Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley.Andrew Bayly: Oh good.MARJA LUBECK: I know my third time—third time lucky they say so I'll give it another crack. There are several sections and clauses in Part 2 that are worth mentioning that haven't been spoken about yet but I would like to get something off my chest that we've been talking about quite a lot which is the deletion of clauses 12 and 13 which go to the heart of the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put in by the other side of the House.Ideology is not a dirty word. When the Hon Nikki Kaye left she was getting very passionate about our ideology and our ideology about people first—people before profit—is nothing to be ashamed about. Now what the equal treatment principle would have done as pointed out very eloquently by the Minister is it would have given the same funding to private and public entities—as the other side likes to call it one rule for all—where at the same time the other rules are not equally applying. You can't have the same funding for private and public entities but not the same rules. You can't have the same funding and public entities being accountable to the Government while private entities are not. So don't call it equal treatment because it is as far away as you can get from it.What this equity of funding treatment would have done is it would have allowed private entities to go into unfair competition with our public entities and that ultimately will start eroding the quality of our public entities which are already stressed by having to compete with private providers. Yes this has gone to the select committee as has been pointed out by the Minister. More than 2000 submissions from individuals and groups were heard and seen and perused by the select committee. None of them supported the change from private to independent. The majority of the 2000-plus submitters did not support providing the same funding for private and public entities. There's a Council of Trade Unions submission on behalf of 320000 members that stated it quite succinctly when it said that they oppose public funding being used to subsidise for-profit private training establishments competing with public TEIs—oh so many acronyms: TEI not to be confused with the PTE but the TEP includes all TEIs plus PTEs but a TEO includes a TEI a PTE and an ITO. So you wonder why I got confused.Anyway where was I? Right there are other provisions I want to talk about in Part 2. What Part 2 also does is it improves significantly the efficiency and effectiveness of the tertiary education institutions' councils—I've got that acronym now. There's a couple of things—clause 26 to start with. So councils are now no longer required to fill a casual vacancy on the council if that arises more than three months before expiry. So it really is insufficient time to go through a proper process to replace an incumbent to get that person up to speed and appoint a successor. So what clause 26 does is extends that three months to six months and that will be giving a good breather to those councils.I have been on councils like that myself and when people leave halfway through the term and you've only got a few months to go you're spending quite a lot of time and effort on trying to replace the person on that council. Sometimes you're even starting that process of getting them up to speed on all the knowledge making them a small to medium sized enterprise and before you know it there's another election and it's basically all wasted. So that's a really practical wonderful addition to Part 2.Clause 27 modernises the operation of the tertiary education institutions' councils. At the moment a council has to convene a meeting of council members in person. There's actually no provision where you can conduct a meeting in any way other than face to face. So the legislation in effect restricts the ability to use any modern means such as electronics or digital media to have those meetings. So clause 27 amends section 178.