Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From 1 July 2012 the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 will create the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency—which I will refer to as 'the agency'—which will replace Skills Australia. The bill gives the agency additional responsibilities other than those which Skills Australia had: providing advice to the minister on improving the productivity of the Australian workforce, providing advice to the minister on the allocation of Commonwealth funding including the National Workforce Development Fund and assessing research relating to improving the productivity of the Australian workforce. The bill also adds three additional board members to the existing arrangements and adds a new category to board membership.

Australia does indeed face skills shortages in a number of important industries. Businesses continue to have problems procuring the right people for the right job. Recently even the ACTU has been critical of the government's approach to addressing the skills shortage with a proposed offshore recruitment drive to fill vacancies in the mining and construction industries. It goes without saying that it is vital for our training systems to work efficiently in order to provide real job prospects are Australians. The Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency is responsible for the $558 million Workforce Development Fund, a fund made available to pay up to half the costs of training for the upskilling of existing workers. The government's contribution equates to $4,292 per training place, based on predictions of training 130,000 workers.

We on the coalition side, like all Australians, need to be convinced that the agenda being pursued by the government is producing value for money. There are some concerns that this policy and indeed this bill appear to have been cobbled together in the ad hoc way that we have seen many times before from this Labor government.

It is worth remembering that the agency established in this bill will replace Skills Australia, which was set up by the Labor government in 2008, just four years ago. Labor has decided to bring forward the work of the agency and have appointed an interim board. So it would now appear that this government has declared Skills Australia to have passed its use-by date. I ask: is Labor saying that Skills Australia did not achieve what it was meant to? Very few other conclusions can be drawn. As my colleague Ms Ley said in the other place:

The failure does not really lie with Skills Australia; it rests with the government …

Skills Australia provided advice and offered ways to improve skills and boost employment. It provided that advice, and the methods, to government, but ultimately it is up to government to act. It seems to me that the government is more interested in trying to spin another story, if you will, for the media's benefit or to convince some people that the government is actually doing something rather than digging deeper past the veneer and actually dealing with the development of skills and our economy. It begs the question: is the government really interested in fundamentally changing Australia's workforce for the better, or is it content to continue to make grandstanding statements and announcements that ultimately make little if any difference to those on the ground?

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that this bill includes what is effectively a $20 million slush fund for the unions, because in addition to the $558 million in the National Workforce Development Fund, the government can allocate $20 million to unions and employer groups. There are, according to my research, no criteria for the allocation of these funds and there is no defined purpose. This leads me to conclude, quite reasonably, that this looks to be just another Labor slush fund for their union mates. It goes almost without saying that with a Labor government there always seem to be some perks for the union movement.

Moving on from the unions, the coalition is concerned that this bill panders to what I would describe as Labor's love of bureaucracy. Here we have this new agency replacing an old agency—it is not old, since it began just four years ago—but it is still doing the same thing, albeit with a few additional responsibilities. The government is spending $25 million over three years to set up this new agency, whereas the old agency only cost $5 million a year to run. It strikes me that this balance is wrong.

A vigilant eye must be kept on these processes to avoid taxpayers' precious money falling through the cracks and to avoid the creation of more red tape that stifles economic opportunity. As every Australian knows, Labor likes to spend. This is evidenced by the last four years of this government. Unfortunately, Labor likes to spend but is not that concerned with what it has to show for it at the end of the day.

During the Senate Education, Employment and Workplaces Relations Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill, some stakeholders raised concerns about the overlapping of responsibilities between the agency and other bodies. For example, the education departments of both Queensland and New South Wales raised the issue of the agency potentially undertaking duties of the Productivity Commission and/or state and territory bodies. Also, with this government we have seen a major redirection of funding from various training initiatives and programs into what they call new initiatives. For example, the $200 million from the Critical Skills Investment Fund was redirected into the National Workforce Development Fund. Senator Evans, in his capacity as the minster, announced the merging of the funds, in 2011. Far be it for me to simply conclude that this is more money shuffling. But it is apparent that this can confuse stakeholders, who query which fund they now have to apply to in order to gain the appropriate benefits.

For those who do not want to look deeper it gives the appearance of increased funding from the government. These changes made by the government—like moving money around and rebranding agencies—can not only be confusing for industry but can lead to what the Queensland department called 'fragmenting skills investment', where there is a misdirection or waste in how funds are spent. So, it is important that the agency use its resources to support the work already being done by other agencies, rather than adding another level of bureaucracy.

The bill also proposes an initial three board members, and it adds an additional category for membership, that being the representation of employees. I should note here that some stakeholders have proposed that, if employees have their own membership category, employers should too. I will acknowledge that an industry category already exists, but it is not clearly defined. In fact, unions could describe themselves as industry representatives. I hope that in future the government will partake in some common sense and ensure that employers are adequately represented on the agency board.

Another point of concern is the fact that there seems to be no person from the training sector represented on the board. I believe that training should be afforded the same significance as unions and industry. After all, that is a core part of this whole issue: the training of workers. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training has said:

… it is appropriate that the training sector also be represented as part of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency membership … such an appointment would add valuable expertise to the AWPA as it develops advice for government.

In the next five years there is expected to be a shortfall of about 250,000 skilled workers in this country. This poses a challenge for all those involved in upskilling our workforce. Training needs to produce the skills that industry requires and is prepared to pay for. This will not happen if the agency's agenda is warped by the government trying to keep its most valued stakeholders happy—and by that, I mean the union movement. Excluding this important level of expertise can only hinder the work of the agency going forward. That is something the coalition does not want to see happen.

There are also a few inconsistencies between this bill and the budget papers that the government should take note of. The first is the task given to the agency regarding funding. The bill states that the agency will provide 'advice' on matters relating to the allocation of Commonwealth funding, including the Workforce Development Fund—and yet the budget papers state that the agency will 'administer' the Workforce Development Fund. Also, the bill says that the agency will assess research relating to improving workforce productivity; whereas the budget papers state that the agency would 'undertake' research. Further clarification to clear up these inconsistencies would be welcome.

The coalition will pay close attention to this new agency, in the hope that this is not just another quick fix or a temporary solution to a problem that the government has. We want it to be an enduring fix for the skills shortages that are apparent in Australia. We want there to be an effective collaboration between industry and government so that the skills requirements of industry can be met and sustained for decades to come. We do not want this agency to become another level of bureaucracy that splashes out, or indulges or provides for its preferred stakeholders, to the long-term detriment of improving Australia's workforce.

In conclusion, the coalition will not be opposing the passage of this bill. We are simply seeking to highlight our concerns. We would like the government to consider them, not only in the initiation of this agency but also in its ongoing operations, whilst it holds the Treasury bench.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of the enactment of the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. For developed nations to grow their economies, and at the same time have real growth in incomes, there must be productivity growth over the long term. Unfortunately, in Australia at the moment, there is a misguided and often ignorant debate occurring regarding means to stimulate productivity growth in our economy. I am not going to go into the details of that debate at the moment.

Before my time in this place I did have the great honour of representing workers in a number of industries throughout the country. From agricultural to aeronautical industries, from horseracing to the health industry, I had the great privilege of representing workers and their interests and negotiating on their behalf. One of the lessons I learnt from my 14 years as an advocate for workers was that a happy workforce is a productive workforce, and the system of workplace relations—and, importantly, education—must encourage cooperative workplace relations. To encourage cooperative workplace relations, employees must have developed and definite career paths—and an important part of the development of a career path is skills development, ensuring that people are able to attain the education and the skills they require to better themselves and to ultimately increase their earning capacity and their living standards.

