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

TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: During my second reading contribution, I asked the minister to answer some questions. Is the minister able to give those answers before I move my amendment? There are 48 amendments, and they are all consequential, so if I could have the answers from the minister, I will then move my first amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We have incorporated responses into the clauses, but what I will endeavour to do is to separate it. I am advised that the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission can manage—I think this is the response the member is after—the relatively small number of training contract disputes within its existing resources. Should the number of apprentices and trainees double over time with the expected mining boom—and I sincerely hope they do—the potential is there to consider alternative arrangements.

In relation to the opposition's amendment to create a separate division of the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission to deal with training related disputes, I am advised that it is not entirely clear what is being proposed. However, as indicated in the minister's letter to the shadow minister, preliminary estimates, based on what we assume the opposition intends, puts the cost of setting up a separate division, with a division head and an expectation of appropriate resourcing, in the order of an additional $700,000 per annum to taxpayers.

Statistics from 2007 show a total of 87 cases were heard by the GDMC. On this basis, the cost of establishing a separate division is about $8,000 per case. Presumably, the opposition feels that a more user-friendly environment needs to be established to deal with these types of matters. However, as many stakeholders would realise, through consultations on the draft SAIRC guidelines, an environment appropriate to the needs of the apprentices and trainees, many of whom are young, and employers, many of whom will be small business people, will be created.

Many people familiar with the workings of the SAIRC understand that its processes are tailored to suit the needs of the clients accessing its services. The government shares the opposition's apparent concern to provide the appropriate environment for apprentices, trainees and employers involved in training contract disputes but believes that this can be achieved without the additional impost of expense or administrative bureaucracy.

Before leaving the debate on this clause, and referring to the Hon. Dennis Hood's second reading contribution in relation to the payment of wages while an apprentice trainee is on suspension by an employer, the normal practice from employers, and in cases brought before the GDMC, is that an apprentice trainee is suspended without pay, but the bill and the current act do not preclude the employer from paying wages, if they so wish. If a suspension is found by the SAIRC to be unwarranted, any issue of unpaid wages during the period of suspension would likely be considered as part of the commission's orders.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 6, lines 30 and 31 [clause 4(1), definition of 'Industrial Relations Commission']—

Delete the definition

As I indicated during my second reading contribution, the opposition, in conjunction with stakeholders and the community, believes that the establishment of a separate division of the Industrial Relations Commission—to be known as the Training and Skills Division of the Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia—is an appropriate way to deal with these disputes.

As I pointed out earlier today, we will see a significant increase in the population of this state. The government's target was 2 million by 2050 but it now looks like being 2 million by 2030, so we are looking at just a little over 20 years to having significantly more people in this state. The government continually talks about the mining boom and the minister just then mentioned, in answer to a question, that we had better consider some alternative arrangements if the workload or the number of disputes become greater. I am a bit surprised she says 'if', because the Premier—in fact, every minister in this government—constantly talks about our mining boom and the fact that we have a skills shortage, and that the greatest threat to the boom is a skills shortage.

There is an increasing focus, at both state and federal level, on dealing with the skills shortage, and there is a greater focus on training and delivering quality, trained people into the mining industry. Of course, it is not only the mining industry: a whole range of other industries will spin off the mining industry because the actual act of mining—digging something out of the soil—is only a small part of the economic activity that would be generated by all that. We hear this constantly from the government, and it seems an appropriate time to put this into legislation and for this particular function to be part of the Industrial Relations Commission's role, rather than wait for the situation to become overloaded.

The minister says 'if' we are likely to see the boom; I am pretty certain we will. I am more confident than the minister that we will see significant economic activity in this state. I expect we will also see increased immigration, and the potential for people of, say, my age to be emigrating from other parts of the world—and do not look so surprised—with their children. I have a daughter who is almost 18 and another who is almost 15, so kids of that age who have grown up in another country may well seek to enter a training program, and they may come from a non-English-speaking background. I see the potential for problems to develop, so it seems logical, when we are dealing with the legislation, to look at these amendments.

I understand that all the remaining amendments are consequential, so it is my intention to use the first amendment as a test to determine whether there is support in the Legislative Council for the amendments generally. Members stated during the second reading that they want to consider the amendments and listen to the arguments. Well, I believe the arguments are compelling if we are to capture wealth through the mining boom and resultant economic activity. The fact is that we have only about 20 million people in this big country. Over time we are likely to have more here, and we are likely to see an increased focus on training and an increased workload, so it seems logical at this point to address the issue and include a training and skills division within the Industrial Relations Commission.

I believe that I made myself clear on this matter during my second reading contribution, so I will not delay the committee any further now. I urge all members to support the first amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I reiterate that the government shares the opposition's apparent concern to provide the appropriate environment for our apprentices and trainees, as well as employers, involved in training contract disputes. However, we believe that this can be achieved without the additional impost of the expense and administrative bureaucracy that would be involved under the amendment.

