Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014. This bill seeks to abolish the Australian Workplace and Productivity Agency, commonly known as AWPA. In his speech on 4 June 2014, the minister took just two minutes to abolish AWPA—to disband our key national policy and research body on skills—while we have jobs being lost across the country.

The opposition will not be voting against the bill; however, we do feel it is important to move an amendment to recognise the importance of the work done by AWPA and the need to preserve this in the new arrangements. Therefore, I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House notes that the Government has failed to guarantee that the critical independent research to Government and industry in relation to Australia's current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs will continue to be carried out and made public.'

To put the government's decision to abolish AWPA into context, it is important to understand the history of AWPA. In government, Labor made a record investment of over $19 billion in skills and training for smarter jobs and a stronger nation. The Rudd Labor government established Skills Australia in 2008 as part of the Labor government's Skilling Australia for the Future policy.

Skills Australia was an independent statutory body set up to provide advice to the then Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research on Australia's current, emerging and future workforce needs and, in line with that, our workforce development needs. Skills Australia's advice covered a broad range of areas including migration, the resources sector, the defence industry, the tertiary education system and the effective use of skills in the workplace. The then Labor government sought to ensure that the government's investment in education and training was focused on providing a highly skilled workforce, increasing participation, increasing access to the workforce by less advantaged groups and producing a workforce that met the needs of industry and increased Australia's productivity.

In 2012, the Labor government expanded the role of Skills Australia and transformed that organisation into AWPA. AWPA was established to provide advice on a broad range of areas that affected the demand, supply and use of skills and was also responsible for providing strategic advice and recommendations for priorities for the Labor government's National Workforce Development Fund—which, I am very sad to say, was abolished in the most recent budget. AWPA liaised directly with industry to provide expert, independent advice to government on current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs. The AWPA team has been led by its chief executive, Mr Robin Shreeve, and chair, Mr Philip Bullock.

After so much important work, over several years, in the national service it was particularly poor form that the Minister for Industry did not even bother to announce that the government was abolishing AWPA. This was revealed while Mr Robin Shreeve was giving evidence at a Senate inquiry in Sydney on 11 April. A statement by the chair, Mr Bullock, dated 9 April 2014, was subsequently posted on the department's website. The minister also failed to take the opportunity to properly recognise and thank AWPA for the excellent work, good quality analysis and advice, and important strategic direction that it had provided over the past eight years.

Mr Bullock provided significant leadership. He has had more than 25 years of experience working with IBM and he has served on the board of the Australian Information Industry Association; the Business Council of Australia, also chairing their skills and innovation taskforce; the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission; and the advisory committee to the Australian Graduate School of Management. He also provided advice for the Labor government's Education Investment Fund and he serves on the Australia India Education Council. He was appointed as chair of the National VET Equity Advisory Council.

AWPA's Chief Executive Officer, Robin Shreeve, has worked in the skills sector for over 30 years, both here in Australia and in England. He has served as CEO of AWPA, Skills Australia, the North Coast Institute of TAFE and another tertiary institution in Westminster, Central London. He also worked for the Department of Education and Training in New South Wales, finishing there as Deputy Director for Technical, Further and Community Education. Between them, Robin and Philip have almost sixty years experience in industry and the vocational education and skills sector.

AWPA's board was formed by the following members, who should also be publicly thanked for their service: Peter Anderson, the then CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Andrew Dettmer, the National President of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; Dr John Edwards, a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute, an adjunct professor with the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy at Curtin University and a member of the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia; Ged Kearney, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and Innes Willox, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group. This team harnessed a wealth of experience across academia, education and training, economics, industry and the representation of workers, and drove a massive research and analysis agenda that saw a number of workforce studies in key sectors of the Australian economy completed.

I want to touch on some of these studies to give a sense of the significance of the work that was done by the organisation. The Building Australia's defence supply capabilities: main report for the defence industry workforce strategy was a strategy developed to assist Australia's defence industry to access the skilled workforce it needed to participate in Australian government defence procurement. The Energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings: jobs and skills implications report found that while there were going to be few new skills requirements in energy efficiencies for buildings, there was a need to update current skills and knowledge. The Food and beverage workforce study put forward recommendations to build an adaptive, skilled and innovative agrifood workforce. The ICT workforce study presented a number of workforce development strategies to increase supply of specialist ICT skills, improve skills development in the ICT workforce and promote the effective utilisation of ICT skills. Most recently, the Manufacturing workforce studyvery pertinent to the challenges facing many of our regions today—put forward recommendations to build an adaptive, skilled and innovative manufacturing workforce that would be well-placed to manage the transition to more advanced and diverse manufacturing.

