HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TAFE SA BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 June 2012.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:24): I would like to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Tammy Franks for their contributions to the second reading. I will endeavour to respond to all of the concerns and queries raised here or in committee.

The Skills for All initiative deals with a major skills challenge facing the state from a rapidly changing economy and our ageing population. A skilled workforce is fundamental to realising South Australia's potential for a higher growth economy. Under Skills for All, the state government will give eligible South Australians an entitlement to a government-funded training place that provides them with the ability to select the training provider of their choice.

It is important to note that this is not a voucher system. TAFE SA will play a crucial role in training for our future workforce and the South Australian government is providing strong support to TAFE SA in this regard. For instance, the state budget included an extra $38 million for a new mining engineering centre to be built at Regency. In total, around $250 million of new funding has been committed to upgrading TAFE SA infrastructure over the past two years.

Under Skills for All, TAFE SA will have the opportunity to grow its student numbers in areas of high student demand and this has already been reflected in the significant increase in student enrolments in TAFE SA this year. The government recognises that TAFE SA provides many courses and extra supports for students over and beyond that of the many private training providers, including delivery in around 50 different campuses across the state.

In recognition of this, TAFE will be receiving a higher payment for training to ensure that it continues to offer the same level of training, especially in the regions. TAFE SA will also receive funding for community services, including support for small campuses in regional locations and services to disadvantaged groups, such as those training on the APY lands and for the Aboriginal Access Centre.

To meet the skill challenge in South Australia, the government has committed an additional $194 million in training over six years to fund 100,000 additional training places. The training market is larger and to meet the skill challenge we require more training providers to deliver the additional training places. Opening up the market to other training providers, while supporting TAFE SA to flourish in this contestable environment, will benefit South Australians with more choice and greater opportunity.

For over 10 years, funding for apprentices and trainees has been contestable in South Australia and available to TAFE SA and private training providers, including group training organisations. Over this time, TAFE SA has continued to be the major training provider. South Australian apprentices and trainees have benefitted, with good training outcomes as a result of the open trainee market. The government is committed to ensuring that South Australia's reputation for quality training is maintained when the training market is made more contestable under Skills for All.

Training providers accessing the funding must be separately approved through a rigorous assessment process. If approved, they will be given a contract with specific requirements over and above the requirements as a registered training organisation. Their performance will be monitored throughout the term of their contract as a Skills for All training provider and if grounds exist it will be terminated. Surveys will be carried out with employers and students to assess the quality of training outcomes. These measures are in addition to those that already exist and are not in place in Victoria where the media has reported problems with the quality of training delivery under a contestable market arrangement.

South Australia will also introduce a system of caps which will enable the government to limit funding courses in a particular field where there is an over-supply and limited job opportunities. Whilst the market will be opened up to more training providers, it will be closely monitored and managed by the state government.

Regarding the National Partnership Agreement, the commonwealth government recently reiterated its commitment to agreement on skills reform through the 2012 policy document entitled, 'Skills for All Australians'. South Australia concluded a bilateral agreement with the commonwealth which affirmed South Australia's status as a reform state. Through this agreement, the commonwealth has committed $1.75 billion over five years to achieve key reforms to be negotiated with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments.

The key reforms include: a national entitlement to training; wider access to VET student loans to reduce upfront cost barriers to study at a diploma and advanced diploma level; increased availability of information about courses, costs and training provider quality through the new MySkills website; support for quality teaching and assessment; support for a strong public training provider network through the implementation of reforms to ensure a high quality training system that is accessible to all Australians; and incentives to achieve improved completion of full qualifications, particularly at a high level and for disadvantaged students.

The Skills for All reforms have met the majority of these policy objectives through initiatives such as introducing an entitlement to a government funded training place where certificate I and II level qualifications are fully funded; enabling wider access to income contingent loans for students in the publicly funded courses; developing a new Skills for All website with extensive information on career, training pathway options and training providers to help South Australians make informed choices about how to use their entitlement which will then link into the commonwealth My School website; separating the role of the funder and the training provider by introducing legislation to establish TAFE SA as a statutory corporation; supporting TAFE SA as the public training provider through higher subsidies and community services funding, and a number of other support programs to help disadvantaged students complete qualifications such as learner support services.

