Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. The coalition has been constructive in the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia. We supported the first tranche of legislation, but we will not support the second tranche if the amendments we move are not supported by the Senate. This legislation finalises the governance arrangements for the agency, along with providing for a commissioner to head the agency with two deputy commissioners. Whilst these may seem like perfunctory steps to finalise the body's establishment, they are anything but. As always, the devil is in the detail. The coalition supports Jobs and Skills Australia, but if this legislation passes, we feel the balance on the advisory board will not adequately represent different types of businesses in our economy.

This legislation seeks to institute a model which is a far cry from the original model that Anthony Albanese promised Australians. In one of the now Prime Minister's first policy announcements as opposition leader, this is what he said:

Jobs and Skills Australia will be a genuine partnership across all sectors—business leaders, both large and small; State and Territory governments; unions; education providers; and those who understand particular regions.

…   …   …

It will be legislated, just as Infrastructure Australia was in 2008.

I'm looking forward to seeing that bill before the Senate sometime soon. He also said:

I see Jobs and Skills Australia as the basis of a new compact.

This was the Prime Minister on his former capacity:

As Infrastructure Minister, I established Infrastructure Australia.

And it worked.

I envisage a similar model for Jobs and Skills Australia.

A collaborative model to guide investment in human capital, just as Infrastructure Australia guides investment in physical capital.

But does this statement match up to the legislation we see before us today? No, it does not. The model that the Prime Minister promised Australians is not the model that is now being proposed and is before the Senate.

Jobs and Skills Australia will remain within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. This new agency will be reactive to ministerial directions, rather than being a proactive, independent agency assessing Australia's workforce and skills requirements, as outlined by the Prime Minister prior to his election as Prime Minister. Whatever the government may say, this is not what the Australian people were promised. The coalition has raised these concerns with the government and with the minister's office. Did they abandon their promise because this model would deliver better outcomes? No. Is this model informed by expert advice or stakeholder input? No. Labor are breaking their promise because they can't manage the budget. What a surprise! The Labor government cannot find the money to properly fund what Australians were promised, which was a game-changing and independent workforce agency. This is simply just another broken promise by Anthony Albanese.

Jobs and Skills Australia will be charged with identifying skills needs across the economy and developing policy responses to build Australia's workforce. It will play a key role in advising Australia's migration program as well as provide advice about how to reform our skills and education systems. This is important work and the board must be balanced to properly reflect the different types of employers and stakeholders.

We also do not believe two years is appropriate when it comes to reviewing this agency and its performance. Therefore, we will move an amendment, which I foreshadow in this speech, to remove the mandating of four members of employee organisations on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. We will also move an amendment to mandate the inclusion on the ministerial advisory board of a small-business representative and two rural, regional and remote representatives. We will also seek to move an amendment to ensure that each state and territory is represented on the ministerial advisory board—that is to say that there is someone from each state and territory represented on the board. These changes will deliver a more balanced board. Under these arrangements, the government will still be able to appoint officials from employee organisations as general members of the board, but they will not be earmarked specifically for them. We will also move an amendment to mandate the commencement of an independent review into the operation of the act no later than 12 months after the commencement of that section.

If we do not gain support for our amendments, we will oppose the bill. These are sensible and minor changes. I would argue they would actually help the Prime Minister fulfil his original vision for this agency. I hope that the government and crossbench senators will support these amendments so that we can land on a better balance in the interests of the whole sector.