Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Carr:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate notes that the Government has failed to guarantee that the critical independent research to Government and industry in relation to Australia's current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs will continue to be carried out and made public.

The Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency is one of those interesting agencies for which there does not seem to be solid reason to abolish it. We are somewhat perplexed as to why the government would abolish an agency which, for all intents and purposes, is doing a really good job. Amazingly, on 9 June—and perhaps all the arms of government were not speaking to one another—the Hon. Andrew Robb and Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash put out a media release in which they talked about the skilled occupations list and referred to the great work that the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency does in providing annual recommendations on the skilled occupations list. Minister Robb went on to say:

The AWPA analyses evidence such as the labour market, education and training, migration and general economic and demographic data to make sure we get the balance right.

So perhaps whoever made the wise decision to abolish this agency had not told either Minister Robb or Senator Cash because as late as 9 June they were certainly extolling the virtues and the values of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency.

Indeed, earlier this year, during the TAFE Senate inquiry, we heard surprise at this decision from Senator O'Sullivan. At the conclusion of the evidence given by the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, Mr Robin Shreeve, the CEO, told us that it was to be abolished. I asked Mr Shreeve:

Finally, can you tell us what is happening to your board?

Mr Shreeve said:

We anticipate that from 1 July the functions of AWPA will be folded into the Department of Industry.

I asked:

So you will not exist?

Mr Shreeve said:

As a board, no.

Senator O'Sullivan then asked the question:

What is the thinking there? Has the board model proved not to be successful enough?

So here we again had a government senator expressing surprise that a board which had done the amazing work that AWPA has done was for the chopping block.

The abolition of this board does not even go to the issue of red tape. I do not think there is any green tape, but it certainly does not go to red tape. And it certainly does not contribute as a savings measure to the government. Indeed, the folding of the board was announced long before the budget. There is a very low degree of financial saving to be achieved from this measure. That measure is really primarily abolishing the AWPA board, so it is not a budget savings measure. The announcement was made around 3 April. If we have a look at the AWPA's annual report, the agency's budget allocation for 2012-13 was $8.77 million but, as many of the functions of the AWPA will be undertaken by the Department of Industry, including the retention of between 30 and 35 staff, the savings presumably would be somewhat less than that. So it does not appear there is red tape and there is certainly not a huge saving to be found by abolishing the board other than from board fees and some travel costs. So it continues to be quite perplexing as to why the government would repeal the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. More perplexing is that on 9 June two ministers of the government seemed to be extolling the virtues of AWPA.

Where did this measure come from and what does it do? The agency was established by Labor, and that may be one of the reasons it is being repealed. That seems to be the unwritten reason as to why lots of things are being repealed in this place. Certainly it was part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. The Abbott government has been talking about the million jobs, I think it is, that it wants to create—although at the moment it just seems to be abolishing jobs rather than creating them. It would need to create a lot more than a million jobs to catch up with the jobs it has lost to date. Nevertheless, if the Abbott government's stated intention is to be a government that creates jobs, why would it abolish an agency that really does focus on the sorts of skills needed and the future Australian workforce?

The AWPA was to provide the Australia government with ways of improving the productivity of the Australian workforce; the allocation of Commonwealth funding to address Australia's workforce skills and workforce development; the assessment of research relating to improving the productivity of the Australian workforce; and the analysis of funding available to address Australia's workforce skills, productivity needs and development. This was looking at research and how we develop into the future the sorts of skills that Australia needs to be a country where we can have full employment and decent jobs for all those Australians who work. Again, it is questionable that we would get the same benefit by folding the work of the AWPA into the Department of Industry.

Mr Robin Shreeve, the Chief Executive Officer of the AWPA, at the Senate inquiry into the TAFE matter presented insightful, independent evidence that helped those senators—and particularly the Labor senators—shape their report. I believe it was essential information, but unfortunately, with the abolition of the AWPA, that information will no longer be available. As I understand it, the minister did not even bother to announce that he was abolishing the AWPA. The announcement is yet to appear on their website, and indeed Mr Shreeve was the first to break the news to the committee that morning.

In introducing the repeal bill, the minister took just two minutes—two minutes!—to introduce a bill to abolish the AWPA. It is obvious—and we know from a host of other examples in this place, whether it is the environment or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or whatever it is—that the Abbott government clearly is quite adverse to independent advice. It likes to run on myths and made-up kinds of advice. It does not particularly like independent advice, and it does not seem to care for a body that properly shapes this advice and brings together all sides of Australian industry. This is something that I think the Department of Industry will probably struggle to do even though its endeavours will be first class. It is not an independent agency with a specific focus; it is a department with a whole range of pressing issues. We will lose that independence and that ability of a small board to pull together all of Australian industry. Even in its short history, the AWPA has provided essential information in shaping policy, as we heard from Minister Cash and Minister Robb, who utilised its information just a few weeks ago.

As I said earlier, Labor established the AWPA to directly and constructively engage with industry on current and future skill demands. I believe that a small agency is well placed to do that. It can absolutely focus down on its key issues and can draw in those industry partners. The AWPA's task was to look at the future skill needs across a number of key sectors in the Australian economy—for example, manufacturing, where we have seen the closure of our car-manufacturing plants. There is certainly a very big question mark over shipbuilding. We need to focus on manufacturing, because one of the things that we heard time and time again at the TAFE inquiry was that we do not want to see a dumbing down of Australian jobs. Traditionally, the role that manufacturing has played is to really increase our skill levels, to really push our skill and IT development forward in a way that other industries cannot do. The sorts of skill development and innovative technologies that we see in manufacturing are readily transferable to other parts of our economy.