Since becoming a senator I have sought to expand my work in visiting workplaces throughout New South Wales. I have also been fortunate to visit many trade training centres throughout the state. Earlier this month I visited Taree, on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, to celebrate the official opening of the Manning Valley Trade Training Centre, a $2.9 million investment by the federal government in an opportunity for students, beginning in years 9 and 10, to commence their trades in hospitality and building trades, at that particular high school. It is a wonderful opportunity for those who are interested in skilling themselves up to begin a trade in the Australian workforce. I have also been fortunate to open trade training centres in Bellingen, in Port Macquarie, in Maclean and in Lithgow—and, in all of these areas and circumstances, the school communities were overwhelmed by the fact that the government is investing in skills development in their local area. We are bringing the community together—bringing employers, educators, parents and students together to increase the skills base of a particular community and ultimately provide more employment prospects for children in those schools. It is initiatives such as this that are ensuring that the workforce of tomorrow is properly skilled and ready to continue driving our economy and making it stronger.

This bill goes further to augmenting the Gillard government's efforts to ensuring the continued success of the Australian economy through skills development. The goal of the this bill is to amend the Skills Australia Act 2008 to establish the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency in place of Skills Australia. Skills Australia was established by the Skills Australia Act 2008 and commenced operation in April of that year. A Labor government initiative, Skills Australia was designed to address skills shortages by supplying independent research, analysis and advice to government on Australia's skill needs. As it stands, Skills Australia's current role is a wide one. It encompasses various research and development goals associated with improving skills attainment and development in Australia. Its current roles are to analyse and provide policy advice on skills needs, to commission and assess research on workforce development needs, to disseminate information about workforce development and skills, to provide advice to the government and publicly on training reform and to facilitate alignment of resources by maintaining relationships with the states and territories and other stakeholders with an interest in workforce development and skills.

With the passing of this bill, the government is seeking to build on work already undertaken by Skills Australia through the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. It is appropriate for productivity to be in the name of this organisation, because ultimately what we are talking about when we talk about skills development in our country is improving productivity growth over the long term, which will be the impetus for long-term economic growth. The agency will assume the functions of Skills Australia but with additional membership and responsibilities. The agency will provide advice to the minister on Australia's current, emerging and future workforce development and workforce skills needs. These are vital issues of importance that, if we are to continue to build on this country's economic success, require our utmost attention.

The agency was announced in the 2011-12 budget, which indicated that the new agency would develop sectoral workforce development plans, undertake research, consult industry and disseminate information on workforce planning issues. The agency will build on and expand the work of Skills Australia. It will give industry a central role in the National Training System, improve long-term workforce planning and development to address skills and labour shortages and contribute to improvements in industry and workplace productivity. One of the factors that is key to ensuring long-term productivity growth, particularly in the current economic climate in Australia, is ensuring that there are not any bottlenecks in our economy. Bottlenecks that have developed over recent years are skills shortages in particular pockets of the economy. We have all seen the stories associated with mining companies in remote areas, in particular, being unable to access skilled workers in particular trades. This body will work with employers, and particularly in remote and regional areas, to ensure that there are plans in place to meet the demand for skills in vital trades. That will foster long-term productivity growth in our economy. It will give industry a stronger voice and ensure that the government's investment in training delivers the skills that industry and the economy need, in the right place at the right time.

Importantly, the agency will have the ability to make recommendations to the government to direct funding to areas of critical industry need and will be an authority on workforce development policy. It will have a central role in advising on expenditure priorities for the National Workforce Development Fund and will be able to provide advice to the government on a range of other skills funding initiatives. It will build on the strengths of Skills Australia and collaborate with industry associations, industry skills councils, unions and employers to ensure a shared and practical approach which meets sectoral, regional and small business industry needs. Fostering cooperation in workplace relations will be a key initiative of this body.

Specifically, the agency will advise the government on expenditure priorities for the National Workforce Development Fund; drive engagement between industry, training providers and government on workforce development, apprenticeships and vocational education and training reform; develop and monitor sectoral skills and workforce development plans in conjunction with industry skills councils; provide independent advice on sectoral and regional skills needs to support workforce planning and productivity, including in small business; promote workforce productivity by leading initiatives for the improvement of productivity, management innovation and skills utilisation within Australian workplaces; and conduct skills and workforce research, including into the future of work and working life in Australia.

One of the fundamental goals of this newly established agency is to improve productivity. One of the primary ways in which it will do this is through skills matching. When an industry is experiencing a boom, it is crucial for that industry to be able to harness that boom by maximising productivity through access to a skilled workforce. The agency will ensure the availability of skilled workers in those circumstances, while also ensuring training is offered to workers affected by structural change. The agency will also advise on the allocation of Commonwealth funding, including through the National Workforce Development Fund. The aim of the agency is to improve long-term workforce planning and development to address skills and labour shortage and to contribute to improvements in industry and workplace productivity.

Our economy is going from strength to strength. Economists across the globe look to our great southern land in awe of our handling of the global financial crisis. Despite all our success and the government's deft stewardship of our great nation's economy we need to continually invest in productivity. This government will not rest on our laurels, and it is through legislation such as this that we will continue to ensure that productivity growth is a priority, and skills development is an important part of such productivity growth. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. I am a member of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which examined this bill. Throughout the inquiry process we heard consistently about the Labor government's record in training measures and how the government has some form over time in constructing an array of policy responses to address our skills needs, including their history of poor policy implementation and constant reallocation of budget funds in helping the Australian workforce develop the skills our economy needs for its future. Actually, more accurately, we heard that the poor policy implementation and constant reallocation of budget funds is a theme that has run right throughout the term of this government. I need look no further than the carbon tax, which we were promised we would not have, the Treasurer overseeing four of the largest deficits in history, and a Prime Minister who is happy to be overseas this week lecturing others on economic responsibility.

Skills Australia, which this legislation deals with, was set up under the Rudd government, the previous iteration of the current Labor government, only in 2008 but is already being superseded by another agency. That begs the question: what was not working? Why did we set something up in 2008 only to be setting up four short years later, with all the inherent costs that come with it, a new agency to address the problem that does not seem to have been addressed over the previous four years? In each budget we see a major redirection of funding from various training initiatives to new initiatives. We hop from one policy solution to another without getting to the nub of the issue: providing real Australians with real job opportunities right across the regions. Anybody who is vaguely interested in real jobs for real people, and in education and training, knows that it takes time to train people in the knowledge and the array of skills that are going to assist our economy and help them make their way through the pipeline of various pathways and training opportunities that we have available in our country. When we keep flip-flopping and changing the process that people must undertake to access work and to obtain the skills they need to access work, we do not assist in getting to the end point where we can in any real way assist the need for skills on the ground. We have a lot of people talking to a lot of organisations in different spaces across the nation, but we do not have too many people actually getting into real jobs on the ground. In fact, the government's training bureaucracy is growing at an extraordinary rate, so somebody is getting the jobs—the bureaucracy within the training sector itself, rather than people on the ground.