As a result of the implementation of the government's Skills for All initiative to date and the legislation before this house currently, South Australia, as a signatory to the national partnership, is well placed to receive funding through this agreement and has been declared a reform state by the commonwealth government.

This means that from July 2012, subject to training providers receiving approval from the commonwealth government, students undertaking publicly funded training in South Australia will have access to income contingent loans to help defer the payment of course fees for diplomas and advanced diplomas until they are earning a sustainable income.

As announced in the recent federal budget papers, the extension of income contingent loans will be trialled for higher demand certificate IV courses, including courses in aged care and community services, disability work, plumbing and services, training and assessment, and competitive manufacturing. The trial will commence in South Australia on 1 January 2013. Through this scheme the government will help remove the financial barriers to training with higher course fees. Students will repay their VET FEE-HELP loans gradually through the tax system once their incomes are above the minimum repayment threshold set by the Australian Taxation Office.

The implementation plan to achieve the objectives outlined in the national partnership with the commonwealth is subject to continuing negotiations with the state and commonwealth governments in line with standard processes. The implementation plan will detail how South Australia will implement the reforms that it has committed to in the national partnership, concluded at COAG in its bilateral agreement with the commonwealth.

The South Australian government is negotiating the contents of the implementation plan with the commonwealth and, when concluded, will be subject to a cabinet approval process before being approved by responsible state and commonwealth ministers. We understand that this implementation plan will be available on the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations website once finalised.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I must admit I had to vacate the chamber for three minutes to get my files while the minister was responding to the second reading, so I want to clarify something with the minister. I assumed that what the minister was going to do was place on the record at the second reading answers on behalf of the minister that had been provided in writing to me, and also the shadow minister and the members for Unley and Goyder who had asked questions in another place. Those answers have not been put on the record. Given the shortness of the minister's response, I am assuming that he has not put on the record the—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: I've got them here. I can do it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, well, that is what I was going to check. If the minister is not going to put on the record the answers to the questions that were put during the second reading debate, then we will have to do it through the committee stage. I will have to get up and quote the minister's responses.

As I said, I thought the minister was going to provide those answers during the second reading stage because it does clarify, at least from the government's viewpoint, a range of questions that were asked during the second reading stage. As I said, I did not hear all of the ministers responses in the second reading—whether they answered the questions the Hon. Tammy Franks put, for example.

It is really in the hands of the minister, but my suggestion is that he could at clause 1, if he has not already, put on the record what the answers to the questions are. That would allow members to read overnight responses to the questions, and that would allow us to expedite the committee stage when we sit tomorrow. I have seen the answers to questions put by Liberal members, but I obviously have not seen the answers to questions asked by the Hon. Tammy Franks and other members. I am in the minister's hands.

I think the very least we need to get on the record are the answers to questions. Just to help the minister, the very helpful letter that has been sent to me in relation to my questions (which take up some six pages), half of the space is taken up by repeating what was in Hansard. Rather than repeating that part of the letter which repeats all of Hansard, I would be very happy if the minister makes reference to the page number without having to read all of that, and in that way we will shorten the minister's time in terms of placing on the record the government's responses to the questions put by me.

There is also a two-page letter with an attachment which the member for Unley received to questions he put in the House of Assembly debate and which I repeated in my contribution, and there is a one-page response to the member for Goyder. Again, a good part of those letters is just repeating what is in Hansard, which I do not think is required. I think it is important that the government's response to questions asked by the shadow minister in the other place, and certainly by members in this chamber, are placed on the public record and are there for all other members to look at and analyse themselves.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I do have the response to the questions asked by the Hon. Mr Lucas. They were sent to him in a letter, but I do agree that other members should really hear those responses. So, I can go through that right now if you want.

In relation to the TAFE Bill 2012, the Hon. Mr Lucas asked the following question: can the minister outline what will be the dividend policy that Treasury will require of TAFE SA should, at some stage in the future, it makes profits on its operations, as the minister has outlined he believes will happen in the reasonably short term; or will the agency not be required either to repay capital or pay a dividend, or any sort of additional financial return based on its profitability, back to Treasury? Will it be able to keep 100 per cent of its profits irrespective of the level of the profitability of the agency?