I have placed on record that this government believes that the cost of a division such as this would be in the order of an additional $700,000 per annum to taxpayers, with the hearing of 87 cases involving about $8,000 per case. I do not think anybody would doubt the commitment of this government to its apprentices and trainees. We, like everybody else, understand that they are young and can be vulnerable, and it is important for us that they are well looked after. As already has been placed on record, many people are familiar with the workings of the SAIRC and understand that its processes are tailored to suit the needs of the client accessing its services. I ask those on the cross-benches to consider the information I have placed on the record and not put this additional impost onto our taxpayers.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We received the same information from the minister in another place: that $700,000 would be required to establish this, and then he divided the 87 cases from last year. A $700,000 investment—what capacity does that give us? Does it mean that, if we had 88 cases, it would be $708,000 because it is $8,000 a case, or would a $700,000 investment give us the capacity to deal with 200 or 300 cases a year?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the $700,000 was to establish and resource at the current level. Indeed, I might ask the opposition what it suggests the cost of a new division would be, because certainly this is our advice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it currently costs $700,000 to deal with the 87 cases under one structure, and you take that and put it in another structure, it is still $700,000. I fail to see where the increased cost really is.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that at the moment the SAIRC has the capacity with no additional cost to incorporate the disputes arising from the training and contract system. I need to remind the opposition and other members that we are not proposing the establishment. We, on this side, have the no-cost option.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was unclear after the minister's answer previous to this one she has just given. If the estimate is $700,000 to establish the training and skills division, what is the capacity? It might be 87 cases at $8,000 a case, but what is the capacity of a $700,000 investment? If we had three times the level of trainees—so, let us say 240 or 250 disputes—could a $700,000 investment to establish that division cope with 250 disputes? If we had three times the number of trainees under the existing structure—and, therefore, three times the disputes at 250—the minister says at present the Industrial Relations Commission has the capacity to handle the 87 cases that we are roughly having each year but, if we have a trebling of that workload, does it have the capacity or will it need further resources to cope with that itself?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: First of all, I have already placed on record that we would have the potential to consider alternative arrangements, but we are not entirely clear what the opposition is now proposing. As indicated in the letter from the minister in the other place to the shadow minister, and as I have already placed on record, our preliminary estimates, based on what we assume the opposition actually intends, put the cost of setting up a separate division with a division head and an expectation of appropriate resourcing—we are looking at a new division—at the order of an additional $700,000 per annum to taxpayers.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand what the minister is saying, but does a new division, with a new division head resourced at $700,000, have the capacity to handle only 87 cases a year for that $700,000?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think we have already placed this on record, but we are confident that the IRC has the capacity to meet the current demand and, as best as we can project demand, the $700,000 is purely an attempt to cost the amendment put up by the opposition. Again, we believe that the capacity is there within the IRC and that we have mechanisms to review the needs well within the time of their arising. I reiterate the primary advice provided as to how the IRC operates, and the amendment of the opposition is really an unnecessary complication and cost.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am still a bit confused about the $700,000 being an attempt to cost our amendments, which the government has the capacity to do because it has the resources of government to cost some of these things. The minister's assumption is $700,000. Is that to do with the current level of activity—the 87 cases dealt with last year? The minister has said that we will create a new division and head with adequate resources. So, a division head will be required regardless of whether there is 80 or 8,000 cases a year. How does the minister arrive at the figure of $700,000—she says division head and adequate resources. Is it based on the 87 cases or is it a figure that she plucked out of the air, a certain number of staff and number of hours required? How did the minister arrive at that figure?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I can only reiterate what I have put on the record: this is the best we can predict for the cost of setting up a division and all that would be required for it. With the 87 cases, obviously there has been a costing on that of $8,000 per case in such a separate division. It really is nothing more complicated than that. It is just our attempt to accommodate the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank the minister for not really giving me the answer that I wanted. The $700,000 cannot be quantified by the minister. An honourable member behind the minister interjected that that is what the commissioner said it will cost. In the absence of the minister's being able to say to us that the $700,000 is so much for a divisional head, it can handle 80 cases or it will have the capacity to do more or less, it is compelling evidence that this amendment should be supported. Clearly the government is not in a position to quantify accurately how it arrived at the $700,000.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I remind the honourable member that we do not have to: we can actually do it for nothing.

The CHAIRMAN: The mover of the amendment should inform those who are thinking of voting for the amendment what are the costs to the taxpayer of such an amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (9)

Dawkins, J.S.L. Evans, A.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Ridgway, D.W. (teller)
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

NOES (10)

Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C. (teller)

PAIR (2)

Lucas, R.I. Bressington, A.


Majority of 1 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 79), schedules and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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