Skills Australia, together with the Industry Skills Councils, was tasked with addressing Australia's current and future skills needs. I remember asking a question at estimates about this particular set-up. When we think about future skills needs and my own interest in regional Australia it begs the question. We had had the first iteration of the Murray-Darling Basin draft plan and learnt about its consequent impact on the economic future of the two million people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin and the various industries that the basin supports. In conjunction with what was at the time the newly announced carbon tax, I asked these bodies during an estimates hearing, 'Have you actually factored these new policy initiatives of the Labor government into our future skills needs, particularly in areas across regional Australia?' and the answer was: 'Not really.' For somebody who is passionate about getting economic development happening in the regions, getting local economies diversified and getting young people, particularly young people in regional Australia, into jobs, it was extremely disappointing. But I digress.

How is it that skills shortages across the nation are worsening at a time when economic growth is falling? The same committee that examined this bill, the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, is currently conducting an inquiry into agricultural skills needs in regional Australia. Whilst I will not pre-empt any findings of the report, which will be handed down later this week, it has been an interesting process to read through the submissions—which are all available online—from various players in regional Australia around the skills gap, particularly around agricultural education and agribusiness. For instance, last year we heard that in north-west Victoria there were 30 vacancies for agronomists. For those in the chamber who do not know what an agronomist is, it is somebody who goes out and assesses your farm and looks at what you can grow, what your soil is like and what the rainfall is. They do an analysis of what is happening at that geographic location and can advise you of the best way to build your farm business and make it a profitable enterprise.

So there were 30 vacancies for agronomists across the region in north-west Victoria—Hamilton, Horsham, right up to Mildura, down along the Murray and back to places like Swan Hill, and everywhere in between, such as Manangatang. There were 30 vacancies across the region, without one single applicant—not one—to help farmers on the ground to develop up their business case, innovate and diversify their business and maximise the productivity of their particular enterprise. That is the sort of skills shortage we are dealing with in north-west Victoria. So I hope that under Skills Australia this will become one of the priority areas. I was listening to Senator Thistlethwaite earlier when he spoke about what the priority areas would be and how they would be set across the regions, and how this amendment and the organisation that will be set up as a consequence of it will be tasked with addressing those areas. I am hoping that we actually have some people who can help north-west Victoria find an agronomist and address the skills gap that I have in my particular patch.

Similarly, we heard about the research from the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture which shows that there have been fewer than 700 graduates annually in agricultural and related courses in recent years but that 4,000 positions a year need to be filled in the sector. If there has ever been a skills gap, it sounds like there is one right there, identified by the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture. I am hoping that this particular body will set as its first priority addressing the skills need of regional Australia and the skills gap we have right across the sector, from highly skilled agricultural scientists and researchers right through to farm labourers, milkers and the like.

These are the sorts of issues that require focus and a real commitment to finding a solution. Tonight some great claims have been made of collaboration between the industry bodies, the training providers themselves and skills councils—which I find quite incredible, given that in consulting around this particular amendment the body that will be set up will have no representation from the training sector. Given that the training sector itself is the conduit, if you like, between industry, the Skills Council and the job on the ground, the training provider's input is particularly important, not only for identifying these skilled job seekers but in terms of how we are actually going to deliver them out in the regions. I think it is particularly important within the regional Australian context, because we do not have a great choice of training providers. If we do not have somebody on that board who actually understands how training is best provided in the regions, where there might only be one or two options available to job seekers, that is problematic in itself.

So we need focus and real commitment to finding solutions to retraining and to supporting those across our community who have been struggling after widespread job cuts and a lack of opportunity in the area. Again, I bring my contribution to this debate back to regional Australia. I think about the job losses in my home state of Victoria, from food processors to the giant Murray Goulburn Co-operative—a huge employer, particularly in the north-central and south of the state. They are significant job losses—300 jobs. And there are also the job losses in manufacturing, which has been a large contributor to our local economies in regional Victoria.

We might ask ourselves why the food processors are shedding jobs and why the manufacturers are shedding jobs. I think we can slate it at the feet of the current government, for a whole array of issues that they refuse to address. This rejigging, I guess you could call it, of Skills Australia is another example of their continually tweaking but not quite delivering the policy on the ground. The government is good at paying lip-service to these types of solutions without any real actions or outcomes.

The bill before us tonight expands the Skills Australia board from seven members to 10. That is always interesting when you are trying to get decisions. If you are trying to get a decision and you want to be flexible and nimble, expanding the size of something might not be the way to do it. But the board has been expanded from seven members to 10 in an effort to increase union and industry representation and supposedly provide a more inclusive approach. However, there is actually no representation on the board from the training industry—and surely the training industry is a stakeholder in this proposal. Whilst the Senate committee recommended that the bill be passed, several people did not actually agree with the current structure—and the coalition senators made a lot of additional comments, which I will address later in my contribution tonight if I have time.

With an expected training shortfall of over 250,000 skilled employees over the next five years, it will be an increased challenge to ensure a match between skills expansion and work opportunities. That means that engagement with the training industry is vital, as I mentioned earlier, and they should be a welcome and active participant at the board table. I do recognise that industry itself is particularly keen to be part of this conversation. Again, I throw back to some of the submissions to the inquiry—its report will be presented later on in the week—that mentioned the need to engage with industry if we are going to get this right. Not only the skills and training sector but also higher education and even secondary educators need to be engaged with industry and enlightening young people as to all the opportunities that are available, particularly within a regional Australia context, and all the great jobs that are out there. 'Get out of the cities and get on board; there are some great opportunities out there'—I think that is the message that industry would like the education sector and also the training sector to hear.

Keeping the training sector away from the AWPA whilst increasing union presence seems like a warped decision-making process to me. I still do not have my head around why, if we are increasing the number of board members from seven to 10, we could not increase it from seven to 11. But I will move on.

In addition to the $558 million for the National Workforce Development Fund, there is a $20 million pool of funds that the AWPA can allocate to unions and employer groups, with no defined purpose for this pool of funds and no criteria for its allocation. I think we have wasted enough money thus far. We need to be ensuring that when we are providing organisations, programs, projects and bodies with the likes of $558 million worth of taxpayers' money that we have some structure and framework around how that money will be spent and the sorts of things we want to target it towards.

It seems there is evidence that purchasing of training by both states and the Commonwealth is fragmenting skills investment and duplicating effort. As an avowed proponent of states' rights, I think we had it pretty well defined. If we go playing in these spaces, we waste a lot of taxpayers' money. Whether we are wasting Victorian taxpayers' money because we are spending it twice in Victoria or Queensland taxpayers' money, as was the evidence the committee received from Queensland taxpayers, I think it is an issue. We all, particularly in the Senate, have to take responsibility for not only looking after the Commonwealth purse but looking after the purse of all those constituents in our respective states.

I just want to read one of the concerns from the Queensland government that was raised during the inquiry on this particular bill. They said:

...[A] unique strength of our national training system is that co-funded training delivery is administered primarily by states and territories. This arrangement supports a cohesive national system and targets the available funding efficiently to complementary local, state and national objectives...A far more effective system would be for the funds to be allocated to the States, with clear performance benchmarks on how the funds were to be invested to support an industry led system.

That sounds like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, it was not one taken up by the government.