In preparing the Resources sector skills needs report, AWPA commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to develop a comprehensive five-year outlook model to estimate trends in employment growth and occupational supply for the resources sector against three economic growth scenarios to develop a series of recommendations to ensure the sector's workforce is ready and able to meet future demand. A final example that demonstrates the widely encompassing nature of their work is the Retail workforce study, which found industry must shift its recruitment profile towards a larger share of recruits who see retail as a career, and that a more highly skilled workforce together with strong industry leadership, was critical to a successful transition for this industry. AWPA has also produced important labour market information including the development of the Specialised Occupations List, the Skilled Occupations List and the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List.

Skills and workforce productivity has been a major focus for AWPA's research. One of AWPA's key projects was the development of the 2016 National Workforce Development Strategy. I remain keen to hear from the minister as to whether the department is going to continue work on this strategy, which is a follow on from the 2013 National Workforce Development Strategy.

Future focus 2013 looked at positioning Australia as a knowledge economy through investing in skills development, targeting planning, lifting productivity, raising labour force participation, improving language, literacy and numeracy, and ensuring quality in the tertiary sector. AWPA also commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to develop high-level economic modelling of skills demand and supply as part of its scenario approach to future workforce development. AWPA also developed and updated key industry snapshots which provided information and analysis on key industries and assisted stakeholders in planning for the future of their industry or sector.

The National Workforce Development Fund was a partnership between industry and government to help industry address current and future workforce development needs. The fund was facilitated through the Industry Skills Councils network and AWPA provided advice on prioritisation, applications of significance and performance of the fund in meeting skills needs. In 2012, AWPA commissioned the National Institute of Labour Studies to conduct research to identify the under and oversupply of qualifications. The project also aimed to develop a methodology and tool for forming an assessment of current and emerging skills needs in Australia in the case of priority occupations or policy relevance.

AWPA has long advocated for demand-driven funding across the tertiary education sector. In Skills for prosperity, AWPA also recommended governments ensure a level playing field between VET and higher education providers so that there were no perverse incentives for students to choose courses or institutions on the basis of fee structures rather than career choice, interests and aptitudes. AWPA also reported on quality assurance in Foundations for the future.

While the time frame for submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill was severely limited, many of the submissions have acknowledged the work that AWPA did. I would like to put those on the record. The submission to the Senate inquiry by Professor Gavin Moodie of RMIT and Dr Leesa Wheelahan of the University of Toronto said:

The Agency has been a great source of new ideas stimulating fresh thinking and innovation amongst employers, institutions, sectors and representative groups. Government departments usually don't have the freedom to promote new ideas nor the discretion to advance them provocatively.

The Agency's research on the demand and supply of skills in a transforming economy has been well received and been particularly influential. It is precisely this work which will be needed as Australia's economy further restructures.

The submission by Innovation and Business Skills Australia to the same inquiry said:

IBSA has worked closely with AWPA and has greatly appreciated the initiatives to improve productivity, management, innovation and skills utilisation in Australian workplaces. It is important also to acknowledge the high level of industry expertise on the AWPA board which has made it an authority on the workforce development and skills needed to respond to industry needs. Their experience has greatly contributed to forward thinking beyond the bureaucratic frameworks.

And the submission from the Australian Council of Trade Unions stated:

AWPA, and its predecessor Skills Australia, have been an invaluable source of independent tripartite advice, research and advocacy in relation to the national skills agenda.

At a time when there are considerable skills challenges ahead, a decision to abolish the independent national skills agency is a retrograde step.

In this submission, we also express our disappointment in the way the whole process has been handled by the Government, even putting aside the merits of the decision.

The ACTU wishes to place on record its appreciation of the work done by the Board and staff of the Australian Workplace and Productivity Agency, and its predecessor, Skills Australia.

And, finally, the submission by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training said:

I would like to note my support for the unfunded and additional work taken on by the Chair of AWPA, Mr Philip Bullock, to lead the engagement for Australia with the Indian VET sector. Mr Bullock did an excellent job and leaves an important legacy for the sector beyond the work that AWPA was charged to do.

