HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 February 2011.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:31): I rise to support the second reading of this bill. It creates new offence provisions and other powers, I think it is fair to say, in response to the collapse of the Adelaide Pacific International College following the McCann review. I thank the minister's adviser for answers to questions posed by Family First in relation to this specific bill.

I note that the inspectorate tasked with policing these provisions is the existing Quality and Tertiary Education Policy Directorate within the department under delegated authority from the Training and Skills Commission that was formed in legislation in 2008. I note that it was this agency that was tasked with policing the jurisdiction before the Adelaide Pacific collapse, but they may argue they lacked the powers now given to them under this legislation to pick up the problems that existed. Nonetheless, it does seem somewhat counterintuitive that previously the auditing did not pick up any problems.

I acknowledge that there is a body of work by groups at the commonwealth and interstate level, as well as the SA government task force, to improve the provisions of overseas students' education. We have heard some sad stories of the experiences of those overseas students here in recent times, and it is important for the nation and our state that we ensure that international students have a positive experience in Australia. To some extent, we cannot control the way they are treated in public places, and Family First is saddened by, and indeed condemns, the type of violence directed at young international students that we have seen, particularly interstate, in recent times.

In the briefing, I raised the issue of the need for a complaints service to cater properly for culturally and linguistically diverse people. It may be difficult to find staff who speak all the languages of our international students, but I think it would be good policy that a complaints service actually be established that would understand the student in making their complaint. Any sense of alienation or misunderstanding could see the service go unused and thus problems go undetected.

Family First has been assured that this bill will be met within the current budget requirements, as anticipated in the 2010-11 budget. I note we have also been told that the department is improving its data systems to support this move within its regulatory function. Perhaps in part this is an acknowledgement, after the investigation that was concluded into DFEEST's auditing, that revealed the record keeping was not up to scratch.

I hope that as the Treasurer prepares his first budget—I should note at this point that I may not have had the opportunity to put on the record our formal congratulations to the new Treasurer, so I do that now—we do not see the cost of this program blowing out as some have predicted. I also seek the government's views on matters raised earlier this week, on 21 February, concerning training apprenticeships and subsidies. I do not take a view one way or another in relation to News Limited's story prominently featuring McDonald's and KFC.

In fact, I acknowledge that McDonalds and KFC and other stores, chains or corporations like them provide employment and skills training to our young people, and it sets them up well for professional careers, further study or whatever it may be in the future. What I am asking for is some response from the government to the editorial from The Advertiser. I will just read sections of that briefly, as follows:

Our apprentices are being offered 'slave' wages at a time when the country faces major skills shortages. Young male and female school leavers are being enticed into the general workforce too early—opting for quick cash rather than learning a trade in which they would receive a first-year apprentice's wage of $250 to $300 per week. Can you blame them? For those who do take on an apprenticeship, they are choosing what is physically and mentally a tough job. Without competitive wages it is not surprising the national drop-out rate sits at about 52 per cent. That is why a series of ambitious reforms to overhaul the sector is welcome news.

The 170-page blueprint, obtained by The Advertiser, finally recognises the need for improved wages for first-year apprentices—linked to going rates of pay in industry. The gutsiest element of the reform is in the slashing of millions of dollars in government subsidies towards retail giants such as KFC and McDonald's. No doubt it will upset the major companies and put traineeships at risk—but redirecting these dollars to areas of skilled labour shortages addresses a more pressing issue for this country.

And while we are addressing the apprenticeship sector we could also go further to improve the quality and reputation of our training industry, starting with a more rigorous approach to who can provide education in this state. The Motor Trade Association's concerns that some private training organisations, which primarily target international students, are putting South Australia's reputation at risk should be addressed. They have a right to be concerned.

Private training provider Adelaide Pacific International College was audited on a number of occasions by the Further Education Department before a report in The Advertiser triggered a more comprehensive investigation. It was found to have breached several training standards and was closed in June last year. The State Government at present is putting reforms into action, including $100,000 fines to training providers who breach standards. However, greater scrutiny should be applied before an organisation considers opening in SA—not after it has taken advantage of students and damaged the state's reputation.

One concern out of that editorial I do share—and I conducted a brief investigation into this—is why the existing auditing process failed to pick up the problems within Adelaide Pacific International College. The editor rightly points out that those audits did not pick up problems until The Advertiser triggered a more comprehensive investigation or, if they did, it certainly was not public knowledge. So I do seek, in particular, comment into why the government believes the auditing failed and why we need these new powers as a result but also the issues raised by the editor in general.