As a coalition senator, I support working cooperatively with the states to get the best outcomes through an efficient cross-jurisdictional allocation of resources and an approach to training that ensures industry can get the skills it needs. We are seeing at the moment that the mining industry is conducting quite a comprehensive advertising campaign right throughout the nation to get the types of skills that it needs on the ground. It would be great if this body could work with industry, as it hopes to, but also reconsider and think about adding working very cooperatively with the training providers. I also think that the waste of taxpayers' money needs to be addressed. Setting up some criteria around how it is going to be spent would be beneficial.

I will just read from the coalition senators' additional comments to this inquiry. They said:

Skills Australia was tasked, together with the Industry Skills Councils, with addressing Australia’s current—and future—skills needs.

I am just hoping that we in regional Australia get the skilled graduates we need to get the job done for our national economy.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak on this Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 today because, as we know, this country has been built on the back of good skills and good education. Good economic management is only part of what makes our nation successful; we know that what is really at the heart of that are the skills and talents of Australian people. But we need the right architecture in this country in management, governance, commitment and consultation to get those things right. Part of that is the establishment of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, because our economic productivity goes hand in hand with the skills that Australians have. This bill replaces Skills Australia and broadens its role, putting the needs of Australian industry at its very heart. It is a demonstration of our government's commitment to workforce development and the continued growth of our economy.

I am going to talk tonight about one of the important challenges facing our economy and our society into the 21st century. For our nation to remain at the competitive front that it currently is it means staying ahead in skills and education, and in the development of good skills and education in this country. It means we need industry led workforce strategies. As the Treasurer told the other place only this week, the Australian economy is seen right around the world as a beacon of strength, stability and resilience in the face of deeply troubling economic volatility worldwide. While we know good economic management is a core part of that story, the skills base of this nation is really at the very heart of it. Our economic vital signs are indeed strong. We know that in the last 12 months our GDP has grown by a solid 4.3 per cent. This growth outstrips that of any other major advanced economy. Some 800,000 new jobs have been created in this nation since Labor came to office. In fact, there are now more Australians in paid work than ever before in our nation's history. But we do not want it to be any old paid work; these should be highly skilled and therefore well-paid positions. Interest rates are almost half of what they were when Labor came to office.

So our economy is strong and our fundamentals are right because of our good economic management credentials. But part of what we need to do in working hard to keep it that way, particularly in the face of the economic turmoil that the globe is currently facing, is workforce development and skills development. We need to make sure that all Australians can make the most of the opportunities presented by our economy. We need to make sure that as many Australians as possible can benefit from all the positive things that having access to good quality work brings. We need to make sure that we have a workforce that is educated and skilled and ready to take on the challenges of our changing economy. We want to make sure that our economy remains strong and robust as well as being responsive to what are pretty significant changes both globally and internally in the Australian economy at this time.

We do this in part by looking to the development of our workforce and making sure that it is able to make the transitions that currently confront us. At the heart of this, and at the heart of this bill, is listening to industry and also listening to those people who represent workers—in most instances, unions. The development of skills and education has been a long-held focus of our government, as are those relationships, because we know the challenges that confront us now and will confront us into the future are basically about building the capacity and capability of our workforce to be more productive in the face of a global economic environment in which higher skill levels will be absolutely critical.

In my home state of Western Australia we know this challenge all too well. We know that WA has the lowest unemployment rate around the country. We have an increasing demand for skilled workers, and that demand for skilled workers is continuing to rise in some sectors. A good example of this is the fact that, according to our Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Senator Evans, by 2015 the Western Australian skilled construction labour market alone will need some 76,000 workers. But these workers will need skills and qualifications relevant to the industry they work in. Workers will need to have qualifications ranging from certificate I right through to postgraduate qualifications.

One part of our response to this shortage has been to co-fund the Civil Contractors Federation Skill Centre in Jandakot—or the CCF Skill Centre, as it is currently known. As Senator Evans pointed out, CCF is a very clear demonstration of what can be done and what opportunities arise when industry and government do the right thing and work together in partnership. This is where we see real outcomes targeted at industries that are growing and developing. You do this in consultation with the industries that need skills. Most importantly, there are real outcomes for workers so they can get the training, skills and qualifications they need to get the jobs they want. So our government has a commitment to industry and to workers, to providing and facilitating opportunities to develop skills for Australians. But, as we know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The government believes the very best way to make sure that employers' workplace training needs are met is to work in partnership with them to deliver that training.

I think the Gillard government's $558 million investment in the National Workforce Development Fund further shows our government's commitment to skilling Australians to meet the demands of the future. The National Workforce Development Fund is going to be administered by the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. The agency will allocate industry skills and workforce development funding, and this is important because industry will have a direct advisory role in deciding what is done with the funding. Again, this comes back to making sure that skills development and workforce development meets the needs of industry. We do this by directly involving industry in the decision making. It makes real sense to have industry working in partnership with government on skills development, because we know that a key way of increasing productivity is ensuring that we have a skilled and qualified workforce.

Changes to our economy make it even more important that we work together. Our economy is indeed changing. The mining industry is changing rapidly and we need a workforce to respond. We know that the Australian economy is changing very rapidly and it is not just about the mining boom. For example, we know that retail has been affected by the change in people's spending habits online. We also know that people are spending more money on services and that services are a growing part of the economy. So again our economy is changing, and our government needs to make sure that the jobs and growth happen in all sectors of the economy. Therefore, we need to work together with industry and unions in order to do this.

A new feature of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency will be the assessment or provision of research and analysis. That will enable us to know not only that our skills development is in touch with the needs of industry but that there is a proper, forward-looking vision and analysis and that there is not only consultation with individual businesses and industry groups but collaborative decision making and vision about where the economy is likely to move into the future. This is so that government, industry and unions in partnership can better understand and project what skills are going to be needed. Currently, in WA, we are facing a pretty big skills shortage, but we know also that in some regions of Australia there are still unacceptably high levels of unemployment. That includes my home state of Western Australia. We need to be able to better project what skills are needed and where they are needed and to assist people to develop those skills.

We need a country that gives all people a chance to participate in the benefits that economic growth provides. With stronger research and analysis we can work towards avoiding skills shortages and giving people access to opportunities. Skills shortages not only deny those people looking for work opportunities; they also present a risk to the cost base and viability of the development of new construction and mining projects and, indeed, many other industries in Australia. A pretty big example of this is Western Australia's gas pipeline industry, which employs highly skilled welders and boilermakers. Often a pipeline company may have trained staff who then move industries because they are offered twice the pay to work somewhere else. If we are better able to assess, research and analyse skills needs by industry, then we can ensure that the booms and the subsequent gaps in industries are catered for. We need to make sure that all Australians have the opportunity to access good jobs by having the right skill mixes. Research and analysis can really make a difference in this.

The Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, with its expanded role and board membership, will provide significant benefits for our national economy, for its many industries and for workers, because the core of this is making sure we keep our economy strong not only at a national level but household by household.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that the upskilling of the Australian workforce is an honourable and proper pursuit of government. The skilling of the Australian workforce today will determine the productivity of our nation tomorrow. The productivity of our nation tomorrow will determine the wealth and wellbeing of our nation into the future. Can we fund a proper health system? Can we protect our borders? It is to fund those sorts of functions of government that we need a healthy economy. Indeed, can we pay off Greens-Labor's massive debt, now well in excess of $130 billion? It is the biggest debt incurred in the shortest time in Australian history. Make no mistake, the issues that are part and parcel of this bill are of vital importance to Australia's tomorrows and beyond.