I can advise that TAFE SA, as a statutory corporation, will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Public Corporations Act 1993. This includes the development and implementation of a performance statement prepared by the minister and Treasurer after consultation with the TAFE SA Board of Directors. This performance statement will include provision for the payment of dividends by the corporation to the Treasurer out of any profits it may generate. The performance statement will be finalised prior to commencement of a corporation.

Section 30 of the Public Corporations Act 1993, which provides for the payment of dividends by statutory corporations, will apply to TAFE SA. Unless otherwise required by the Treasurer, TAFE must, before the end of each financial year, recommend by writing to the Treasurer that TAFE SA pay a specified dividend, or not pay any dividend, for that year, as TAFE SA considers appropriate.

The Treasurer may accept or vary the recommendation by TAFE SA in relation to dividends, after consultation with TAFE SA's minister, by notice in writing to TAFE SA. Interim dividends are provided for in the legislation in the same way; that is, first, a recommendation from TAFE SA and then a final determination by the Treasurer.

The Hon. Mr Lucas said that one of the issues he wanted to seek answers from the government about was the budget treatment of the new agency via the current budget treatment for DFEEST. In broad terms, DFEEST is currently in what he would call a normal or usual government department or agency and is included in what is called the general government sector for budget purposes; therefore, its surplus or its deficit is an impact on what is called the net operating balance which is produced by Treasury in the budget papers, which we will see later today. He understood that we are likely to be seeing a net operating deficit of up to $800 million a year for the next couple of years, but the calculation is done on a budget sector defined as a general government sector.

The budget management and accounting arrangements currently proposed for TAFE SA and for its separation from DFEEST are being prepared subject to the passage of this legislation on the basis of its current classification status, that is that TAFE SA is within the general government sector. This is the basis of the 2012-13 budget and forward estimates. Ultimately, the question of whether TAFE SA is classified as being within the general government sector or whether it is a public non-financial corporation is a determination made by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. A classification submission is being made by Treasury to the ABS seeking this determination.

While the government is dependent on the ABS determination before the specific accounting treatment can be finalised, the final controls and objectives of the corporation will be essentially the same. The approved budget management and control framework that have been implemented for TAFE SA requires it to comply with budget approval, monitoring and reporting requirements as set out by Treasury in relation to all government agencies. TAFE SA will be accountable for achieving the budgeted operating outcome. This will be monitored and managed through the budget management processes established by the Treasurer.

The TAFE SA chief executive will be accountable under the government's chief executive financial accountability framework for the TAFE SA board of directors and the minister. Financial accountability will be against a government-approved budget, and TAFE SA will be expected to comply with budget monitoring and reporting requirements set by Treasury in relation to all government agencies. Any adverse budget impacts will be identified with Treasury.

Budget issues and mitigating strategies will need to be escalated through the TAFE SA board of directors and the minister. It will be the responsibility of the minister in consultation with the TAFE SA board to provide advice to the Treasurer on any corrective strategies to be considered. Variations to approved TAFE SA expenditure authorities or revenue budgets must be sought via an application to the annual budget process or via a separate submission to cabinet where a matter of such significance warrants.

What is the position of TAFE SA in relation to compulsory redundancies given that there will now be a competitive market and given that TAFE SA will be competing and is clearly not in a position to give any guarantee that TAFE SA will continue to maintain 80 per cent of the market share? If it was to decline, how does TAFE SA manage its staffing and employment expenses if it does not have the option of forced redundancies?

The questions to the minister were: who finally controls the level of deficit that TAFE SA can run? Who actually finally approves the level of deficit that TAFE SA signs off on? Does minister Kenyon's equivalent (whatever that is to be called in the future) have to approve and authorise the TAFE SA budget for next year? Is it the Treasurer? Does he or she have to sign off on that? Is it both or does neither minister have any role in approving and authorising its budget?

Mr Lucas was seeking specific responses to those questions, as to whether a board or a CEO decision to run deficits of some magnitude for a year require approval by someone other than themselves. The other question is: does TAFE SA independently have complete authority over the level of fees and charges imposed to help it balance its budget? If it does not, does it have to be approved by the appropriate minister equivalent or the Treasurer in future? Again, he sought a detailed response from the minister in relation to that.

