Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I never thought I would stand in this House and utter the words 'bring back Gibbons as the member for Bendigo'. Not only did the member for Bendigo run into this House late, but she obviously did not even read the bill nor indeed her own side's amendment. She did not address one iota of the bill before the House. In fact, in her closing comments she said this bill is about establishing AWPA. It is actually about abolishing AWPA. So I would suggest that before the member gets up and makes long-winded statements in this House she should actually try reading a bill and then not just turning up on time but actually understanding what she is debating.

The Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Repeal Bill 2014 repeals the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency Act 2008 and abolishes the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, known as the agency. The agency was established to provide advice in relation to Australia's current and future skills and workforce development needs, based on an economy-wide analysis of industry trends. There is also a range of other functions relating to research and analysis of industry workforce and skills needs, including developing the Skilled Occupations List. In winding down the agency's operations, the agency staff and functions will be transferred to the Department of Industry. I will restate that for members opposite, who seem to think there will be mass sackings. In winding down the agency's operations, the agency staff and functions will be transferred to the Department of Industry. These functions are core public policy activities and therefore do not require an independent statutory framework to be carried out. They are the core business of government.

The change will strengthen resources and the capacity of the Department of Industry to provide targeted advice, to improve accountability and to make sure they interact with the industry that actually provides the jobs. What is critical is that the Department of Industry, the public servants whom the other side seem to have no faith in to provide advice to the government, actually interact with industry and deliver the necessary requirements so that we can create greater prosperity for this nation.

This bill is a critical part of this government's agenda for reforming and streamlining governance arrangements for vocational education and training, as well as rationalising the number of portfolio bodies across government. As a part of these proposed changes, we will facilitate much stronger linkages between the skills and the industry functions of the department. We will improve the accountability by instituting direct reporting lines through the secretary of the department. There will be efficiencies—small efficiencies—associated with the abolition of AWPA, through reductions in corporate overheads and the removal of the AWPA board.

Let's make no bones about it. This is about providing a straight line from industry needs, through to the department, and through to the minister, and then we can expedite the results. This is about stronger engagement. I will bring up one case as an example. As the shadow minister for tourism during the term of the previous government I understood the need for cooks and chefs, food professionals, to be placed back on the Skilled Occupations List. I had had discussions with industry, and industry said that AWPA, who prepare the information for the Skilled Occupations List just were not listening. Back on 13 December a round table with the restaurant, catering and hospitality industry was put together, and AWPA presented. It is true what AWPA said: of the number of people who come in under the Skilled Occupations List, cooks and chefs were the highest of any occupation coming into Australia. The fundamental problem, though, is that people were taking up the opportunity to come in under that occupation and were then not working in that occupation. I understand that the minister, Senator Cash, has been doing some work in relation to that with the industry. What is key and critical here is the term 'engagement direct with industry' for understanding their concerns and delivering real outcomes.

The abolition of AWPA is only a part of the Australian government's broader VET reform agenda. We have a stronger focus on ensuring our national training system is more responsive to the current and future skills needs of businesses, because it is the businesses that will employ the people involved in the training.

We will introduce a new Industry and Skills Advisory Committee. This new advisory committee will provide industry with a formal role in relation to policy directions and decision making in the national training system and will include both industry representatives and selected senior officials. It will also have the consideration of VET sector regulation to ease the regulatory burden and create more effective and efficient skills and training systems, including examining the standards for providers and regulators to ensure that they better recognise the different levels of risk posed by different providers in enabling VET regulators to deal more effectively with poor quality in the sector to improve confidence in that sector.

So, we are recommending a change. In listening to the comments and the amendment put forward by the member for Cunningham, you would believe that she had absolutely no confidence at all in the Public Service to provide quality advice to the department. I go back to what I said earlier: the responsibilities of the people and public servants involved in AWPA will be transferred back to the department. They will be the same people. When they worked for AWPA she had confidence in their ability to provide quality information to the government; when they work for the department, she has no such confidence. The member also criticised the government for not making this policy announcement with the bells and whistles. Well, the minister undertook at COAG on 3 April to make the announcement. The minister wrote directly to every board member. The minister does not believe in policy by press announcement, like members of the Labor Party opposite; we believe in talking to the affected people, to the industry stakeholders, and working with them to deliver real outcomes.

