HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (TAFE SA CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 May 2012.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:09): I thank all members for their support for the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, lines 3 and 4 [clause 8(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

My advice from the member for Unley is that the package of amendments I have are consequential on one particular issue. I suggest that the first amendment be taken as a test vote, I suppose, of the particular issue and the rest can then be deemed to be consequential on the result of the first vote on the first amendment.

This is a relatively simple and straightforward amendment. Essentially, the argument is predicated on the basis of the position that perhaps the trade unions had in the past, in terms of our industrial climate, where they dominated representation of workers. When one goes back a number of decades perhaps that was more likely to be the case. However, I quote the recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which indicate that the extent of overall membership of unions in the workforce is now 18 per cent. In the private sector it is 13 per cent and in the public sector it is somewhere in the 20 per cent range, giving the average or overall figure of 18 per cent.

Overall, 82 per cent of workers in the workplace are not members of unions; they are not represented by the unions. Nevertheless, they have their views and are entitled to have their views, and may well, on occasion, agree with the views expressed by unions and union representatives but on other occasions they might not.

The amendments that the member for Unley has drafted on behalf of the Liberal Party, and supported by the Liberal Party, are essentially based on that—that is that the legislation should not, in essence, give dominance to the Australian Education Union in relation to issues as it relates to workers in this particular sector, when the overwhelming majority of workers might not be represented by unions.

The reality, in the end, is that even if the numbers were a different way around (let me put it that way) all workers should be entitled to have a say and to be represented, whether or not they are members of a union. Whether union membership dominates or union membership does not dominate, all workers should be entitled to have a say in relation to what goes on in their workplace. That is essentially the principle behind the series of five or six amendments here.

The only other point I would make—and the member for Unley has advised me of this—is that I have noted some comments from the AEU representative in the last 48 hours or so calling on Independent and Liberal Party members of the Legislative Council to, I think, vote against the legislation. I do not think it is actually limited to specific provisions. The member for Unley has advised me that, months ago, when seeking views of stakeholders on this legislation before the Liberal Party formed its view as to whether or not it should support the legislation in its entirety, he sought consultation and submission from the Australian Education Union.

The member for Unley has advised me that the AEU did not respond at all in terms of the request from the shadow minister, the member for Unley, in relation to the legislation. I was bemused to see Mr David Smith publicly calling for the Liberal Party and Independent members to vote the legislation down if, as the member for Unley has advised, he and the Australian Education Union had the opportunity some time ago to both make submissions and seek consultation with the shadow minister representing the Liberal Party on the issue and he and the Australian Education Union, I am advised, did not take up that opportunity.

Might I say, without mentioning any other unions, that, in a number of other recent cases on legislation which have impacted on unions other than the AEU, their representatives have been assiduous in putting their point of view to Independents, minor party members and Liberal Party members on particular pieces of legislation, through their representatives, as well as adopting a public position on it.

Mr Smith and the Australian Education Union can answer for themselves, but I can only put on the record what the member for Unley has advised me in relation to their involvement and their willingness to engage in this particular debate with members of the non-governing parties in the Legislative Council who, ultimately, did have the power one way or another to either amend or defeat the legislation.

As I said, this is a package of amendments. I do not propose to speak at length on the argument; it is relatively straightforward in terms of whether or not you agree with the central principle behind the first amendment and the remaining amendments, and I will treat the remaining amendments as consequential on the first vote.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Lucas are to delete any references to the Australian Education Union, formerly known as the Institute of Teachers under the Education Act 1972; they are, in fact, amendments to the Education Act 1972. The Statutes Amendment and Repeal (TAFE SA Consequential Provisions) Bill proposes to update terminology in the Education Act 1972 only, and to make it clear that the chief executive of TAFE SA replaces the chief executive of the department.

No substantive changes to the provisions outlined in the Education Act 1972 are proposed through this legislation. The Education Act 1972 outlines that the Teachers Appeal Board will consist of three members, appointed by the Governor, to hear appeals from TAFE SA officers. The employer and the court will each nominate a member, and the appellant can choose a member from a group of officers nominated by the AEU through its membership.

Mr Lucas proposes that the appellant chooses from a group of officers identified through an election process without nomination by the AEU. He also proposes that the employer choose a member from this same group. This would mean that both the appellant and the employer choose a member from a group elected by TAFE SA officers. This amendment, if supported, would apply to all officers under the Education Act 1972, including teachers and schools who have the same process under the Teachers Appeal Board.

In addition, Mr Lucas proposes that the AEU nomination to the classification review panel (which is applicable only to schoolteachers who are officers appointed under the Education Act 1972) is deleted and that a nominee is identified through an election process. Likewise, Mr Lucas proposes that the AEU's involvement in the selection of a committee to hear appeals for promotional positions is deleted. This is applicable only to schoolteachers who are officers appointed under the Education Act 1972, with the minister solely deciding the members of the committee to represent the interests of officers.