What is the government seeking to do with the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012? The bill will subsume Skills Australia, a bureaucracy established only some three or four years ago during the halcyon days of then newly elected Prime Minister Rudd. Remember when he had to change everything? Of course, he had to meddle in this area as well. Now, three or four years later, the government has come to the realisation that Mr Rudd's good idea at the time is no longer such a good idea. As a result, they have to amend that which they introduced only a few short years ago; and at a cost of about $25 million for a new bureaucracy to undertake the exercise.

The new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency was announced in the 2011-12 budget. It will be a new agency. The agency will have responsibility for the administration of the $558 million Workforce Development Fund. This fund is available to pay up to half the costs of training for the upskilling of existing workers. The government's contribution equates to about $4,292 per training place, based on their predictions of training 130,000 workers.

Let us stop there for a moment. When you ask about Labor's employment figures and projections, you know they get it wrong, and substantially wrong. It was only two budgets ago that they promised the Australian people that 500,000 new jobs would be created over a two-year period. In the last budget that was reduced to 300,000—a 40 per cent reduction.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a surprise.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And yet, Senator Humphries, we are to believe that the predictions here are going to be honoured—just as we are to believe Labor's promise and prediction to the Australian people that there will be a $1.5 billion surplus or their claim that they have control of our borders. I think the Australian people are learning fast through bitter experience that the predictions and prognoses of this Greens-Labor government are not to be believed. Indeed, it does not matter into what area one looks, one can see the failure not only of the policy settings but then of the follow-up administration by the Greens-Labor government. But, they tell us, they will be seeking to upskill 130,000 workers.

Now, what else are they doing? There is going to be a round of funding of $50 million for three priority areas. There is $15 million for the priority of supporting the resources sector, as well as those sectors where the effects of the resources boom are particularly acute. I think it is a very good initiative to try to assist those sectors so that we need to import fewer workers for our booming resources sector. It is a great initiative, something that the coalition support. But interestingly enough, out of the $50 million, less than one-third is going to be directed to this jobs rich area for which we now have enterprise migration agreements. Don't get me wrong; the coalition support enterprise migration agreements, but only because they are a necessity. We do not support them because we see them as ideal; we support them because we see them as essential to getting Australia's resources projects up and running. But why on earth would you spend less than one-third of the available funding on the most jobs rich area, where there is the greatest likelihood of job opportunities for individuals in the event of their being upskilled? Indeed, the largest amount, $20 million, is going to be spent on support for upskilling and skill-deepening across all sectors of the economy. I dare say that is for those areas that they have no idea about.

Let us have a look at what this bill does. It expands the board of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, compared to that which currently exists, and it adds a new category of board membership. Labor government, a new category of board membership—let me guess: could it be employers? No. Could it be trainers? No. How about trade union bosses? You got it.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a surprise!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You got it. How surprising! No matter which way this government turns, it will manufacture an excuse to put some union boss or ex union boss onto a board. There are three new board members to be appointed under this new category of employee representative. And, just in case you thought this was going to be a very careful selection process, guess who one of those three new board members is going to be? It is none other than—you see him here, you see him there, you see him everywhere—the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. The person who installed Ms Gillard as Prime Minister has, as part of his reward, been given a position on this board. Remember the man who was there on Lateline telling the Australian people that they were going to get new Prime Minister the next day, courtesy of the numbers that he controlled in the Labor Party caucus? He is going to be a beneficiary of this amendment bill through a position on the board.

If you thought, 'One out of three isn't too bad,' guess who else has been appointed? It is none other than Dr John Edwards, the fellow who wrote an academic treatise on Australia's greatest Prime Minister.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bob Menzies?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People listening might be forgiven, Senator Humphries, for thinking that that would be Australia's longest serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, or—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Howard.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's second longest serving Prime Minister, both of them prime ministers who took Australia through a golden era of prosperity and stability. But no. All those people who thought it was Menzies or Howard got it wrong. According to this great academic, Dr John Edwards, a Labor Prime Minister gets that title. With all that expertise in academia that he will bring to the Skills Australia Board, we will undoubtedly have a whole lot of people being gainfully employed!

It is interesting that on this board there is no specific category allocated to providers of training. 'But employees need a special category so we can get Paul Howes on the board.' Employers do not get a look-in. Who gets a look-in? Academics like Dr John Edwards. As for education or training, training does not have to be a part of it, just possible. There is economic and industry representation, and now we have representation of employees. What is the government's argument? They say, 'Oh, "industry" must mean employers.' And of course 'industry' does not mean employers. If that is what the government are actually arguing, let them amend the bill to change 'industry' to 'employers' so there is some equity and fairness. At the end of the day, may I remind Senator Collins, the Labor Party and the Greens, this will be a body that seeks to assist people by upskilling them to gain employment—to gain employment with whom? With employers! They are the people that will ultimately be providing the jobs, yet they are to be discounted. They count for nothing in this class warfare that the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party are waging as we speak. Employers are to be absolutely and utterly discounted, but union bosses—you betcha!—have to be there.

Having severely and seriously embarrassed Mr Shorten and the Labor government over their refusal to consider productivity as an important issue in the Fair Work Act review, we now have this new agency, to be called the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. I say to the Greens and Labor: this is too little, too late. If you were genuinely concerned about productivity, you would have put it in the terms of reference for the review of the Fair Work Act. Something we know, courtesy of freedom of information requests, is that both the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Finance and Deregulation were deliberately ignored by the government because they did not want to utter the word 'productivity', let alone assess the Fair Work Act against that vital ingredient. I know it is not popular to talk about productivity because the trade union movement will immediately say that productivity means more work for less pay. That is the Labor Party view of the world.

The coalition view of the world is that productivity actually means greater job opportunities, greater wages and greater wealth for the community. We look at expanding the pie by increasing the opportunities and welcoming innovation into our economy, but Mr Shorten could not bring himself to accept the advice of his own department or the Department of Finance and Deregulation to consider productivity. What they have done now is put into the title of the organisation the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. The Parliamentary Library provided us with an interesting note in relation to this bill which says, 'It is not clear in either the bill or the explanatory memorandum how this will be achieved.'

Here we have a government yet again realising that they have been snookered. They have to talk about productivity. They have been humiliated on the front pages of newspapers around the country. They have been identified as having ignored departmental advice courtesy of freedom of information. So what do they do. They say, 'We'll put "productivity" into this title,' but they do it in such a rush. Why? Because all they are concerned about is tomorrow's headline. There is no follow-through with the administration. There is no plan as to how this will affect, impact and support productivity, something which I think most Australians now recognise is a vital issue which this country needs to face, to ensure when there are wage increases above and beyond the CPI that there are productivity offsets. Unless we get productivity offsets, we will go down the road of Greece and Spain and some of the other European countries. We can keep promising people increased wages unrelated to productivity but one day we will hit the brick wall, as they have in Greece. I would never want that sort of humiliation to befall this great country Australia. That is why we have to deal with productivity now, while it is still easy to be dealt with, rather than wait another decade when we may find ourselves with some of the diabolical problems that our European friends now find themselves in.

We welcome the fact that Labor have finally been willing to utter the word 'productivity', but as the Parliamentary Library told us it is not exactly clear how productivity will be dealt with in this legislation. I am sure Mr Howes will be able to tell people on this training and productivity board how to get 30 per cent wage rises in the resources sector without any productivity trade-off and then brag about it, as his fellow union bosses do. When that happens, it reverberates throughout the whole economy and the consequences are there for all see.