As an example of that, as I said, on the public statements that were made in relation to the abolition of AWPA on 3 April 2014, at the first session of the COAG Industry and Skills Council meeting the Minister for Industry advised leaders from various industry sectors of the government's intention to roll the functions of AWPA into the department. In fact, the chair of AWPA, Mr Philip Bullock, issued a subsequent statement on 9 April confirming the government's intention. I will quote part of that statement:

In terms of future arrangements, we are pleased that the Minister has decided that many of the functions of AWPA will transfer and be incorporated into the Department of Industry. The agency’s secretariat staff are public servants within the Department of Industry which will assist the transfer process. The Government will in due course initiate the necessary legislative changes.

which is what we are doing today. So, we consulted, we engaged and we led, and we are determined to deliver real outcomes. These outcomes are about driving skills reforms with the industry itself in the driving seat—not in the back seat, not left behind at the bus stop but actually in the driver's seat.

The member for Cunningham also asked about the National workforce development strategy 2016. I would like to remind that member that, again, as with all of AWPA's reports, including the National workforce development strategy 2013, the reality is—and I am just looking at this amendment here again—in relation to the critical independent research to government and industry in relation to Australia's current and emerging future skills in the workforce need to continue to be carried out and made public, the former Labor government never responded to those reports. So, they did their reports, and such is the quality of the work that the former government refused to respond to those reports. So it is somewhat idiotic for a member to walk in here and put this form of an amendment on the table when their own government, the creator of AWPA, did not even bother responding to the reports. I say to the member for Cunningham, like the member for Bendigo: when you walk into this House, please understand what you are doing when you are debating. The shadow minister should have been better informed of the processes and the outcomes and some of the reports that had occurred in the sector that she purports to represent. The fact is that AWPA, while adding research to the skills productivity base, was yet another body and layer of the skills system that Labor had made so confusing and fractured that it made getting solutions to some of the issues raised by industry and other bodies like AWPA so difficult to address.

The National workforce development strategyexamined the workforce needs under four different growth scenarios. The main finding is that Australia's needs for higher-level qualifications will exceed demand for lower-level qualifications. Under the government's bill the department will have responsibility for skills needs forecasting. This will take a variety of forms, from skills lists to discussion documents. It will be used to inform government policy and ensure that training expenditure matches future skills needs. In other words, we will be building a workforce that is actually employable, that will help our nation's economy grow and deliver real outcomes and results.

But scenario planning is not a function required by the AWPA legislation. Whether it was the best way of considering future skills needs will be considered as part of future work planning. The key will be to ensure that the VET and higher education sectors respond to the changing needs of Australia by meeting the needs of jobs, now and into the future. Some of the work that AWPA has done has been first-class. Some of it has required change, and that is what we are undertaking here today. I say to the member opposite that our intention is to reduce corporate overheads, to bring about a more streamlined, interactive forum where industry can engage directly with the department and through to the minister. And if an urgent requirement occurs it will be delivered very quickly.

So, I am concerned by the quality of some of the debate. But I do want to thank the member for Bowman, who rightly pointed out that it was the Labor government who failed to formally respond to any of the reports put forward by AWPA. I want to thank the member for Ryan for a very concise appraisal of the legislation, a speech whereby the member actually understood what was said. Indeed, the member for Banks pointed out that it was we on this side who undertake the process of spending and investing in skills needs better than Labor. The reality is that Labor will never reform the process; they will just throw more money at the process, and they care very little about the outcomes.

The government will not be supporting the amendment, a pious amendment, put forward by the member for Cunningham. We understand what is required because we have been engaging with industry not just in the last nine months of government but indeed the whole way through the period when we were in opposition. That is why we have come to this decision that AWPA needs to go, that we need to bring this body within the confines of the department, and we will continue to engage and deliver real outcomes. Therefore, we reject the amendment and recommend the bill in its original form to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context