There were a variety of views about the decision to abolish AWPA amongst the submitters, but there was a consistent view that the work that had been done was important and deserved recognition; and it deserved to be on the public record. Key industry stakeholders have also been critical of the government's decision and grateful for the work and expertise that AWPA has provided in the past. Thus, the amendment I am proposing to this motion recognises the critical, strategic significance of the work performed by AWPA and seeks to ensure that the rigour and independence of this work is not lost when the tasks are taken into the department. For that reason I commend the amendment to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the amendment?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I second the amendment.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we consider the repeal of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, it is important that we appreciate the very good work done by staff since the establishment of Skills Australia, but I must say the reluctance of the opposition to defend elements of this agency are somewhat concerning. No doubt there was good intent within this agency—they produced some very important reports—but, with an increasing Public Service, can the nation afford to support yet another statutory authority operating independently of the department that was initially commissioned to simply do a job? The test should be: how often did the former government—and the member for Cunningham was part of that government—respond to the reports that were prepared by AWPA? The answer is: never! That is right—a big zero. This was a government quite prepared to set up statutory authorities, very willing to dream up acronyms, quite happy to see expansions of publicly funded high-rise buildings, water bubblers and the like, but, ultimately, it did not even formally respond to the very good reports prepared by AWPA. Rather than reading out names in a valedictory speech today by the opposition and commending union mates for a job well done, that should be the measure of affection Did they actually pick up the reports and did they read them? Did they respond to them?

AWPA did some important work, but, as I will argue today, that work has always been the job of our fine Department of Industry. It is a large and capable department which was actually commissioned to do such a job. We had a Labor administration that—whenever there was a speed bump somewhere or a napkin to be written on—would dream up a new agency. And that seemed to be done every week for the first couple of years of the Labor administration. Let it be recorded that we admired the good work of the staff at AWPA and we were impressed with the quality of their reports. But, in the end, you need to ask: are there other agencies out there prepared to write similar reports? Industry bodies should be writing these kinds of reports and university post-graduate facilities are perfectly placed to be informing these kinds of analyses.

Alas, what we had instead was a shuffle between 2009 and 2012 under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to create new agencies. Why? It was to have a press conference, wasn't it? They would write a press release and, of course, everyone scurried around trying to work out the implications. Luckily for the former prime minister there were good people who picked up the press release and said, 'What will we do with it? Given these resources how can we best spend them for the nation's future?' For that reason, I really commend those at AWPA, but I do note that that original $2.6 million investment into Skills Australia soon ballooned out—it trebled. The commissioning was no greater, but by 2011 we had 53 staff and a trebling of the budget. I appreciate that gave opportunities to certain people to travel around the country doing PowerPoint presentations on industry requirements—and I know plenty of people turned up to listen—but, ultimately, we need to ask whether public funds are best used by simply expanding the Public Service and creating new bureaucracies? When I sense the lack of passion from the member for Cunningham, it is fairly clear that even the Labor Party is admitting that they probably went a step too far. They had almost run out of acronyms in creating so many authorities, but that is not for one moment to understate the great work done by individuals initially in Skills Australia and then at AWPA.

Clearly, the new government is going to streamline operations. Clearly, the new government is going to say: 'You're a department of industry. This is exactly what you are commissioned to do.' It is a new government that is going to say: 'If we need advice about industry, we are going to talk to industry.' What a revolutionary concept that would be!

Ultimately, they have said, 'We can merge back the activities of AWPA and ask the secretary'—that is right. What a revolutionary notion to actually commit the secretary of the department to provide the direct advice that is coming from their own department.

The new government will be supporting the Industry Skills Fund. That is common sense, isn't' it? The industry that is doing the training can seek public funds to perform private training for public benefit and get a co-contribution—that is right! What a novel concept that is for the Labor Party—a co-contribution: for every public dollar, the private sector puts in a dollar and says, 'This is training well worth doing.' The Industry Skills Fund will operate on merit. I am looking forward to businesses from all over the country picking up on the opportunity to train young Australians—which brings me to the skill shortage list.