As the state looks at its industry opportunities in the future, it does make sense to grow the knowledge economy, if you like, as we struggle to compete against international competitors on labour costs. One such economy is the further education sector, and the Rann government, in my view, has the right idea on this front, even if it has not been playing out particularly well in the recent past, for example, with Adelaide Pacific.

A question that SA Unions raised, which I would like to have clarified by the government, is: what happens if an organisation fails, as Adelaide Pacific did? Can international students who paid fees up front claim those fees back? What else can be done to keep them in training in South Australia? What assurance is the government going to make that, if an event like this occurs in the future, students can transfer and not have to pay fees again to get into a similar course so that there is minimal interruption to their stay and study in South Australia, thus maintaining our state's reputation?

Another question, also coming out of The Advertiser on this occasion, is on the difficulty of attracting and keeping the next generation of young farmers on the land to enhance food security. An article published on 17 February 2011 saw these paragraphs attributed to minister O'Brien:

Agriculture Minister Michael O'Brien said the Government was aware of the need to prepare future generations to take up farming. 'Preparing the next generation to take up the challenge of farming is a key part of the Government's economic planning with the provision of specific education and training programs as well as support for succession planning,' he said.

So my closing questions, given the work we are doing in relation to farming and primary industries and given that we are looking here at a miscellaneous bill on training skills and development, are: what programs are the government developing specifically? What stages are those programs at? What are the expected training place and ultimate jobs impact of those programs?

I acknowledge the story from The Advertiser today raising matters brought to light (or I understand will be brought to light) by the Hon. Mr Lucas, and we are interested in some answers on those matters that we will hear shortly.

In closing, I acknowledge that it does appear the government has taken on board representations made by most stakeholders in relation to this bill, and certainly that is pleasing to see. There is, I understand, some consternation from the organisation representing the training providers. I think the Hon. Mr Lucas will touch on those matters in his contribution and we look forward to that contribution. Having placed those questions on notice, I indicate Family First's support for the second reading of this bill, but we are very keen to seek some clarification on the issues I have raised.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:40): I note that the batting order for debate this afternoon seems to depend on: the whip tells us the first thing, then the leader tells us another thing and then the deputy leader tells us a third version of what we are doing. So, at the moment the deputy leader—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas should get on with it because the Hon. Mr Hood is looking forward to your contribution.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —is winning because she overruled the leader's version of what we were meant to be doing. It is just another example of the faction-driven government; the left and the right fighting amongst each other, even over the order of business in the Legislative Council.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Even over the order of business in the Legislative Council.

The PRESIDENT: Move along.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We in the opposition, in the public interest, are always happy to do our best to serve. Whatever the latest decision is, we will just roll with the tide. The Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill is one that the Liberal Party, in principle, supports. The shadow minister, during debate in another place, indicated our support for the intent of the legislation.

There are a number of specific provisions which will best be pursued during the committee stage of the debate, so I will make some overall comments and raise three or four issues, one of which the Hon. Mr Hood has referred to, that is, very recent representations from one of the national stakeholder groups, and then, as I said, pursue the rest of the issues, if need be, in the committee stage of the bill.

As the Hon. Mr Hood and the minister have referred to, essentially, we are left with the situation that the government has taken the view, and the opposition has supported it, that whilst there is national legislation imminent that will supposedly resolve all of these issues on a national basis, in the interim we need to have our own legislation just in case there is a problem this year.

My first question to the minister is: could we get on the record the latest advice we have and as to when the commonwealth legislation will pass and then, more importantly, when we will see further legislation here in South Australia when it will be introduced into the state parliament? For example, will it be in this current sitting of the parliament before the budget or will it be in the second half of the year? From the earlier briefings that we had I suspect it is going to be in the latter half of the year, but if we could formally have on the record when we will see the state-based legislation that we have to consider.

Some stakeholders have expressed a concern as to: why on earth would we be racing ahead with this legislation when there is a nationally agreed response to all of this? They have, not unreasonably, put the position: wouldn't it make sense to either delay it—that is their view—but if we are going to do something that we ensure that whatever we are doing in this bill which is being pushed through is at least consistent with what we are likely to see at the end of the year.

