National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform

Mr GEE (Napier) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Higher Education and Skills. Can the minister inform the house whether the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform that is set to expire on 30 June 2017 will be replaced by another funding agreement with the commonwealth in the area of skills?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (14:58): I would love to be able to give a simple answer of yes, but unfortunately I can't. It's actually magnificent to go to ministerial council meetings on skills, as it is on education, because the states stand shoulder to shoulder as the primary providers of these services asking and at times almost begging the federal government not only to provide the funding that we agree is appropriate but, in fact, to treat us as the providers of the service and to consult and discuss these matters with us.

For some time we have known, obviously, that this national partnership agreement was coming to an end (it comes to an end at the end of this month), and we have been asking the federal government whether they are intending to replace it. Having been met with steadfast silence for the last two years, and the year and a half that I have been the minister, in the budget out came this fund that is known as the Skilling Australians Fund, which is purported to be $1.5 billion. I say 'purported to be' because there are a couple of areas at risk here.

One area of risk is that the funds are to come from a levy imposed on 457 visa workers. What that means is that, first of all, the federal government has to get legislation to raise that levy through parliament. In fact, the assistant minister asked us as state ministers at the ministerial council if we could help her get it through the Senate, as if I have any power or control over another parliament in making a decision about something that matters very deeply to us but is wholly in the control of another sphere of government. I think we have to keep in mind the lessons of federalism about not mixing up those lines of responsibility.

The first thing is they have to get that legislation through to see if they are able to have access to that form of income for the Skilling Australians Fund. Then, of course, it's a question of how much they actually get as opposed to estimate. What they have said is that in the first year they will guarantee the money but they won't guarantee it beyond then. So, it is at risk in the real sense that they won't get the amount of money into the fund that they expect.

Given how important skills are to the future of our economy, it is beyond belief that the federal government would regard it as acceptable to have their contribution being one that is at risk, that they are not in control of and that they are not going to guarantee beyond the first year. What we have is a fund that may or may not get through parliament and that may or may not have the amount within it. However, it is good that they are putting together a fund, and we will obviously participate in seeking to gain funding for people in South Australia.

Initially, the assistant minister was very clear that she was only interested in apprenticeships and traineeships, both of which matter enormously. We know that we want to see more apprenticeships and more traineeships. However, a couple of areas of growth in our economy aren't limited strictly to that form of training. Through the ministerial council meeting, we were in fact able to get the concession that those would also be able to be considered in this fund, which may or may not exist at all, given the question of the Senate, and, if it does, may or may not have the $1.5 billion that they claim it will.

So, we will be working very closely with industry and training providers in this state to make sure that we apply for that fund, should it exist, so that we are able to provide the kind of training that is required for our people to have the jobs of the future. I must say again what a pleasure it was to stand particularly with New South Wales as a Liberal state in trying to get a better answer out of this federal government about skills.