AWPA did such a wonderful job maintaining this list over the years. It was commissioned with the task of looking after labour market issues, analysing education and training outputs and migration and general economic conditions. That is no simple task; I will concede that. Coming up with the SOL, or the Skilled Occupations List, was a very important job. In this contribution, I want to make a point about what the SOL truly is. The SOL is our failure list. It is the list of areas for which this nation never managed to provide adequate skilled labour and so look after the needs of this great country. Let us never forget that the SOL, where we basically find skilled independent migrants to do the work that we cannot train our own people to do, is fundamentally a policy failure. It is a failure we must continue to address and not to give up on by just making a bigger, longer list. The SOL was a very important job performed by AWPA. As I said, it was complex. It involved analysing a large number of sectors—labour market, education, training, the outputs from universities and employment needs. Those things change very rapidly. The ability of the department of immigration to meet those needs in a delicatessen-style 'take your number and wait' operation can mean real pain and genuine economic loss for business from those delays. So the Skilled Occupations List plays a very important role. It is also important to mention that the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List, the CSOL, pertains to other migration categories and was not something that AWPA looked after.

What you will see with this bill, which I think even begrudgingly the opposition supports—as long as they can make the appropriate 'thankyous' and valedictories; and despite the proposed amendment, which I am yet to see—is that we now have a system where a government can turn to industry and ask them, 'What are the problems, and how do we fix them in a team based arrangement?' We do not need a raft of publicly funded individuals to do the job that the department should be doing.

It is the reports of AWPA which I am most impressed with. From their original incarnation as Skilled Australia they have produced reports: three reports in 2008, six reports in 2009, four in 2010 and, in 2011, they hit their straps with 11 reports—none of them were responded to by government. What was the minister doing? Were they too busy reading other stuff that was not prepared by an expert statutory body? There was no response to the 10 reports written in 2012 that sat on the minister's desk and collected dust. I respect the Left for their love of a large bureaucracy. I can understand it. From where they come from, they think that is how the world should work. But, for goodness sake, if you are going to devote millions of public dollars to funding a statutory authority, just respond to the report, just thumb through it, just read it—but there is no evidence that that ever happened. So, once you get this bureaucratic loss of control, these reports just cause the minister's eyes to glaze over; the minister does not even respond to them.

Former minister Cunningham is now talking about what a wonderful report was done last year. I simply ask her: 'So wonderful that your government did not respond to that report? It didn't bother to word-process just a couple of paragraphs about how that report actually informed decision making? No. What you saw in the Labor period was them utterly losing control of their own public administration. They were chasing up prime ministerial press releases and doing the best that they could with authorities who barely knew what their commission was. I have criticised many authorities in this place but I want to say that AWPA, through that period, managed to produce quality reports—and it is that that should be remembered in this contribution today.

Labor may attempt to amend this bill, but hidden behind it was that their idea of outsourcing ultimately became a public service that could have been done by others. The crowding out of the industry groups, universities and other technical bodies and the ability to specifically commission reports, which remains a job that government can do, was one that they forfeited and simply handed over to this body. For that reason, I strongly support the repeal of the bill. I am confident that the Department of Industry can pick up a significant number of those staff and virtually all of the activities which AWPA was engaged in. I commend the work that that body did while it was commissioned.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Act 2008 and, hence, abolish the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. AWPA was established in 2012 by the former Labor government, the Rudd and Gillard government, replacing Skills Australia. It provided expert independent advice to government on the country's currently emerging and future skills and workforce development needs. Obviously, when organising a large economy such as this, it is important to focus on things such as productivity. For those introductory economic students out there, productivity is basically where we work out how the engine of the economy is running—not the size of the engine but how it is running, whether it is doing things efficiently. It is not a case of how many jobs there are, because that is not necessarily a guide as to how the engine is running. Just because people are digging holes does not mean that it is a good thing, because someone could come along with a post-hole digger and do things much more efficiently. Productivity is something that I think the Howard government dropped the ball on. When we came to power in 2007, for that quarter under the Labor government productivity was actually at zero. The heavily lifting had been done by the Hawke and Keating governments—that was particularly heavy lifting. They were challenging times for Labor supporters and for the labour force and labour market—but we did it. Now we have some particular challenges.

A highly skilled workforce is something that Labor fundamentally believes in and in the benefits it brings for all of our community. A highly skilled workforce ensures that our businesses are resilient, innovative and competitive, especially when it comes to a global economy. Individuals achieving recognised and useful qualifications is one of the most effective ways to secure a job and then to earn a decent income. Obviously, we are seeing changes and the idea of having one job for life is fast disappearing. A job that you will be able to continue to evolve in is important, and training will provide that. When I grew up, my very first piece of paid employment, where I received a $1 note, was in a shearing shed. Nowadays, I go to my hometown and I do not think there is a single shearing squad in St George anymore, whereas when I was there there were six or seven teams of shearers. I cannot remember the exact numbers, but the ratio of personal trainers to shearers in Australia is about 20 to one. It is just how things have changed in the 40-odd years since I received my first pay for working as a rouseabout in a shearing shed. I think I was about six or seven at the time. Things change.