During the briefing, a week or two ago, I put those sorts of questions to the government representatives and I intend to put the same questions to the minister now so that they go on the public record. The shorthand version of what I intend to say is that before we get to the committee stage of the debate I think we should get from the minister an indication of whether there are any provisions in the bill that we currently have which will be significantly inconsistent with the provisions of the nationally agreed legislation that we are going to look at later on in the year. Now, if there are minor issues in terms of drafting and style, we are not too fussed about that, but any issues that are significantly different in terms of the national approach that we are going to adopt later on.

I have been given a copy of a table which says 'A comparison of the legislative recommendations of the McCann review with the draft National Vocational Education and Training VET Regulator Act', which compares the McCann review recommendations with the national legislation, as I understand it. There are two issues. First, obviously we are not currently specifically addressing the McCann review. We are addressing a bill the government has introduced after its considered the McCann review.

I think what this council needs to know is: can it be provided with a comparison of the provisions in this bill and what we are likely to see at the end of the year? It makes no sense to me that we would do something in this bill that is going to be radically different from what we would like to see later in the year. The verbal assurances we have had during the briefings are that that is not going to happen, but we want something on the record that indicates there is no significant difference.

Ultimately, if someone comes back to us and says, 'Hold on, you were told this in the parliament, "There is no significant difference." We have now looked at the federal legislation (once it has gone through in its final form) and this is what you have just rushed through. There is a significant difference.' We want the minister on the record saying, 'Yes, there was going to be a significant difference', or giving us an assurance that there was not, and then we can hold him to account if that assurance is not accurate. I think it is only reasonable for the council to require that of the minister if the minister is asking us to push through legislation when there is already knowledge that federally based legislation is coming sometime later in the year.

From that response to the briefing note that we received from Mr Peter Louca, who, I think, is the chief of staff to the minister at the moment. He is described at the bottom of the email as 'Chief of Staff to the Hon. Jack (the Hammer) Snelling MP'. In that briefing note response there is a reference as follows: 'With regard to TEQSA and the regulation of higher education providers, negotiations with the commonwealth continue, particularly with the regard to the ongoing right of states to establish and disestablish universities.'

I seek a response from the government as to what the state government's policy is; that is, is it negotiating to hand over to the commonwealth regulatory control of the universities? This sentence is ambiguous. It seems to indicate that that is what might be going on, but I seek a specific response as to whether the minister has been involved in negotiations with handing over responsibility of the states in relation to the establishment and disestablishment of universities in South Australia and what the powers of the new federal body (TEQSA) will be.

In this briefing note, we were told that, in December 2009, COAG had agreed, with the exception of Victoria and Western Australia, to establish a national regulator for the VET sector. Clearly, what we are looking, it would appear, is not a national regulator when Victoria is out of the system and, I guess less importantly in terms of size, Western Australia, although Western Australia, with international education, is an important provider.

I seek from the minister an update. At February 2010, we have a new government in Victoria. It has been there for three months or so. Is that still the position of the newly elected government in Victoria? Does the government have any knowledge as to what the potential change of government in New South Wales might entail and has the now opposition indicated a particular policy position on this issue at all? That might not be known to the minister and I accept that that might be the case.

We were also told in that briefing note that negotiations are currently underway with the national VET regulator with a view to transferring current state employees to the national regulator. This does present a potential saving for DFEEST; however, the scale of that saving has yet to be determined, pending final resolution of the size and functions of the state branch of the national VET regulator.

The minister could indicate how many persons, full-time equivalents and people, are currently working in this section of DFEEST at the moment. Whilst I accept that that does not necessarily mean that all those people or full-time equivalents would be transferred to the national regulator, I am interested to know how many warm bodies we have working in this area of DFEEST at the moment.

As the Hon. Mr Hood indicated, at a very late stage—it was only Tuesday of this week—I met with representatives of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET). My recollection of their answer to my question was, I think, that they represent over 100 private education and training providers nationally, so they are not, it would appear, a Johnny-come-lately association or organisation; they are of some significance.

They operate in all jurisdictions, as understand it, and, as I said, they seemed to indicate to me that over 100 organisations were represented by ACPET at the national level. They also indicated that some 75 per cent or so of training opportunities in this sector are now being provided by the private sector. Not having had a close and abiding association with this sector for 10 years or so, this seems quite a remarkable number.