These amendments propose substantive changes to the Education Act 1972 and are not related to the establishment of TAFE SA as a statutory corporation. The principle underlying this bill is to make as few changes as possible to the current arrangements that exist in TAFE. One of the arrangements that currently exist for TAFE SA staff is access to the Teachers Appeal Board. The constitution of that board and other arrangements are set out in the Education Act 1972.

The government is not seeking to change these arrangements because they are currently in place and changing them is not essential to making TAFE a statutory corporation. These bills only make the necessary changes to the governance arrangements for TAFE SA to establish it as a statutory corporation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My understanding of this series of amendments that the Liberal Party has presented essentially will allow membership to be represented by people who are not members of the union as well. Frankly, I see no reason at all to limit it just to members of the union. That is not a blight on the AEU at all, but I see no reason to limit it to those members. That is the first issue. The second issue is what I think is the government's position on this issue, and that is that there is no intention to open up the Education Act itself: this is dealing strictly with changing the status of TAFE. We have seen in this house many times amendments that have done exactly that to other bills, I think to the betterment in many cases. For that reason Family First will support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will support the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not support this Liberal amendment. We believe that with the casualisation of the workforce in particular, which I imagine will continue to be a focus and feature of this sector, it is more important than ever to have corporate memory, research, strength in numbers and be able to have a representational democracy that is in fact based on those strengths. We do know that the workers in these particular situations are often behind the eight ball when it comes to decision making and industrial democracy, and unions ensure that those things are there to support those particular representatives.

I understand that there are ideological problems with unions from some members, and everyone picks their team and, whether it is the red team or the blue team, they go in to bat for them. I certainly will not say that there are no problems at all with the union movement, but certainly if we did not have it we would have to reinvent it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will support the Liberal amendment, and I would just like to make it clear that it is not from any sort of ideological position about unions that I support this amendment but it is about fair and equitable access for all teachers, all representatives to be able to be nominated and represented in the decision-making process. That is part and parcel of our democratic process.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The consequences of these amendments go far beyond what we are talking about with the TAFE SA Bill: it actually goes right into every school in this state. The teachers in the hundreds of schools out there in the community use these appeal boards quite regularly, and it is quite a successful process. As far as I am aware we have not had any complaints regarding the process. This has turned from something that was consequential to the TAFE bill to something that goes much broader. It is a shame that this chamber is not considering all these consequences.

The Australian Education Union has over 20,000 members. It has by far the majority of teachers as members. These teachers join it because they want the AEU to represent them on these various bodies. Why there is this sudden move to get rid of the AEU out of this process is beyond me. The consequences of what we are doing here at the moment will be felt far and wide, and I think there will be a lot of phone calls by them to these members.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just concluding my contribution to the debate, I think that in the situation the minister has outlined, it is highly likely in the end given the organisational capacity and the financial grunt of the AEU that the people it supports are still likely to be elected to these positions. If the membership is as the member has indicated and they continue to have that membership, that is probably going to be the case.

The reality is that this amendment is giving the opportunity to anybody—union member or not—to contest the position. They should not be excluded, just because they have chosen for whatever reason not to be a member of the union, from being able to represent their teachers in these issues. Ultimately the minister may well be right: the AEU, because of its size and financial grunt, may well see its members elected anyway, and in practical terms there might not be much difference. However, this is an important principle, and I thank the members who have indicated their willingness to support it.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. (teller) Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G.
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P. (teller)
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (4)
Ridgway, D.W. Hunter, I.K.
Brokenshire, R.L. Kandelaars, G.A.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 8A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 5, after line 5—After clause 8 insert:

8A—Amendment of section 14C—Review committee

Section 14C(1)(d)—delete 'Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch)' and substitute:

officers of the teaching service in accordance with the regulations

Briefly, the amendment relates to Part 2A of the Education Act, which deals with the process involved in the closure or amalgamation of government schools. Before a school can be closed or amalgamated, the act requires that a review be conducted in relation to the school or schools in question. That review will consider whether the school in question continues to be required and, if not, whether the school should be closed or amalgamated with another school.

The review itself is to be conducted by a committee appointed by the minister. The committee is to consist of at least two people nominated by the minister, the mayor or chairman of the relevant council or, in any other case, a person nominated by the minister for local government, the director-general, a person not being a teacher at a school that is subject to the review as nominated by the AEU, and a nominee from the school council of each of the schools subject to the review.

The amendment proposes to replace the requirement for a person nominated by the AEU with an officer of the teaching service in accordance with the regulations. The reasons for this amendment are the same as those outlined by the member for Unley (David Pisoni) in another place and by the Hon. Rob Lucas; that is, it seeks to open up the process of employee representation by replacing the exclusive right that has been given to the Australian Education Union with one that applies to all teaching staff.