Australia needs to build a more highly skilled workforce that will help Australian workers get ahead. Obviously, this helps advance our community and economy and the social fabric that makes this such a wonderful country. We have seen over the years, although you have to go back a while, what happens when unemployment creeps into society. One of my proudest achievements is to be part of that Labor government that protected jobs during the global financial crisis. You look around the globe and see the horrors still being inflicted on communities because of the unemployment that was associated with the global financial crisis.

I think the government is actually at an interesting tipping point with its philosophy around what sort of social fabric it supports. This budget seems to be taking Australia down that low-wage, Walmart plan where people, when they are in paid employment, almost still need to beg to survive. That undermining of the minimum wage—that extreme right-wing Tea Party policy—seems to have gripped a couple of people in the government. I know there are still some sensible people over there, who might be able to speak up and do what they know is the best thing for Australian society. From 26 January 1788, we have always supported the idea of people having a fair go. In court case after court case, with central fixing of wages or enterprise bargaining, we have always believed that Australia looks after the bottom two quartiles of society and says, 'You're as good as me, Jack.'

The role of government is to help Australian businesses adapt and innovate in this new economy. It needs to increase Australia's productivity and respond to a shrinking workforce. Obviously, we guide and assist—there is still a market mechanism, but the role of government in this situation is to guide and assist, and the purpose of AWPA is to accommodate such tasks. However, with this bill the government basically seeks to abolish AWPA's effective operations. There is an urgent need for training reforms to open the doors of training and skills development to those Australians without minimum qualifications, particularly in a society that has announced, out of the blue, that blue-collar workers will work until they are 70 years old—the oldest working people in the world. It might be okay if you are a lawyer or a politician, but try being a 70-year-old cleaner, having to get down every day and clean, as I heard about at the front of Parliament House yesterday from the cleaners. Try being a 70-year-old post-hole digger, where you rely on the muscles in your back. An increase in the retirement age to 70 makes a significant difference. It would take us to having the oldest workers in the world. That is a bizarre thing that should have been stated before the election, rather than just being introduced out of the blue afterwards. It is bizarre. I do not see a lot of support in my community coming from people, in labouring jobs particularly, who will have to keep working. But that is not what this legislation before us is about.

We also need to reduce the up-front costs facing Australians who want to participate in higher level training. We need to ensure that Australian industry has the skilled workforce it needs to adapt and innovate in a rapidly changing economy, by lifting the overall quality and performance of our national training system. All Australian governments recognise that the training system is under pressure to be more responsive to the needs of business and students. The former Labor government achieved substantial results in building a highly skilled workforce. We increased annual investment in vocational education by 35 per cent in real terms, adjusted for inflation, between 2007 and 2010, while, sadly, the annual overall state and territory commitment increased by only five per cent—and I am damning Labor and Liberal states with those figures. Sadly, in my home state of Queensland, we have TAFEs being closed down now and more are on the book. I heard a suggestion from Minister Langbroek that up to one in three TAFE campuses could be closed in Queensland. Contrast that with the Commonwealth Labor government's investment in these skills.

Labor also substantially increased investment in higher education, trade skills, and language, literacy and numeracy programs, demonstrating the Commonwealth's commitment to providing skills for all Australians. If we are to meet the current and future needs of our economy, responsibility for meeting the growing training needs of Australian businesses and workers must be more evenly shared between all governments, as well as business and individuals. We cannot just let the market rip in this area.

Already, entry-level positions in growing sectors such as aged care—as those baby boomers move into more challenging times—child care, transport and logistics increasingly require higher minimum qualifications such as a certificate III. On average, wages for people without a certificate III qualification are around at least $180 per week lower than for those with a certificate III or above qualification.