Those of us from decades ago who saw TAFE and its equivalents in the other states as being the major providers of training opportunities need to reorient our own mindsets to the new world and the real world, and that is that, under the federal and state Labor governments, we have had a massive change in provision of training opportunities from the private sector, and TAFE has become—I guess ‘marginalised’ is too strong a word, but certainly it has become a much smaller and less significant provider of training opportunities in South Australia now than it was in previous decades.

Certainly, it is not that many decades ago, one would imagine, that TAFE was providing the overwhelming majority of training opportunities in South Australia. As for ACPET, as I said, I am not sure the reason for the lateness of the lobby to members of parliament.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: They never actually got a copy of the bill back from the government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Tammy Franks has obviously met with them or spoken to them as well, because in the discussion they indicated that they had put a position back—they thought in about October or November—and some of the issues that they had raised have not been taken up in the bill. As the Hon. Tammy Franks has indicated, they did not see the final copy of the bill that was introduced to parliament.

It was only on Tuesday morning that I met with representatives of ACPET. They raised a whole series of issues with me, some of which were informative and can be used for clarifying questions during the committee stages of the debate. The most recent letter I have received, dated 23 February—and I understand this is being copied, or similar letters have been sent to other members of the Legislative Council as well—raises one specific issue.

I would indicate to those other members of the chamber that clearly we are not going to go to the committee stage of the bill today, and one of the reasons is that I have asked parliamentary counsel to draft an amendment, which we as a party need to consider when we next meet on Tuesday week but, in the interim, if other members are interested, I am happy to provide a copy of the draft on the understanding that we have not yet agreed to it as a party because we have not yet discussed it as a party.

Essentially, I will flag in this second reading contribution the area involved and the general nature of the amendment. I am happy to provide a copy of the draft when I receive it, and I understand that I will not receive it from parliamentary counsel until early next week. They have raised the issue that in this bill there is a provision referring to an understanding of a 'fit and proper person', and what they have said is that they are most concerned as to how a bureaucrat might interpret a 'fit and proper person'.

They believe there is no rigour, definition or guidance to the regulators as to what a fit and proper person is, and what is a fit and proper person to the regulator might be different from the views that we might have of that provision. What they have said is that under the national framework at the moment, there are a number of different examples under federal legislation where there is a definition or some guidance as to what a fit and proper person test ought to be.

One of those is the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS Act), which was amended in 2010. I will not read all of section 9B(2), but it says that, in deciding whether a training provider meets the fit and proper person requirements, the designated authority must have regard to whether a person has been convicted of an offence, has ever had their registration cancelled, etc. It actually goes through some specific provisions to give guidance to the regulatory authority as to whether or not this is a fit and proper person. It is not left to the unspecified subjective judgement of a regulator or a bureaucrat who may well say, 'Well, I just didn't think you were a fit and proper person and so you're going to lose your provider's licence.'

People are investing buckets of money in these businesses. We are all interested in ensuring that they are properly run businesses and that they are not ripping off students. That is the purpose of this legislation and that is why we are supporting it through the parliament, so that, in the rare examples where people are being ripped off, there is some redress for those students who have been ripped off and some sort of the process, some better auditing and those sorts of things.

That is the framework that I think we are all relatively comfortable with, but on the other hand you have people investing millions of dollars in some cases or hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of their company and their business to provide training opportunities. They do not want to be subject to the whim or vagaries of someone who does not like them to say, 'Well, I just don't think you're a fit and proper person, and I don't really have to indicate to you on what basis I have made that judgement.'

What they are saying is, 'Look, in similar national legislation in the training field, there are fit and proper person provisions.' I am relaxed. I have not had a discussion with parliamentary counsel yet, but my office has, and it has raised the issue of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act as one model. We have said that, if there are other ways of providing definition or rigour to 'fit and proper person' that parliamentary counsel or, more importantly, ultimately the government are prepared to contemplate, we are prepared to be flexible in relation to this. Certainly, I think ACPET would be as well. I just said when I met with them, 'Hey, help us here. If you don't like what's there, what do we replace it with?'

They have done the work at the national level and they have come back with some ideas. We have taken one of those to parliamentary counsel and said, 'Draft us something along those lines; that will at least start the debate.' As I said, if the government or indeed any other member comes up with a better definition or resolution to the problem, then certainly I know that the shadow minister and our party would be prepared to engage in sensible negotiation and discussion in relation to that issue.