He also asked: in relation to TAFE SA as it moves through in the first instance of voluntary redundancies, will the up-front costs of voluntary redundancies be subsidised by way of loan or other arrangements from the Treasurer to TAFE SA to help it fund the up-front costs of voluntary redundancies? He also asked: in the first instance as we are moving through the voluntary redundancies, will the Treasurer either loan or provide an appropriation to TAFE SA to fund up-front costs of voluntary redundancies?

I am advised that, under current departmental arrangements, TAFE SA's financial performance is addressed within the overall portfolio budgets of the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST). The financial management arrangements that will be implemented once TAFE SA becomes a statutory authority will continue to require TAFE to develop a budget that is in accordance with financial targets set for the further education, employment, science and technology portfolio in the budget. The budget performance of DFEEST and TAFE SA will be managed in accordance with the budget allocated to the portfolio.

The final accountability of the board and the TAFE chief executive will be determined by this requirement. While the board will determine the financial plan for the corporation, this plan must comply with the financial parameters set by the government through the Budget Performance Statement.

Appropriation funding will be made to DFEEST which will have responsibility for management of portfolio financial outcomes. However, the corporation, consistent with its more commercial charter, will be able to establish its approved budget on a net operating outcome basis, recognising interdependency of the revenues and expenditure in a market-based environment. This reflects the fact that TAFE SA will be dependent on revenue flows that are determined by client choice.

The funding model established for Skills for All accommodates this approach in a number of ways. It provides differential pricing for TAFE SA in recognition of cost factors determined by government policy and community services funding for non-commercial activities required of it by government. Funding for community service obligations by Treasury were identified, as well as structural adjustment funding to support significant changes that TAFE may need to implement as it positions itself in a more competitive VET system.

In response to the question on the TAFE SA Bill raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas about TAFE SA's position and authority in relation to employment arrangements and excess staff separations recorded on pages 1394 to 1395 of Hansard on 31 May 2012, I am advised that employment arrangements will be in accordance with those agreed through an enterprise agreement. TAFE is currently utilising targeted voluntary separation packages on the same terms as other government agencies and will continue to. Under these arrangements, TAFE SA staff separations are funded by Treasury, DFEEST and TAFE SA like other government agencies managing excess staff where positions have been declared surplus and staff have opted not to separate.

Any cost pressure risks are managed with the Skills for All funding model arrangements as part of the portfolio budget. In response to the question on the TAFE SA Bill raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas about TAFE SA's authority over fees and charges recorded on pages 1394 and 1395 of Hansard on 31 May, advice to me is that TAFE SA must comply with the Skills for All policy like any other training provider.

Under this policy no fees can be charged for entry levels, certificates I and II and priority qualifications. This is reflected in high subsidies for these courses to address revenue implications. Fees can be charged for certificate III and above qualifications with a capped upper limit that is currently set at $7,000. Within this policy structure student choices and competition will operate.

In response to a question on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas about superseded provisions in the legislation relating to employment terms and conditions of TAFE staff, recorded on page 1396 of Hansard of 31 May 2012, consultation on the legislation took place with a wide range of stakeholders, including TAFE SA staff, unions representing staff and the higher education sector, peak bodies representing business and other public and private sector organisations.

The legislation aims to establish TAFE SA as a statutory corporation and reform the necessary governance arrangements. The consultation did not cover the employment terms and conditions, as these were not addressed in the legislation. The current Technical and Further Education Act 1975 is unique in that it contains legislative employment provisions, some of which are currently supplemented and in some cases superseded by an industrial instrument created under the Fair Work Act 1994.

The existing employment terms and conditions in the Technical and Further Education Act 1975 will be transferred to the schedule to maintain the status quo and to reassure staff that there are no changes to employment terms and conditions proposed through this governance reform. They remain preserved as the minimum terms and conditions in the legislation, should enterprise bargaining negotiations in future seek to affect those subject areas.

The legislation will see the Technical and Further Education Act 1975 repealed. The application of the schedule allows for flexibility in the future. If industrial agreements supersede all the legislative provisions, it may be removed. This will be managed through the enterprise bargaining process. The legislation has been drafted so that, if this situation eventuates, the schedule can be removed without affecting the governance arrangements for TAFE SA.

I have a number of responses to questions raised by David Pisoni. In response to questions on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 raised by Mr Pisoni, the member for Unley, recorded on page 1600 of Hansard of 16 May 2012, TAFE SA will be accountable for achieving the budget operating outcome. This will be monitored and managed through Budget managerial processes established by the Treasurer.