The AWPA was introduced so Australians could receive effective resources to achieve the following: the first ever guarantee for all Australians from post-school to the age pension age to have access to a government subsidised training place for a first certificate III qualification so that more Australians can participate in building a modern, advanced economy. Students can access the entitlement through any training provider approved by the relevant state or territory to deliver publicly subsidised training. That is the filtering of some of those skills that have perhaps been a little dubious over the years. Students are able to access foundation skills training necessary to complete the certificate III qualifications—such as language, literacy and numeracy, depending on the student. While students' fees charged for study may be different in different jurisdictions, all states and territories have been provided with appropriate concessions so that disadvantaged students do not face additional financial barriers to study. Students who are clients of Job Services Australia and Disability Employment Services now pay the same fees as other students and will benefit from any relevant concessions applicable to them. Students must meet the relevant entry criteria for the course and must not already have a qualification at certificate III or higher—we cannot just have frequent flyers going through this study process. Access to a particular course will be subject to the availability of training places in the relevant location. One of the key reforms that Labor implemented through the Skills Australia Bill was increased transparency of the VET sector. It was introduced to provide clearer and more accessible information about vocational education and training to employers, students and governments.

The AWPA is vital for Queenslanders now more than ever. Sadly, the latest labour force data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that Queensland lost 11,700 jobs in a month, bringing unemployment up to 6.1 per cent. My home state has been suffering under the Newman government's economic mismanagement. They continuously give us excuses and no solutions and, after more than two years, are still blaming the former Labor government. These unemployment figures suggest that real people and families are doing it tough in my electorate under the Newman government's growing list of broken promises. Just last month, we saw a 13 per cent hike in electricity bills, increased water prices and all the other associated cost-of-living increases—including rates in the City of Brisbane. Premier Campbell Newman promised a four per cent job target to be achieved over six years. Here we are in our third year and they are nowhere near target. They seem to be 100 per cent on target to give jobs to their mates, but horribly falling short when it comes to finding jobs for the majority of Queenslanders.

My electorate contains Brisbane's southern outer suburbs and, since the LNP was elected in 2012, my community has sadly suffered from rising unemployment figures. Suburbs like Acacia Ridge, Rocklea, Archerfield and Coopers Plains have concerning unemployment figures of around 15 per cent compared to an electorate average in Moreton of 6.6 per cent. The people in these outer suburbs are in need of training opportunities so that they can re-enter the workforce. Repealing this bill that is before the chamber is a step in the wrong direction.

On top of this, people in these suburbs are some of the hardest hit by the federal government's latest budget. The current government lied about Medicare, pensions and no new taxes. Now those in my electorate have been hit with a $7 tax when going to the doctor. This $7 is made up of $2 of red tape and $5 for the never-never. It is a bizarre imposition on the sick. Also, they are going to be hit with an increased cost every time they fill up their car—extra money every time they fill their car, a tax that will go up and up. The member for Warringah said he would help families with the real cost of raising children, but, sadly, he has cut $7.5 billion in family payments. These cuts will leave some families in my electorate around $6,000 a year worse off. Disgraceful!

Queenslanders depend on legislation such as the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Bill. The decision to axe the agency is short-sighted, myopic. It is depriving Australians of their key independent skills advisory body. It eliminates any questioning of policy and research and what Australia needs for the future. Instead, like the Tea Party, we will rely on the market.

The facts clearly identify AWPA's effective suggestions for changes in policy, linking tertiary education to the needs of the labour market. Expertise and knowledge will disappear from the sector with decisions being left to those in Canberra who get kicked around, people who have little experience with the effect of vocational education particularly down on the coalface. The AWPA provides advice to the Australian government on current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs and opportunities. The repeal of AWPA will deprive the sector of an important independent forum where employers, unions and industry could freely discuss the big issues, oncoming issues and the over-the-horizon issues. I urge this government to reconsider their approach to the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill as the decision would be very short-sighted and damaging to the effective progress made by former governments.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the legislation before the House, the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill. AWPA is an independent statutory body at present, which has the main function of providing advice to the Minister for Industry in relation to skills and training issues in particular as they pertain to the VET sector and related issues. This bill abolishes the AWPA and transfers those functions to the Department of Industry itself. It is important to note that there is no suggestion of anything other than professionalism on the part of the staff of AWPA—and no doubt their efforts have been sincere—but this is a very clear example of the difference between the previous government and this government when it comes to the administration of a government policy.

This government says that when we can do something more efficiently, we should do so. We should not create committees unless they are absolutely necessary. We should not create new statutory bodies unless they are absolutely necessary. We should make sure that existing government resources do as much work as possible because that is what they are there for. Therefore, rather than effectively outsourcing this function to an independent statutory authority with all of the governance and associated costs that goes with that—a board, a separate secretariat and all of the administrative issues that are related to an independent authority—we should bring that back within the department where of course there are very substantial resources and expertise in this space.