With that, I indicate that at this stage that is the only amendment we are contemplating. Nothing else has been raised by any other industry association or stakeholder that would, at least at this stage, cause us to move an amendment. I indicate that we support the bill and that we will provide a copy for those interested members of the draft next week when we receive it from parliamentary counsel. As I said, we will not as a party discuss it and resolve our position on it until Tuesday week.

There was one other issue I wanted to raise relating to clause 14 and public statements. This was raised by ACPET—although not in relation to amendments—and I would like clarification from the minister as to what the legal advice has been from parliamentary counsel and others. In essence, this will give protection to regulators and others to make public statements and, as I understand it, protect them if they acted in good faith in making those particular statements. My question is: if in making one of these statements there is clearly negligence—that is, the minister or the regulator has absolutely got a fact wrong that they should have been able to establish—does this good faith protection mean that the person who has been wronged will have no legal recourse against that particular statement?

Clearly, there are a range of legal provisions and protections that one can put in there. There is good faith and bad faith, and various other phrases along the legal continuum that can be incorporated to provide protection for people who are undertaking their job and who you want to prevent from being sued. I seek advice from the minister as to why the government settled on 'good faith' as being the appropriate legal defence here. In particular, will that protect a regulator or a minister who has been negligent, who just goes out and slags some provider and, in essence, puts them out of business, and who has got something absolutely wrong, but who has said, 'Look, I did this in good faith'? What legal recourse is there for the provider in those circumstances?

This is an important issue. At this stage we are not flagging an amendment, we would need to get legal advice, and would first like to see the minister's response to determine whether it is a reasonable and acceptable response that the majority of the Legislative Council is prepared to accept or whether we think it is going a bit too far and allowing someone to say whatever they like. Some providers could be put out of business and have no recourse in law at all, even though what has been said about them is palpably wrong, has been proved to be wrong, and could have been shown to be wrong at the time that the statement was made. I believe we need to protect against that type of circumstance as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:03): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Training and Skills Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill this afternoon. We welcome the intent of this bill to strengthen the regulatory arrangements underpinning the quality of education and training in the tertiary sector in South Australia. We also welcome the fact that it has speedily addressed the recommendations for legislative change that were couched in the McCann report on vocational education and training services for overseas students in South Australia.

Of course, the impetus for this has come from the collapse of the Adelaide Pacific International College, amid allegations of financial problems and a failure to deliver adequate training to fee-paying students. We saw quite a crisis in that particular institution. This bill will enable government to take swift and firm action against such unscrupulous or dodgy providers. It also increases the penalties and allows consumers to seek redress through the courts, if necessary. We welcome all these initiatives from this government.

We are particularly mindful that the education sector is a vital income generator for the state's economy. I remember having worked on international student issues in the Senate; I used to work on the ESOS bill on a regular basis, and I remember constantly being informed by those in the industry that the education sector is, in fact, bigger than wool and wheat in this country. I know the President may be more fond of the wool industry, but I am certainly fond of the international education sector and would like to see it grow. I would certainly like to see South Australia having at least the average piece of pie in this particular industry and certainly not lagging behind. Unfortunately, incidents like the Adelaide Pacific International College, and an inability of government to act swiftly to that, actually diminishes our ability to compete.

I welcome the rhetoric from the Rann government on Adelaide being a university city; I would like to see that truly become the case. I also note that, in fact, the McCann report did call upon South Australia to act more quickly than other states, so I do not share the concerns of my Liberal colleagues that we should not be debating this so speedily and before the national regulations emerge. In fact, we endorse the government's actions here to speed up the timing in which we are developing some more appropriate compliance models and processes to address such incidents in the future.

The McCann report will see South Australia, along with other states, with the exception of Victoria and WA, refer powers to the commonwealth for the regulation of vocational education and training. That national VET regulator will register providers and regulate their operations in a similar manner to that currently performed by state registering bodies. The national regulator is also going to register providers delivering Australian qualifications to domestic students and/or overseas students and/or students offshore.

One question I have at this juncture for the minister is: while this is a South Australian specific piece of legislation, will it, for example, cover students who may be at institutions that have campuses? I want to clarify that, if a campus is in South Australia, it will be covered by this particular act, regardless of whether or not the overall institution is perhaps based in Victoria or elsewhere. If a campus is in South Australia, will this act cover them?