Monitoring arrangements will be consistent with other general government entities. The TAFE SA Chief Executive will be accountable under the government's chief executive financial accountability framework through the TAFE SA Board of Directors and the minister. Financial accountability will be against the cabinet approved budget, and TAFE SA will be expected to comply with budget monitoring and reporting requirements set by Treasury in relation to all government agencies.

While this reporting will be provided to Treasury, it will also be provided to DFEEST to enable the department to assess and advise the minister on the overall portfolio budget positions. Any adverse budget impacts will be identified with Treasury and DFEEST through this process. Budget issues and mitigating strategies will need to be escalated through the TAFE SA Board of Directors and minister.

It will be the responsibility of the minister, in consultation with the TAFE SA Board, to provide advice to the Treasurer on any corrective strategies to be considered. This will be undertaken in consultation with the DFEEST chief executive, who will, on behalf of the minister, have responsibility for assessment and advice on the portfolio budget position and the measures to address adverse impacts.

Variations to approved TAFE SA expenditure authority or revenue budget must be sought by an application to annual budget process or via a separate submission to cabinet where a matter of such significance warrants. Based on the March 2012 year-to-date position, there is a risk that TAFE SA will report a deficit of approximately 2 per cent for the financial year 2011-12. Budget measures to offset this deterioration are currently being considered. Based on the historical annual operating result of TAFE SA from the 2007-08 financial year, TAFE SA has a five-year accumulated deficit of around $8.4 million.

In response to a question on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 raised by Mr Pisoni and recorded on pages 1602 and 1603 of Hansard of 16 May 2012, since the commencement of the TVSP scheme a total of 130 targeted voluntary separation package offers have been made across the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. Of these, 95 have been offered to TAFE SA employees. Of these 137 offers, 83 employees have accepted TVSPs and separated. Of the 83 employees who have accepted TVSPs, 57 were from TAFE SA and the remaining 26 were from DFEEST.

Since the commencement of the TVSP scheme, three TAFE SA employees declared excess have resigned and 28 have been placed into ongoing permanent placements. The house was advised on 16 May 2012 that 80 employees were currently declared excess across DFEEST and TAFE SA combined. I am also advised that the most up-to-date figure from 10 May 2012 is 82 employees; the total number fluctuates from week to week. Of these 82 employees, 63 are at TAFE SA. Of these 63 employees, four have accepted TVSPs but not separated, 17 are in funded and partially-funded temporary work placements and the remaining 46 are unfunded. I seek leave to table a graph.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Seventeen employees declared excess are in funded temporary positions. In response to a question on the TAFE SA Bill raised by Mr Pisoni and recorded on page 1603 of Hansard of 16 May 2012, as was advised in the house on 16 May 2012 Ms Elaine Bensted is a former deputy chief executive officer of the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology and has transferred across to the office of TAFE SA under her existing salary and conditions.

Ultimately, who the chief executive of TAFE SA is and the rate at which they are paid will be a decision for the TAFE SA board of directors. Once the board is set up and the statutory corporation is operating, the minister will approve the appointment of the chief executive by the board and will approve the terms and conditions of that appointment. During the committee stage, the house was given an approximate figure of $280,000 as the value of the salary package for Ms Elaine Bensted, the current Chief Executive of TAFE SA. I can now confirm that the exact figure is $276,862.

In response to a question on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 raised by Mr Pisoni, the member for Unley, and recorded on pages 1605 to 1606 of Hansard of 16 May 2012, the commonwealth has advised that South Australia, through its reforms of vocational education and training, meets the commonwealth requirements as a reformed state. Recognition as a reformed state allows all registered training organisations accessing state government funding to apply for VET FEE-HELP. This means that Skills for All training providers, whether TAFE SA or non-TAFE SA, can apply to the commonwealth to access and offer VET FEE-HELP to their students on Skills for All training courses.

The declaration as a reformed state does not affect non-TAFE SA RTOs who are currently approved to offer VET FEE-HELP to students. They will continue to be able to offer those income-contingent loans even if they choose not to participate in the Skills for All market. An application arrangement and the funding arrangements are identical whether TAFE SA or non-TAFE SA.