As is so often the want when you do not have the numbers in a place such as this, the coalition know that we are snookered, that the government will not consider sensible amendments. We will not oppose this bill but I say to the Australian people that there is a better way to deal with issues of Australian workforce and productivity than to expand a board from seven to 10 and whack a union boss onto it. I would have thought the government might have more imagination than that, if they were genuine about developing the Australian workforce and the productivity agenda, which clearly needs to be addressed if we are to secure the future of our country and in particular if we are going to be able to pay off the massive debt legacy which the Green-Labor alliance will be leaving us whenever they are thrown from office.

Also interesting in this bill is a fund of $20 million to be shared equally between the trade union movement and employer organisations. We know the Labor Party love doing this. They will say, 'We've got clean hands; we have equally funded the trade union movement as we have the employer organisations.' Of course there is one big difference: everyone now knows that the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens are the beneficiaries of huge amounts of money from trade union organisations for their campaigns but employer organisations such as AiG and ACCI are notoriously known for not making any political donations. The Labor Party pretend that they come to this debate with clean hands, that they will be dealing equally with employer and employee organisations—each gets the same amount—but they know they will be getting a dividend out of that in return whereas the coalition or any other organisation will not be getting any such dividend from employer organisations.

No matter what the government put up, it seems it has to have a union boss on it and the reason for that is clear. In this case, it could not be clearer because the person who will be the beneficiary is the man who put Ms Gillard in the Lodge. The coalition has concerns and reservations about this bill, so ably expressed by Senators Back and McKenzie in their report on this bill. The coalition not be opposing it.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Acting Deputy President Edwards, and I congratulate you on your recent elevation as acting chair. I join with my leader in expressing the sentiment that the only way in which Australia in the future is going to be able to retire the massive debt that is now around our necks is to have as fully employed and as highly skilled a workforce as we possibly can. Regrettably, the legislation before us this evening falls far short in its objective to achieve this. As Senator Abetz has said, the coalition will not oppose this legislation, but I assure you that it needs radical improvement before it is actually to achieve anywhere near the sort of objective that is necessary for this country.

The seeds of failure were sown not in the life of the Gillard government, or even the Rudd government. The seeds of failure were sown way back in the time of the Hon. Kim Beazley Sr. And if that sowing was not sufficiently poor for the Australian workplace and for skills development at that time, it was perpetuated in the time of the Hon. John Dawkins. It is no pleasure for me that both parliamentarians were from Western Australian. There is a simple reason behind this. There was a time when it was recognised in our country that there were those who should aspire to professional qualifications and studies in the universities, and there were those who should aspire to the technical and trades areas because of their levels of interest and perhaps their capacity at the time at which those decisions were made. I am talking now, back in the 1970s and beyond, of young boys, particularly at the age of 15 or 16 years, for whom a year 11-12 education at that time in their lives was not what they were aspiring to. But, unfortunately, where they should have been directed into the technical colleges and into technical and other trades training where they would have been well suited and would have achieved tremendous success and gone on to very successful careers, whether as employers, as business people or as tradesman employees, we had a circumstance, commenced by then Beazley Sr, and perpetuated by Dawkins, in which that was put to one side. We then perforce moved to a scenario in which these students were initially influenced to and then forced to remain on to years 11 and 12 at school and then to aspire to university style education.

What we see in 2012 is the end result of that poor policy decision making. Perversely, what we see is that many of the jobs that should have been occupied by those young people who should have been directed into technical colleges and trades training areas, and would today be undertaking those trades skills and contributing that to our Australian economy, are now in the main being occupied by 457 visa holders, who we have had to bring in from overseas as a result of this vacuum. That is where the fundamental error has taken place.

So what has happened? We have seen burgeoning numbers of students going into the universities and perforce, and of necessity, we have seen a decline in the standards of entry at many of our universities. This has assisted nobody, but particularly those who should never have been pushed or encouraged into, almost forced into, university-level training for degrees for which there is little employment, particularly in the terms of financial and career progression reward, which they may have aspired to had they gone through the alternative path. That is where we need to reverse the trend we see today.

Just in the last seven months we have participated in inquiries in the agriculture and agribusiness higher education and skills training areas. I look forward to presenting to the Senate this week the final report of that inquiry. At the same time the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee has undertaken an inquiry into the equivalent, if you like: the engineering professional, technical and trades skills areas. I wish to comment on the latter. It was incredibly disturbing to the committee to learn from Engineers Australia that their best guess is a cost to the Australian taxpayer each year at the moment of some $7 billion on infrastructure projects that were poorly described, the tender processes were inadequately undertaken—or successful tenderers selected—the projects were poorly implemented, or they had to go back and rework failed projects. That is a $7 billion a year cost to the Australian taxpayer, since most infrastructure projects are in fact publicly funded.

When I say that we are looking at a wide gap, I refer back to my earlier comments, because the seed for the failure that has reflected itself in that $7 billion was found at a time when people should have been directed into technical training and into skills training but were in fact directed into university-level training. That is the best example I can give, and the most current example I can give you, of the failure of the legislation we see attempting to be addressed in this bill here this evening.

The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 is too little, too late, and it fails to address the fundamentals. It fails to address the cause of why we are where we are today. Why is it that a country as wealthy as Australia, a country with the education system that we have, has failed its participants? It has failed its students, it is failing its teachers, it is failing its academics, it is failing industry and it is failing the Australian community and the Australian taxpayer. For the life of me, I cannot see why this should be so.

As a person who has worked in Asia, the Middle East and India over the last 15 to 20 years, I have seen where their deficiencies lie. Their deficiencies are not those of our country. If you drive on a road in India, you can see where their infrastructure failures are. Ours is a country that surely should be a model—it should be right up the top. And yet we unfortunately see, starting with education, with failures of policy, the end result—where we are today.

Only last Wednesday, a week ago tomorrow, I was 600 metres underground at the Tindal gold mine in Coolgardie. There would probably be those who might wonder whether it would be wiser, Senator Farrell—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that I never came out of the mine!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would never say that!

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I want to make to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, is this—well, two points. First of all, I only went underground because my grandfather had been a miner underground on the Golden Mile in Boulder in the 1920s. I have to say to you I had no desire to go underground, Senator Farrell; nevertheless, I did. Secondly, it was interesting talking to the young mine manager—and I had a keen interest in his sense of occupational health, safety and wellbeing; it was principally my wellbeing that I was most interested in! We were talking about this very issue of skills development in the mining industry. And we would say with pride—of course, from Western Australia—that we are at this time enjoying an opportunity to support the wealth of our nation. I asked this young man, 'How are you going for trained staff?' He said, 'We can't get any.' I asked, 'Why is it that you can't get them—with Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie, the school of mines?' He said, 'We can't get people out of the city; and, if we can get them out of the city, they've got no skills that are employable in this mine.' I said, 'If you actually had these people, could you employ them?' He said, 'We could employ them tomorrow.' I said, 'Where does the fault lie?' He said, 'It lies in skills and trade training.' This is a young fellow with no axe to grind—I don't know what his politics are; I don't care what they are—but he simply said to me that that was the case. I said to him, 'What's the overwhelming nationality of employees on this mine?' He said: 'New Zealanders. We have people from all countries of the world.' I said, 'How many Australians? He said, 'Not many; principally New Zealanders.' I said, 'How do they get a job?' He described to me the situation of people who are actually outside the mine site, seeking work day after day, but because they do not have the necessary, basic skills to be employable, they are not getting this work.