I would also like to thank the minister for providing a briefing on this bill; it was much welcomed. I also note that we have had representations from ACPET at quite a late stage in the debate. Upon questioning why it had taken into the second house to debate this issue, and why the particular concerns had been raised, I discovered, not for the first time, that those who had made submissions to the deliberations and the consultation process had not actually been informed that the government had finalised the bill, sent a copy of that bill or told that it was, in fact, going forward into parliament.

I think that it would be not only common courtesy but also simply good legislation-making to ensure that those you consult—those who are stakeholders—are consulted back and informed of what you decide. Whether or not their input has been taken into account, I think they will wear it either way, but it is just good practice to make sure that stakeholders are aware of where things are up to. They take the time and effort to give you a contribution, and I think they should get the respect of being told what decisions are made. I imagine that it would be well within the capabilities of this government to ensure that that happened.

I note that, as I say, that has actually happened with a few bills. In my very short time here I have discovered that not much respect is paid to those who contribute to a consultation phase of any of our reviews or debates in this state. It seems to be the luck of the draw whether you see that your amendment was indeed accepted or not and whether you find out in a timely fashion that the particular piece of legislation is being debated in this place. That is not good for democracy, and it makes it difficult for those of us particularly on the cross benches to have an informed and productive debate.

Again, I note that, having worked as a staff member for a senator, protocols were that you did not necessarily see a bill one week and debate it the next. You certainly had a much more timely and measured way of addressing that legislative process. I would imagine that just feeding back to those who take the time and effort to tell us their opinions would, in fact, be a great boost to our democracy here in South Australia.

International students are a much welcome part of both the economy and the social fabric here in South Australia, but I do have some concerns that I would like to raise. They are often exploited, and that exploitation is across a range of areas. I will start with their employment, and I would like to commend the work, for example, of the Young Workers Legal Service, who pick up a lot of the cases of young international students who are exploited in the workplaces of South Australia, and they are approached by students on a range of issues.

The Young Workers Legal Service has informed us that the sort of issues faced by international students are that they are underpaid, they are often unaware of the industrial instruments governing the employment, they are often fearful of losing their job if they raise an issue of pay, and they do not always know where to get the correct information about their wages and entitlements. Of course, quite often they also have language and cultural barriers.

We heard in the other place that, in fact, many shonky providers of education and training in this state and across Australia have been known to tie employment to the provision of an education or training certificate, diploma and so on. We heard the stories of taxi drivers, for example, who were basically used as slave labour, and if they were not out driving the cab then they were not being recognised as being part of whatever course they had enrolled in and were threatened that they would not be graduating from that course.

That sort of practice is completely unacceptable in our society, and I would hope that we see some more work towards eradicating those sorts of practices in South Australia. Also, students have approached the Young Workers Legal Service about not being given sick leave and being paid 'under the counter', owed pay and unpaid. They are not in a position of strength and certainly not in a great position to bargain for the best conditions.

I would note that, under the previous Howard government, the mindset of smashing student unionism has added to the exploitation of international students, both here in South Australia and across the state. My first thought on this bill was that I would consult with the international students unions. They are not nearly as well resourced as I recall in my day, and international students have a much diminished voice in this new era. I hope that they will build up their strength again and that we will be hearing those voices.

We will be hearing first the complaints, but then addressing those complaints and making sure that these vulnerable students are not exploited. I would also like to thank Raffaele Piccolo who is the son of the member for Light and who is also concerned about the exploitation of international students. While it is not a VET sector issue, at a university level, the Adelaide University Union has recognised that international students are in a particular vulnerable position there.

As I say, it is a huge industry, and South Australia would like to see a slice of the pie. Just a few years ago, in 2007, I think we saw more than 500,000 visitors or students entering Australia with working rights and another 110,570 (and their dependents) arriving on temporary 457 visas. These people are actually bound by contracts which do not need to meet any industrial standards, and that does raise a number of red flags. From the Greens' perspective, we would certainly like to see these issues also addressed in future work by state and federal governments.

I sum up by again congratulating the government on acting reasonably promptly on this issue. We echo the concerns raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas that the considerations of ACPET had not been taken into consideration in terms of the concerns they raised with a draft form of this bill. We look forward to hearing from other people in the sector over the coming weeks before entering the committee stage. With that, we support the second reading and look forward to a robust committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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