Whilst I appreciate that the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills only intended for this bill to make minimal changes in relation to TAFE, I think that, for the sake of consistency, this amendment is necessary.

Additionally and perhaps more importantly, I, like the member for Unley and the Hon. Rob Lucas, see absolutely no reason for limiting the role of employee representation to individuals nominated by the AEU, particularly when that individual need not even be a teacher. This is also the view of the South Australian State Schools Leaders Association, whose president, Mr Jeff Waite, has indicated his support for the Hon. Rob Lucas' amendments as well as my amendment. In a letter sent to me on 7 June 2012, Mr Jeff Waite, on behalf of the association, states as follows:

At the present time the act provides for representatives to be nominated by the Australian Education Union. We believe that specifying membership in this way is outdated, not supportive of equal opportunity and is not a reflection of the composition of current school committees.

I suggest that all honourable members who agree with this view support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons outlined by the Hon. Mr Darley, the Liberal Party will be supporting the amendment. I think in large part it is consequential on the vote that we have just taken. It is exactly the same principle but it is just being applied to a specific issue, an important one in relation to the closure of schools. It is the same principle and, for those reasons, consequent on the last vote, we will be supporting this particular amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The amendment proposed is to delete reference to the AEU in section 14C of the Education Act 1974, which deals with the appointment of members to a review committee that reviews the closure or amalgamation of schools.

Instead of the existing section which provides for the AEU to nominate a member to sit on the committee, Mr Darley is proposing that school teachers nominate this member in accordance with the regulations. This amendment proposes substantive change to the Education Act and is not related to the establishment of TAFE SA as a statutory corporation. I must say I find it quite bizarre that opening up an act to make a number of consequential changes to a TAFE SA Bill has suddenly turned into deleting any reference at all to the Australian Education Union under the Education Act. It really is bizarre. A union of 25,000 people, which covers the vast majority of members of—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This shows the arrogance of the opposition. It is just an exercise in union bashing. There is no other way you could put any interpretation on this. It is a classic example of union bashing. I think it is a dangerous precedent.

The Education Union, which probably covers the vast majority of teachers, would expect, as a right, to be able to be put on these various boards. Australian society has a great tolerance and acceptance of unions in this country and what we have here, given half the opportunity, shows that what the opposition and, unfortunately, the majority of Independents would do is wipe them off the map—wipe them right off the map. So, I think it is a sad day and we would strongly oppose this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing this amendment, for the reasons outlined previously. I think it is indicative that these are the same principles. We support a strong union movement. We acknowledge that, in fact, an individual worker does not have the same capacity to represent as a union does; that is the strength of the union.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment. The amendment makes no mention of excluding the unions: it merely opens up membership to people who may or may not be members of the union. In fact, what the amendment does is make a broader catchment rather than a narrower catchment. So, it is not a matter of excluding the unions. People who are members of the unions are still eligible to make application to be part of it, so we see no reason why we should not support the amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will also be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It is certainly not often that Mr Hood and I agree quite as thoroughly as on this occasion but, for the reasons that he has very, very well outlined, I am happy to support this amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

AYES (10)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. (teller) Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G.
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P. (teller)
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (4)
Ridgway, D.W. Hunter, I.K.
Brokenshire, R.L. Kandelaars, G.A.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

New clause thus inserted.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, lines 7 to 11 [clause 9(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) Section 29(2)(b) and (c)—delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute:

(b) 2 will be officers of the teaching service selected by the Minister from a panel of officers elected by officers of the teaching service in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Section 29(3) and (4)—delete subsections (3) and (4)

This amendment is consequential on the first vote that we had.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5—

Lines 13 and 14 [clause 10(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) Section 45(2)(c)—delete 'appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the Institute of Teachers made after elections have been held in accordance with the regulations' and substitute:

elected by officers of the teaching service in accordance with the regulations and appointed by the Governor

Lines 16 to 20 [clause 10(2), inserted paragraphs (d) and (e)]—Delete paragraphs (d) and (e) and substitute:

(d) the members of a panel of prescribed employees elected by prescribed employees in accordance with the regulations and appointed by the Governor.

After line 25—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Section 45(4)(c)—delete '(2)(e)' and substitute '(2)(d)'

These amendments are all consequential on the first vote.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, lines 31 to 33—Delete all words on these lines and substitute:

Section 53(3)(b)—delete 'and consisting of members appointed by the Minister with the agreement of the Institute of Teachers (one or more of whom must be nominees of the Institute)' and substitute:

to represent the interests of officers of the teaching service

This amendment is consequential on the first vote.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (12 to 17), schedules and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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