In response to a question on the TAFE bill raised by Mr Griffiths, member for Goyder, recorded on page 1606 of Hansard on 16 May 2012, I can confirm that TAFE SA will have its own insurance through the South Australian Government Financing Authority. The Insurance division of SAFA operates using the SAICORP trading name. This is no different to other public organisations and agencies.

In response to a question on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 raised by Mr Pisoni, recorded on page 1607 of Hansard on 16 May 2012, in terms of ongoing monitoring and compliance with visa conditions, under part D of the national code of the commonwealth's Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, all registered training organisations are required to systematically monitor students' compliance with students' visa conditions relating to attendance and are required to notify and counsel students who are at risk of failing to meet attendance requirements.

If students have breached attendance requirements, training providers are required to report noncompliance through the Provider Registration and International Students Management System. It is then the responsibility of the commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Students must have a confirmation of enrolment from an education provider before they can apply for a student visa. Beyond the application, an enrolment provider has no involvement in the approval for a student visa. Those are the answers to the questions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I suggested before, it would seem to make sense that we should report progress. I indicate that my expectation is that we should be able to conclude the committee stage relatively expeditiously tomorrow, when members have had a chance to have a look at some of those complicated responses. There is just one question I wanted to put to the minister's advisers, if we are going to report progress tonight, in terms of trying to provide a further answer for the committee stage tomorrow.

One of the questions asked by the member for Unley was in relation to the level of debt that TAFE SA will be carrying. In response to that, the minister's advisers have indicated that the annual cumulative deficit of the last five years is $8.4 million and that the expected deficit for this year is 2 per cent. I just ask the minister if, tomorrow when we reconvene, he can indicate what that 2 per cent is; that is, how many millions of dollars are we talking about?

I know the question the member for Unley is asking is that, if TAFE SA is to be separated as a separate body, what will be the state of it is books when it starts up? Is it going to start off with the accumulated deficits of $8.4 million plus 2 per cent of this year's budget deficit so that it starts off with a net debt of $10 million or $15 million or something like that on its books as a separate body or agency, or will that be, in essence, written off by Treasury or left with the parent body of DFEEST?

In essence, TAFE SA is going to be asked to run as a statutory operation with its board, set its fees and all those sorts of things. If it starts off with a clean financial sheet, that is one thing in terms of the level of fees it is going to set, etc. If it starts off with a big deficit and a debt on its books, then it is going to have to work to charge fees at a higher level, to pay that debt and deficit off over a period of time.

The answers that the minister has just read onto the record do not appear to answer that question. I think it would not just be me as a member: I suspect other members in this chamber would be interested to know, before we are asked to finally vote on this, exactly how it is to be set up in terms of its books. So, if I could ask the minister overnight and his advisers to bring back some answers to that tomorrow and put them on the record, I think that would assist.

The only other question I flag is the minister's reply to my question, which was my guess was that TAFE SA was going to be set up as what is called a PNFC—a public non-financial corporation—that is taken out of the general government sector; it is not a normal department. The minister's response was that that is ultimately a decision of the Australian Bureau of Statistics as to whether it is going to be a department or a PNFC. It then goes on to say that a classification submission has been made by Treasury to the ABS, seeking this determination.

I am sure that is technically correct, but my experience is that Treasury actually argues for one thing or the other. It does not just go off and say, 'Hey; you make the decision.' My suspicion is that Treasury will argue this should be a PNFC and these are the reasons why it should be, and the ABS will either say it agrees or it does not agree. So, what I am seeking is confirmation that Treasury, in making its submission, is actually arguing the case that it should be a PNFC taken out of the general government sector.

That then comes back to the question I asked earlier about what is the state of its books, if it is going to be. If it goes off into what is called the PNFC sector, it therefore does not impact on the net operating balance of the general government sector. I know that is all complicated. I put it on the record. The Treasury advisers and the minister's advisers will understand it and, if we can get an answer tomorrow, that should expedite the committee stages of the debate tomorrow.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We will answer most of those questions tomorrow. Two per cent is around about $5.5 million.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question regarding the implementation plan was not when it would be made public, but was calling for it to be made public and, in fact, tabled in this council. So, I clarify that was the question I asked, and we would welcome seeing the implementation plan before proceeding with debate.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Once it has been finally agreed to it will be made a public document and it will be tabled in parliament.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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