It is important to note that the previous government, for all of its support or supposed support for AWPA, never formally responded to any report that that statutory body put forward. Again, if it is so important that this independent statutory body exists you would think that we would see clear evidence of the previous government responding to its reports—but that evidence does not exist.

Streamlining government management is a core value of this government, and it is in huge contrast to the previous government because the previous government never saw a committee they did not like. They never saw an acronym they did not like. They never saw a problem that they did not think could be solved if only they created a greater bureaucracy to address it. We on this side of the House know that bureaucracy must be minimised and that taxpayers' money should be spent in a wise and cautious fashion. The creation of new administrative bodies, new committees and new public sector bodies is generally not the right path to go down. We saw their general philosophy embodied under the previous government with a 50 per cent increase in government spending over six years—a huge increase in government spending. That is what happens when you have the philosophy of throwing more money at a problem, creating more government expense and creating more bureaucracy. For those opposite there is no problem that cannot be solved by just creating some more bureaucracy.

That is the wrong approach. Whilst those on the other side kicked off 'spendathon 2007' seven years ago and merrily went on their way over the next six years, we on this side of the House have a very different approach, and that is to be thoughtful, cautious and judicious in the use of taxpayer funds. We did not see that from the other side. Whilst there is obviously a school of thought that says the philosophy on the other side is just to say no and stand in the way—and there is clearly great credibility in that position—there is another philosophy on the other side of the House. That philosophy is very simple: it is to simply spend more money. That is their philosophy. There is no problem, it would seem, according to those opposite, that cannot be solved simply through the spending of more money.

We on this side of the House have a very different view, which is to spend government money in a very, very cautious fashion. We did not see that caution in the period from 2007 to 2013. Instead, we saw some very troubling examples of government mismanagement. We saw credit card spending by public servants increase by 100 per cent in four years. That is a lot. That is a growth rate of 25 per cent per year. That is a real concern. We also saw $600,000 spent on a study on 'an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economics'. Even the member for Fraser, I suspect, would not find that to be particularly interesting or a good use of government money. So there was a lack of respect for taxpayer funds generally and a bureaucracy centric approach.

This was nowhere more evident than in the grotesque misuse of public funds that was the NBN under Labor. It was an appalling example of how not to manage a government program. When they write the textbook on the early part of the 21st century Australian government experience and they show the good examples of government expenditure and the bad ones, the NBN will absolutely be at the top of the list of bad ones. There was $6.5 billion spent for three per cent of the population to get broadband, and there was no relationship between that three per cent of the population and their need for broadband. There was no correlation between the need for broadband and the rollout of the plan. The reason there was no correlation is that nobody ever asked the relevant question. The previous government never actually asked the question, 'Where do we need this broadband the most?' It seems like a very logical question but it was never asked. In fact, it was not properly addressed until earlier this year by the current government. That is a really dreadful example of a lack of respect for taxpayer funds.

We know the other examples—the misuse of funds in the Building the Education Revolution program, the Pink Batts program and so many more. We also saw this lack of respect for taxpayer funds as it pertained to border security. The previous government pursued a policy which was very unfavourable in terms of humanitarian results. It was in no-one's interests, least of all the people who come on boats, given the consequences of that on occasion. There was a horrendous financial blow-out of $11 billion. Again on the point of management and respect for government funds, it is very important to note that, because the flow of boats has stopped completely in the last six months, the government has been able to move to close a significant number of detention centres, saving about $2.5 billion. That is in very clear contrast to the previous government.

The abolition of AWPA is demonstrative of taking a sensible and streamlined approach to government expenditure. It is important to note that one of the important functions in this space is to make the VET sector function efficiently. The member for Moreton, in his wide-ranging remarks before, said that one of the successes of the previous government was clearer and more accessible information about the VET sector. Having spent a little bit of time looking at that sector in some detail, prior to coming to this parliament, I can tell you that it is an extremely complex area, where government involvement is high and there are many sometimes conflicting rules between different systems. There is a huge degree of complexity for operators in that sector. That is why it is so important that VET reform is so high on the government's agenda.

Those opposite would say, I presume, that VET reform cannot be done successfully in the absence of AWPA. We would say that that is certainly not the case. A well-managed and disciplined Department of Industry, in consultation with the states, through COAG, should in fact be able to address the very significant issues in the VET space.