I heard Senator Pratt, a Western Australian senator, also speaking of the need to get these people skilled up.

Senator Polley interjecting—

But why is it, Senator Polley—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that we do not have a circumstance where our young people can be skilled up so that they can be employed? In fact, Senator Polley—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—they spoke to me of a one-armed truck driver, who was very keen to work on the mine. He felt discriminated against because, as a one-armed truck driver, they could not employ him underground. It was not for his inability to drive a large truck underground; it was the fact that, when they took him underground, and they showed him the shaft—about 1½ metres wide, going up in 25-metre levels some 600 metres—and they said to him, 'Could you ascend those steps in the event of an emergency?' and he himself said, 'No, I could not.' So they employed him above ground, and some five to six years later that same person is still employed.

The point I want to make is that we have failed—we have failed the skilled sector, we have failed the technical sector and we are continuing to fail; and this piece of legislation is not going to address that one little bit. Last week I was in Karratha, in the Pilbara, right beside Dampier, right in the middle of our offshore oil and gas, and our burgeoning iron-ore industry, asking the same question: how are we addressing the need for these wide gaps between skills that are needed and skills that are available? And here, sitting in Canberra tonight, we are not putting policies into place that will actually make these people employable. Is it a disappointment to me that young eastern Australians do not want to leave the east coast to come and take up these jobs? Of course it is. Are the policies right that allow young people who are fit and able and single to travel from where they live to places where they could be employed? No, and it is wrong that those policies are not in place. If a person is married with a family, I can understand that they cannot shift. I had to move, as a kid of 17, to Western Australia from Queensland to go to veterinary school, because I had that engagement, I had the opportunity and I had that ambition. I had to go to Tasmania, Senator Polley—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—and I left a wife and three children in Western Australia, because I could see the opportunity for work. And if we do not inculcate into our young people the need to work, the desire to work, the pleasure of the ambition of work, of building up skills, then we simply are disinheriting a population of young people into the future. That is why I feel so passionate, that the sorts of issues we are addressing are not going be those that are going to solve these problems.

I was also in the town of Geraldton last week, on our mid-west coast. It is just north of Geraldton that the Oakajee port will be constructed, and it will open up the mid-west of Western Australia to a new type of iron ore, being magnetite, whereas it is hematite that has been the driving force of the iron-ore industry in the Pilbara region. As soon as Oakajee is opened up—as soon as that port is built—we are going to see a wonderful expansion of that whole mid west region. But once again we are going to come back to the sorts of arguments that have torn the Labor Party apart in the last few weeks, arguments based in the tension between employing Australians and having to bring in overseas workers simply because we are not putting the right fundamentals into place to ensure that our young people can gain these skills.

I wish to make another point in relation to this. I made the observation at the beginning that 15-year-old and 16-year-old boys particularly do not often see the benefit of higher education. They are not as mature as girls at the same age. But my own experience in agribusiness and agricultural education from the 1970s through to the 1990s tells me that if you can put in the face of these young people the interest in and the desire for higher education as they develop their own skills they will redevelop the love of learning that was lost in primary school and secondary school and become the most wonderful assets. People who start out at the VET level—the technical skills area—can very quickly, if they have that level of interest, progress through to higher technical and professional level education. Look at the wealth of experience that they will gain from working on the shopfloor right through as they gain those skills.

That is what came out in the engineering skills inquiry that was run by my associate Senator Marshall as the deputy chair and my other colleagues on the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee. That is what we need to be developing in this country. That is the vision that we need for young people in this country. We do not want them sitting around in places where there is no employment. We do not want them sitting around feeling sorry for themselves. We do not want them sitting around because earlier generations of their own family did not work. We have to set the vision for them in a country where there is every opportunity. We have to say to these people, 'This is your future, and you have to be part of the future rather than being part of the problem.'

I do not want to dwell, as others have done and as we all could do all night, on the challenges that we face in this country to get rid of the debt, to pay down the deficit and to start benefitting from the boom. That boom will not be there long into the future. Any of us who get out there and talk with industry and who engage with companies that are working in Australia and other countries of the world—working in Africa, working in South America and other places—have been told that they are positioning themselves very well. Unfortunately, if we do not increase our productivity and our competitiveness, we will be left behind and be a laughingstock; we will be the Europe of the middle of this century; it will be said of us that we let an opportunity slip through our fingers. The Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Bill) 2012 is just a grain of sand on the beach. That beach ought to be the coastline for the future of this country. Regrettably, this bill is not going to turn us into the learning and productive nation that we need to be.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow two speakers who clearly know their subject and who are passionate about training. I congratulate Senator Abetz and Senator Back on their understanding of and their commitment to skills in Australia. I participate in this debate tonight because, coming from North Queensland and Northern Australia, I see the impact upon Australia, Australians and our economy of the lack of skills and the atrocious system for training our young people currently in place under the Gillard government and before that the Rudd government.

I want to share some of the facts that come to me through my office. I am conscious, though, of time and there are a number of other senators who would like to contribute to the debate on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012. But because of an unholy alliance between the Greens and the Labor Party, debate on this bill has been curtailed. Right through this year the Greens and the Australian Labor Party have got together and taken from this parliament its ability—its duty—to properly scrutinise legislation that is brought before it. While, as previous speakers from the coalition have indicated, we will not be opposing this bill, there are a number of issues relevant to skills training in Australia which need to be debated and which we would like to engage the Greens and the Australian Labor Party in debate on to challenge some of the ideas that come forward. But, because of this guillotining of debate in this parliament that the Australian Labor Party and the Greens have embarked upon, my time in this debate will be severely curtailed and I am conscious that a number of my colleagues who want to speak will not get the opportunity to do so.

The Howard government recognised the need to get appropriate skills training in Australia. That is why we set up Australian technical colleges. I have to tell you that, while this area of policy is not something with which I am totally familiar, the Australian technical college that was set up in Townsville—where my office is located—was very well supported. The work that it was doing in training people in the skills needed in Australia was first class. It was run by a board of skilled people who had an interest in industry and training and the employment that is needed in the industries that are prevalent in Northern Australia. When the Labor Party came to government in 2007 they annihilated that great model of training, the Australian technical colleges, and that is really one of the causes of the significant problems that we have in finding the right people for the right jobs in Australia at the present time. It is very difficult in Townsville or in Ayr, where I live, to even get your car serviced these days. Why? Because motor mechanics, who used to fix cars of ordinary citizens like myself, have now been lured into the mines with big pay offers. Why are they doing that? Because there are no properly skilled people available to fill all the jobs that are currently available in Australia. Other industries in Northern Australia, such as the sugar industry, are finding it difficult to get skilled people because of this shortage and, regrettably, the current government has done absolutely nothing about it.