Demand in manufacturing is a critical area to be looking at, as are our trades. We know that we have a skill deficit in future trades. The numbers in our apprenticeships are getting fewer and fewer each year, so we do need a specific focus on apprenticeships that will lead to the sorts of trades that we need in our skilled workforce into the future.

The AWPA also looked at white-collar industries such as accounting and IT. They—particularly accounting—are areas where we really do not see a focus on skill development, so for the AWPA to have an interest and focus in that area is really important. That area, along with IT, is part of the growing areas of our economy. They deserve to be treated with respect and to have the greatest skill innovation that we can possibly bring to bear across those areas.

A unique task for the AWPA was to provide quality research and strategic advice to government on how best to meet the challenges of the future. We know that coalition ministers agree that this was—and is, for as long as it continues—useful, independent advice. Yet they believe in scrapping that body and rolling it into a large, unwieldy government department that, despite its best endeavours, will not be able to provide that really pointy-end strategic advice that we need in developing jobs of the future.

The AWPA are the body which briefs ministers on how to shape policies. They may not always give universally popular decisions but the decisions and the advice are widely researched; they are not at the whim of a particular point of view. They are independent. A key feature of this agency is independent advice to government and they are invaluable, I believe, as an agency. All governments need this sort of advice.

The Abbott government has made a lot of claims that it wants input from industry, yet it seeks to disband the key national policy and research body on skills which brings those very stakeholders together. AWPA brings together peak national bodies such as ACCI, AiGroup and the ACTU to achieve industry leadership. It takes an independent body to do this, to get industry leaders in the room all at one time, to put their often quite different points of view.

We have example after example and here is another one: the Abbott government is again showing how out of touch it is with other countries. Even in the UK, AWPA-equivalent bodies have escaped the Conservative Cameron government's attack on the so-called red tape. Disbanding the key national policy and research body on skills while we have jobs being lost across the country just does not make sense. When we brought in the AWPA, the coalition supported us. Sussan Ley, an opposition spokesperson at the time, said on 22 May 2012, the AWPA's predecessor, Skills Australia:

… had done a very good job and provided comprehensive advice to government.

She said it was a Labor government which did not want to 'heed the advice' of the agency. Now, her government is looking to cull it for the sake of a comparatively low degree of financial savings—in the name of red tape! In government, Labor made a record $19 billion investment in skills and training for smarter jobs—not dumbed down jobs—because smarter jobs will lead our economy. If we have those smarter jobs we will build a stronger nation. It is somewhat sad to note that the new jobs in the Australian economy, while critically important, are in low-paid areas—aged care, disability services and so on. These are important jobs and people should be paid a lot more for the sort of work they do. That is the job development going on in our country—important, should be better paid. We also need jobs that really push us in IT development, really push us in manufacturing. Those are the jobs which are being lost.

Labor recognises that skills are the bedrock of innovative workplaces. Surely no-one would disagree with that. Proper investment in skills is how we stay ahead and position ourselves in a globalised world. When Labor was in government, we put skills and innovation among the five key policy pillars underpinning our agenda. We entrusted the AWPA to provide us honest information about our plans. Perhaps we did not always agree with that honest information but it was honest and it was independent; it did not come from a department or from any other government agency. It came from the sector, it came from the industries, it came from business and it came from trade unions, underpinned by solid research. Ultimately, that advice came from an independent board. Unfortunately, that advice will be no longer.

We need a guarantee from the government that this independent advice on workforce and productivity issues will continue to be provided. We need a clear statement from government about just how the Department of Industry is going to give that independent advice. What underpinning research can we rely on and how will it undertake that industry stakeholder engagement, which has been so much a success of the AWPA's board? If we want a visionary approach to the Australian workforce development strategies, we need a critical, independent agency to assist us. Perhaps it is not too late for the government to rethink this one. The dollars are not there. There are not massive savings to be had by abolishing the AWPA. There will be a little bit of money saved by not paying board fees and travel but the independence that the board has been so good at providing government, that stakeholder engagement, that research, is what Labor believes will be lost if the board is simply folded into the Department of Industry. That is to take nothing away from the public servants, but it is a very big department with a very big focus. We do not want to lose the unique advice we got from AWPA.

Finally, as a Labor senator, I want to thank the AWPA board and its staff, in particular Mr Robin Shreeve, for the hard work and for their commitment to providing quality research and strategic policy advice to government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take on notice some of those matters from Senator Xenophon, particularly the arrival of Mr Parker in his office. But, in relation to some of these other matters, I think it is really important to stress that the Australian Public Service is a source of independent advice, and I hope that there is a reflection on their professionalism in none of the contributions we have heard today, particularly from Senator Lines. I presume there is no reflection on the independence of the Australian Public Service. I know we want to get this through quickly, but I say to Senator Xenophon, in particular, that what we desperately need to have is industry responding to changing scenarios. The issue has been, all the way through, in relation to AWPA and other measures, that industry is not engaged.

What this government has quite clearly said is that it is going to engage with industry. They are very, very important partners in the way forward. My understanding is that at the last AWPA scenario day, where a number of research projects were planned, there was little, if any, industry attendance. That is just crazy, and the government have moved very quickly since we were elected to actively engage with industry. There has been very widespread and extensive consultation, including a ministerial round table in January, national face-to-face and online stakeholder workshops from February to April and written feedback from stakeholders. I commend the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014 to the Senate, and the government will not be supporting the second reading amendment.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Lines be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Bill read a second time.