I would be grateful if the minister could provide those details—perhaps at clause 1 in the committee stage.

If we have this growth in employment, how many people and what level of traineeships are we likely to see? I notice from the minister's letter that we currently have some 35,200 contracts in training; what growth are we likely to see in those contracts over the next 20 years? I think it will be 2020 or 2030 before we can actually say that South Australia has had, or is in, a mining boom and, as a consequence, is benefiting from vastly increased economic activity and employment. Again, I would be grateful if the minister could take that on notice and provide the information at clause 1 in the committee stage.

The opposition fully supports the legislative abilities of the training advocate. This is an important instrument to ensure that minor issues are dealt with before they become serious disputes—or, better yet, never eventuate. The training advocate plays a pivotal role in the training and skills area, and I note that the advocate will be able to access the resources of the Industrial Relations Commission, and I reiterate the importance of this.

Initial concerns also revolved around the registration of a business prior to entering into a contract of training. Registrations will now need to be completed prior to a training contract being considered. This will require the auto-registration of the 8,000 existing employers as well as an estimated 2,000 employers each year. DFEEST has claimed that it has the resources to accomplish this; however, there is a fear that it will be another bureaucratic process that will not be fulfilled. In the consultation that the shadow minister had with the minister, he questioned what would happen if a registered business changed ownership; if the business operation change was outside the scope of the registration and the new one was not approved, what would happen to the trainee's contract at that time? The minister responded that, if a new owner's application for registration is denied, advice and assistance will be given to the apprentice and trainee about transferring their employment. The opposition is very determined to see that all possible resources are committed to this task, as it has the potential for a considerable loss of skilled workers coming on board due to failure to complete a certificate.

Concerns were rightly expressed by the Motor Trades Association about unfair dismissal claims—namely, that this could prevent small business employers from taking on apprentices directly themselves, or that they would get rid of apprentices during the three-month probationary period should any minor problems arise, instead of being prepared to work on improving poor behaviour over a longer period.

The MTA quoted the commonwealth government's position that no employee has the right to challenge for unfair dismissal within 12 months for small businesses or six months for larger businesses. The minister has stated that the transition provisions in the bill expressly deny apprentices/trainees the right to bring such a claim against an employer. The MTA and the opposition are satisfied with this position.

I will read from a letter which the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Mr Hood have quoted and which the opposition received at about six o'clock last night. I will put some areas on the record, particularly some of the questions the opposition raised and the minister's response. The opposition's question was as follows:

For apprentice/trainees employed via a group training scheme, but with a host employer, is the group training scheme required to hold the registration or is it the responsibility of the host employer, or indeed both? If both are involved, and a host employer contravenes the Act in some way to such a level that their registration is cancelled, could this result in the registration of the group training scheme also being cancelled?

The minister's response was:

The Group Training Organisation is the employer party to the training contract and is therefore the body that is registered. The 'host' employer is simply contracting services from the GTO and those services come in the form of labour from the apprentice or trainee.

Another point was raised by the shadow minister, which I thought was important to put on the record, because we got this confirmed:

Serious and Wilful Misconduct.

Confirmation by you to me in a meeting in your office several weeks ago that a 7 day suspension can be extended by up to an additional 28 days has allayed the concerns expressed by groups to me that the 7 day period was an impossible deadline for any form of tribunal to meet. This is no longer an area of concern.

We thank the minister for putting that on the record. It is no longer a concern.

In particular, we raised the issue of representation when appearing before a dispute resolution tribunal. It was the shadow minister's recollection that this issue was discussed in some detail in the House of Assembly debate on the bill, but the concerns still exist among the interested parties such as the MTA and Business SA. The shadow minister said:

Clearly, an apprentice/trainee is entitled to have some form of representation/support at any formal hearing (for example by a union representative doing this as part of membership) but clarification is required on the ability of the employer to also to do.

The minister responded:

The Bill does not provide apprentices or trainees with an entitlement to representation over and above that which applies to employer parties. Representation is only permitted through successful application to the SAIRC on the grounds of disadvantage, in the sense that a party is somehow prevented from presenting their own case. If representation is granted by the SAIRC, then it cannot be a lawyer or industrial agent and the representative must be acting gratuitously.

I will provide an example of an employer who has a representative of their professional association in a hearing with them. If this representative is provided as part of the membership fee, it is our understanding that this is supported by the bill but, if the attendance of the representative comes at an additional cost to the employer, this is prevented by the bill. The minister responded:

Separation must be made between support—which is available to all parties to a dispute—and representation. Providing the representative is there in a supporting capacity there is no issue.

The second point I would like to make is that some associations would structure their membership fees not to include such support at hearings without additional fees being charged. The shadow minister wrote:

I believe your comments on this that you want to keep the tribunals 'lawyer free', but employers are also entitled to representation.

The minister's response was:

The provisions around representation—when granted on the grounds of disadvantage—apply to all parties to the training contract.

I think the MTA is still concerned about the issue of adjudication at the tribunal, so I raise this and ask the minister to bring back a response. The shadow minister wrote:

Concern has been expressed that the IRC will appoint a person to both conciliate in the first instance and then arbitrate the matter. This could lead to an imbalance where allegations are made at conciliation which could influence the arbitrator when evidence is put forward.

The minister's response was:

This provision is only valid providing the parties agree. The SAIRC are of the view that it would be the exception rather than the rule and applied to situations where time constraints or expediency issues of the utmost urgency where, with the agreement of the parties, a matter can move straight from conciliation to adjudication without further delays.

This morning the MTA raised concerns about the issues raised, and it is still not entirely satisfied that you can have the same person being involved in the conciliation in the first case, then being the arbitrator at the end. We would certainly like the minister's response later today. We raise that because this is in contrast with the dismissal laws where one commissioner performs a conciliation role and the other hears matters at the trial, with the first one making an assessment of the facts in the first instance, and that is not part of the trial as the parties initially proceed 'without prejudice'. That is why we have asked that question. It seems to be a little inconsistent with what happens at present in other areas.

With those comments, I indicate that the opposition is supporting the bill but we will move amendments which relate to the establishment of a separate division—a training and skills division—of the Industrial Relations Commission. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill and I urge all members to speak to me before we come back to that or to the shadow minister, Mr Steven Griffiths, and I look forward to your support.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:52): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. Traditionally this area of legislation has enjoyed support from all quarters of the parliament, and it is a vindication of the general recognition that this legislation is important in helping to provide opportunities for all South Australians to develop and enhance their skills and to position themselves to find sustainable and rewarding employment. In the current economic climate where the skills and workforce development area have assumed a more prominent position on the national and, indeed, international agendas, the updating of the legislation through this bill is now even more critical for our state.

There has been a long and extensive consultation process surrounding the development of this bill. The government believes the initial concerns of stakeholders have largely been addressed. This is reflected by there being only one opposition amendment, to create a new division of the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and I understand the other amendments are consequential. This will be debated in committee, but essentially the government's view is that its model involving the SAIRC in the resolution of disputes about training contracts is less costly and less bureaucratic.

The consultations about particular aspects of the bill have generally focused on the processes that underpin the actual legislative provisions, and to this end the minister has given numerous assurances that key stakeholder groups will be involved in the development and continuous evaluation of the processes that support the operation of this legislation. Members have raised questions in their second reading contributions, and we will endeavour to respond to those in the committee stage. I commend the bill to all honourable members.

Bill read a second time.

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