This bill is not one that would have been introduced in this form, had the coalition been in government. It does make some amendments to the Skills Australia arrangement, set up by the Rudd Labor government a few short years ago, but it seems already that even the Labor Party understands that Mr Rudd's proposal was basically without merit. So, it is bringing in this new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, which is to replace Skills Australia. One of the new roles given to this organisation, over and above what Skills Australia had, is to provide advice to the minister on improving productivity in the Australian workforce. From looking at this, it seems that the thing that this is going to do for employment in Australia is to give Paul Howes—the great backer, the 'clackeur', of the Labor Party, the one who was instrumental in changing the prime ministership from Mr Rudd to Ms Gillard—a job on the board. Perhaps the minister in summing up could tell me just how many jobs Mr Howes does have from this government and what he gets paid for those jobs that he takes on.

We know about the Labor Party's unholy alliance with the union movement in Australia, and we know what the union movement is like when it comes to productivity. You only have to see what has happened in the Health Services Union. Have a look at the productivity gains there. The productivity gains for their officials, including the current member for Dobell in his past role as an official, are there for everyone to see. Certainly, one would wonder what the member for Dobell's productivity was in his role in the Health Services Union. Fair Work Australia—the organisation set up by the Labor government, which seems to be made up by people whose former lives were as trade union officials—has suggested that Mr Thomson used whatever funds of that union he could get his hands on for what could only be described as nefarious ends.

One wonders if what happened in the HSU is unique to that union. My experience is that many unions operate in a way similar to the HSU. Coming from Queensland, I know the inordinate influence the Australian Workers Union has had in that state. We only need to look at the influence of big Bill Ludwig in my state of Queensland and his role in the AWU. One of the results of big Bill Ludwig's influence in Queensland we see in the chamber here every day with his son, Senator Joe Ludwig, who is a minister in this government. Some would wonder whether he would attain the rank of minister were it not for the influence of his father in the AWU. We see that the AWU's tentacles get further and further entwined within the Australian Labor Party government with the appointment under this bill of Mr Paul Howes, the Australian secretary, as I understand it, of the Australian Workers Union. One would wonder what Mr Howes could contribute to the productivity of the workforce, and it is something that the coalition will be keeping a very close eye upon.

There are quite a number of other issues that I did want to raise in relation to this bill. I notice that the budget papers said that the new organisation, the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, was to undertake research. But this bill says that the agency would be assessing research, not undertaking research. One wonders where the compatibility lies between those two descriptions of what the agency might do. I have known in the past, and far be it from me to suggest it now, that previous Labor governments have given big grants of money to unions to look into things that are being talked about in this bill—productivity issues. Big grants go to unions to participate almost as contractors in this sort of research and then, lo and behold, the same union makes a donation back to the ALP for its election campaigns. One cannot help but be suspicious and wonder whether there is not a bit of a round-robin here, but the shame of that, of course, is that it is taxpayers' money that first goes to the union in the way of grants and then somehow ends up in a roundabout way back in the pockets of the ALP for election campaigning. I just wonder, and perhaps I am a little bit suspicious, why the budget papers talk about undertaking research whereas the bill says that they will not be doing any undertaking of research and they will just be assessing research that I assume would be produced by others.

There are a lot of other things that I would like to say about this bill but I am conscious that my colleagues also want to make a contribution, so I will leave my contribution at that point while letting the Labor Party know that we will be very closely assessing the way that this bill works out in practice. We will certainly be closely watching the work of the increased board of Skills Australia, now called the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, and we will be wanting to see how that board—and the agency—operates in the way that it is required to as in this bill before the parliament. I conclude my remarks there because of the guillotine and because I am aware that my colleagues are very keen to also make a contribution on this bill.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to contribute on the Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 although there is not much opportunity to do so because, as Senator Macdonald has pointed out, this important issue has to be put to an early bed because the government believes it is more important to get through its business in a certain time frame than to allow the parliament to do its job. However, I want to make a contribution to this debate that reflects on the importance of ensuring that as a nation we have a better focus on productivity than has been the case in recent days.

I recall sitting in this chamber in the last few years of the Howard government when we had a very strong economy and very strong growth. We had a budget that was in surplus, we had virtually no debt—debt was being eliminated or had been eliminated—we saw low interest rates, we saw low unemployment and a lot was going very well for the Australian community, particularly for the Australian worker. We were coming to the point where real wages had risen during the life of the Howard government by something like 20 per cent. Labor, the opposition as it then was on this side of the chamber, wanted to criticise the performance of the Howard government and it latched on to the question of productivity because it was able to discover, amidst all that good news, that there was a little bit of a dark lining on the very white cloud, which was that productivity was not improving as much as the rest of the Australian economy. They latched onto that and made a big issue of that before the 2007 election.

So one might expect that in the 4½ years or so in which the Labor Party has held the Treasury benches there would have been some very significant progress on the question of the productivity of the Australian economy, because there has not been much progress on things like unemployment, bringing debt down or having surplus budgets. So you might expect that in this area, which had been such an issue, there might have been some progress. Yet have we discovered, not long ago, that under this government Australian productivity has fallen. It has fallen, not gone up. It has not even been sustained at the same level; it has actually fallen. Despite a bevy of reports from the Productivity Commission on ways in which the Australian economy might be made more productive, that advice has in large part been ignored by this government, with the result that productivity is indeed falling. It takes a special level of ineptitude to have an economy which is at least in part so strong as this one is, with so many opportunities existing to do things better, and to find that the productivity of the Australian economy has fallen.

And it is not surprising when we see the way in which this government has handled the issues surrounding productivity. It has wound back flexibility in the workplace. Those opposite should not jump up with a little scare campaign about Work Choices—I am not arguing for a return to Work Choices—but you backed away from the idea of flexibility in the workplace, and that is very much at the heart of how you get more productivity. You have wiped that off the slate: 'We're not interested in that.' You backed away from promises to increase training at school level. What happened to the 2,650 trade training centres in Australian secondary schools you promised at the 2007 election? What happened to them? They went the same way as the 37 GP superclinics and the 260 Australian childcare centres— all washed away in the tide of history and all promises broken by the Labor Party. But those promises about the trade training centres were about in part skills and productivity and, of course, they have gone; they have disappeared.

I think that is why I feel so suspicious about the creation of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. We were told very much in the lifetime of many people in this chamber that we were going to have a wonderful new world with respect to skills by virtue of Skills Australia being set up. That is now being swept aside. That is a promise that you can afford to have broken, because you have got another promise to make: you are now going to have an Australian workforce and productivity agency which is supposedly going to fix this problem and there are going to be many millions of dollars poured into that and that is going to solve the problem that has not been solved to date. Well, you can forgive me for being a little bit suspicious and cynical about the approach that this government is taking. There is a hollowness about so much that this government says in these areas that one has to be very suspicious.

We have a new body set up which mentions the word 'productivity'. Why? Because the government is failing on that front, it needs to do something on that front and it needs to appear to be acting on the question of productivity. It has got a lot of money being poured into it. That is the classic Labor response to this issue: pile the money in—of course, mostly borrowed money. And it has got a board which is well salted with trade union friends more noted for their factional loyalty to the Labor Party than for their skills in things like productivity and we have a promise that this is going to fix the question of skills take-up and productivity in the Australian workforce. I am sorry, but I do not believe it. I see more of the rubbish that we have had from this government in these areas, and the structure of this legislation only lends itself to that kind of cynicism. As Senator Macdonald pointed out, the budget papers promise that this new Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency would undertake research, that it will have the capacity to undertake research. What research is it going to do? Apparently now none, according to the bill. It is going to only be assessing research.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for the consideration of this bill has now expired. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.