As you no doubt are aware, there are many different standards applying in the VET sector. There are different funding models. Some funding models pertain to individual students and some run across the whole sector in block-funding type arrangements. There is massive exposure to changing government policy, with many providers literally becoming unviable when government policy changes. That is not a good situation. We do not want the VET sector to be as complex as it is. It is certainly heartening to know that the minister recently met with his COAG colleagues and established the Industry and Skills Council, in Brisbane, to really constructively look at the various problems across the sector.

It is certainly not a reflection on any of the individuals involved in AWPA that the government is moving to abolish this body. It is much more a reflection of the fact that we have got to get serious about streamlining government in this country. It is very easy to say that to solve a problem we need another committee, another working party or another council of some kind, and we need all the attendant bureaucracy that comes with it. It is very conceptually appealing to do that, because people think that it sounds like someone is addressing the problem. But as you know the more you build up the bureaucracy, the more you create these institutions, the greater the burden you place on the taxpayer and the greater the complexity that often arises. So a smart, focused Department of Industry addressing these issues, with the minister and his state colleagues, is certainly the way to go. I commend the bill to the House.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak on the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014 and the amendment moved by my fantastic colleague the member for Cunningham. It is disappointing to see that this bill abolishes a key national policy and research body on skills and workforce development, and seeks to fold its duties into the Department of Industry. We want to see the sort of advice and analysis provided by this body continue, and that is what our amendment is all about.

By abolishing this stand-alone body, the government is once again proving its inability to anticipate the jobs and the workforce of the future with foresight and intelligence. I have spoken in this place before about the challenges that lie ahead of us in developing a workforce ready for the industries of tomorrow—challenges like rapid technological advance, the globalisation of the workforce, and the rise of intergenerational disadvantage, which are the sorts of things we need to be thinking about now when it comes to our approach to human capital in the workforce.

These challenges are having real effects on the face of the Australian jobs market. The job numbers have bounced around a bit and there have been some patchy outcomes. For a good discussion of the labour market I commend to the House the speech yesterday by Chris Kent of the Reserve Bank. We get some very good, clear-eyed analysis out of our central bank, and I encourage people to check it out.

Members will recall that over the first several months after the election of this government, the prevailing theme was announcement after announcement of job losses. Across thirty of Australia's largest employers, over 28,000 job losses were announced: 5,000 at Qantas, more than 6,000 in automotive manufacturing, and many more at manufacturers around the nation. The sad reality is that a great deal of the jobs lost or announced to be lost are likely gone forever, at least in their most recent form. And while aggregate job creation figures have been stronger over the last couple of months, many of the job losses that have been announced are yet to take effect, and they are concentrated in the outer suburbs of our major cities, places already shouldering most of the burden of this government's budget decisions. The result is a labour market characterised by volatility and uncertainty, even if the headline rate does not reflect this.

For thousands of Australians there is not only the uncertainty of whether their job will be secure into the future but there is also the uncertainty of whether they have the skills required to move into a new job. For young people contemplating their future careers, there is uncertainty about whether the types of jobs their parents and grandparents went into will even exist in Australia in the years ahead. So there are real challenges associated with the rapidly changing labour market in Australia.

But there are even greater opportunities for us, and it is our role as policymakers and decision makers to identify these opportunities and to equip people with the requisite skills to take advantage of them. Since 2012, this has been the function of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, and prior to that it was the task set for Skills Australia.

The great advantage of the AWPA is that it was an independent advice body for the government on current, emerging and future skill needs. It brought together peak national bodies such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the ACTU, to achieve genuine cross-sectoral industry leadership.

Over the last twelve months, the AWPA has conducted studies into the state of manufacturing, retail, resources, food and beverages, and the ICT workforce in Australia—all sectors that are key to the future of our country and our economy. Their reports have included recommendations for government, for industry and for the education sector to improve Australia's skills and productivity base in these sectors. And with the labour market in Australia in a state of volatility, uncertainty and transition, these recommendations have never been more important. This is particularly true for the higher and vocational education sectors, which are charged with preparing our young people for the jobs of the future. That is why some key figures in the higher education sector have come out in opposition to scrapping the AWPA. Leesa Wheelahan, associate professor at the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management at the University of Melbourne, said:

There is now no source of independent advice—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.