Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I do have some real concerns about the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014 and I would like to hear from the government as to how they propose to deal with some of the issues in respect of the bill in the context of the government's response. I do have concerns about it. I think that it is important that if this bill is passed we maintain a watching brief on how the Department of Industry anticipates and plans for Australia's workforce needs following the closure of the Australian Workforce Productivity Agency. I acknowledge the intention of the bill is to streamline the government's advice-giving process and to provide stronger links between the skills and industry sectors, however, planning for Australia's future workforce needs is undoubtedly a complex task. There is a very real danger that by removing the Australian Workforce Productivity Agency Board we will lose the independent voice it has provided. For this reason, I will be supporting Senator Kim Carr's second reading amendment to this bill. Independence in the advice provided and transparency in the findings of research conducted by the Department of Industry must be upheld in order for there to be public confidence in the government's ability to properly manage Australia's workforce needs.

Functions that this agency performs are absolutely critical, Mr Deputy President Gallacher. We both come from the great state of South Australia where the manufacturing industry has taken body blow after body blow, the most recent and most significant being the decision of General Motors in Detroit to cease regional automotive manufacturing with the Holden brand by the end of 2017. That is significant for the thousands of workers at the Holden plant, but it is also most significant in respect of the 12,000 jobs, direct jobs, that are employed in South Australia in the new automotive components sector, plus even more in Victoria. There is something like 33,000 jobs in the automotive components sector, mostly in Victoria and in my home state of South Australia. The sort of work that this agency has been doing is going to be more important than ever if we are indeed the clever country in terms of dealing with these huge challenges with respect to manufacturing and advanced manufacturing.

I do commend the Weatherill government. There are many things that I will not commend them for, but in respect of their role in advanced manufacturing the work Professor Goran Roos has undertaken has been unambiguously good work on the part of the government. It has been praised to me privately and publicly by many in industry who believe that the government of South Australia has been very active in relation to these issues.

We have had a massive decline in our manufacturing sector particularly our automotive sector. The government must ensure that training and upskilling opportunities are available to the thousands of workers who will lose their jobs in the coming years. This is a real challenge in Australia right now and one that will have lasting economic and social consequences and, dare I say, devastating social consequences if we do not get it right.

That is why I am so passionate about maintaining, albeit in a slightly amended form, the Automotive Transformation Scheme. This government has gutted that scheme on the pretext that there will not be an original automotive manufacturing sector in terms of car manufacturing in this country after 2017. On the contrary, it is more important than ever that we allow that huge components sector—33,000 direct employees and something like 140 companies, many of them from about 50 to 500 or 600 employees, small- and medium-sized enterprises—to be able to transition, to transform themselves into other sectors of the economy. One of them I spoke to, for instance, is looking at producing solar mirrors for renewable energy and that is a terrific transformation that we need in that sector. So I think that the government has made a fundamentally big mistake in terms of slashing and burning the Automotive Transformation Scheme. We need to alter that scheme to allow for what has occurred with the impending departure Holden, Toyota and Ford as original manufacturers but we actually need to work very hard on this.

A critical function of the Australian Workforce Productivity Agency has been the administration of the Skilled Occupations List, the list which identifies certain occupations which skilled migrants can fill in order to meet Australia's medium- and long-term skill needs. I think that the agency has done a lot of good work, but I have to say that the agency has not done the greatest of jobs when it comes to some of the occupations included on the Skilled Occupations List.

Some of the occupations put on that list beggar belief. I may stand corrected, but I understand from the Senate estimates process that on the Skilled Occupations List was flight attendants, a very good and worthy occupation but for the life of me I do not understand why you would want to put flight attendants on a Skilled Occupations List for 457 visas, for instance, because whenever Qantas or Virgin or Tiger or Jetstar advertise for flight attendants they are flooded with applications from many keen and eager generally younger people who want a chance to be able to work in the aviation sector as flight attendants. So I have some serious concerns about the way that the Skilled Occupations List has been developed and administered by the agency in the past.

For example, five separate teaching jobs appear on the Skilled Occupations List including early childhood teachers and secondary schoolteachers. Any teaching graduate could tell you how difficult it is to obtain a teaching position in Australia particularly in the cities and other metropolitan areas. To represent to skilled migrants that teachers are in demand here is misleading and, in fact, cruel both to those who plan to come in from overseas or those who have graduated from an Australian university. I am personally aware of teachers who packed up their lives and moved here from overseas to further their careers on the understanding that Australia is in desperate need of teachers as this occupation appears on the SOL. Upon arriving here, however, they face the same challenges as local teachers—too many candidates and too few positions. This is a disservice to local and overseas teachers alike, when the Department of Industry takes that responsibility for developing the Skilled Occupations List, if that is what occurs as is being proposed in this bill. It must ensure that it is not inadvertently increasing competition in the local job market to the detriment of local workers—and the flight attendants example I gave you was a classic example. There is something quite absurd about that—that you would want to bring in flight attendants on 457 visas when there is such a great supply particularly amongst eager, keen young people who want to become flight attendants.

As was the case of teachers, questions remain as to how the flight attendant occupation appeared on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List in the first place. The former Department of Immigration and Citizenship was responsible for compiling the principles and methodology of the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List which was amended in 2012 to include flight attendants. During supplementary budget estimates in 2012, I asked and it was revealed that the immigration department did not seek advice from the then Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations about the labour market status of these occupations. It remains unclear what advice the immigration department relied on when flight attendants were added to the list. Clearly, there was a breakdown in communication—at least, I like to think it was some benign reason rather than anything malevolent—between government departments in this case. The department of infrastructure should be mindful of this if it is going to have responsibility for the Skilled Occupations List as proposed in this bill.

There are also concerns about the motive for including pilots and flight attendants in the consolidated Skilled Occupations List. I understand that those in the industry are concerned that these occupations appear on the list not due to a shortage of pilots or flight attendants in Australia but for industrial relations purposes.

I should just say cheerio to my friends at Qantas. I understand that Mr Andrew Parker, one of the chief lobbyists from Qantas, is in the building today. He is busy lobbying others, but for some reason he has not contacted me. My door is always open to my friends at Qantas, but the sooner that Mr Joyce and the board resign the better for a great Australian airline.

There is the impression that, should industrial action commence, Qantas, for instance, would have a safety net in the form of 457 visa holders who could take the place of Australian pilots and Australian flight attendants involved in any such action. Now, I have to emphasise there is no such industrial action on the horizon. But it just worries me that the Skilled Occupations List and 457 visas could be used as an industrial tool in such circumstances. That concerns me, as I expect it also concerns Senator Doug Cameron.

This is seen by some as a poorly disguised threat to pilots and flight attendants not to engage in industrial action. Australia's prosperity is underpinned by a flexible, responsible and dynamic workforce. I have real concerns about this bill. If this bill is eventually passed, it is very important that the department provide robust and independent advice in terms of our skilled occupation and labour force needs in this country. At this stage, I have a real reluctance to support this bill. I will wait to see what safeguards the government is proposing. But I also think it is important that the government undertake to provide the independence and robustness contained in Senator Carr's second reading amendment.