National Farmers' Federation

Response:

Jobs & Skills Australia (JSA) will be comprised of one Commissioner and a variable number of Deputy Commissioner(s) with support provided by departmental staff. The mechanism for and tenure of appointment(s) is not specified, and the bulk of JSA’s operations will be performed by DEWR. With that framework, it is not hard to imagine JSA finding it difficult to vigorously maintain its independence. Ideally the model would be changed to provide true independence from the operations of the department and its staff. As a minimum, the composition and decision-making processes of JSA and the advisory body, as well as the substance of any reports, advices, etc, should be transparent and publicly available to ensure accountability.

Response:

­- While the Commission should have an eye to new and emerging disciplines and sectors, as an essential strategic principle it should also give proper weight to existing and more traditional needs; i.e. it should avoid being captured by buzz industries and trends. Similarly, while the Commission should look to the future and developing needs, it must also be aware of existing needs and should not take past/present strengths for granted.

- ­Another essential principal JSA should follow — albeit broader than a consideration for the workplan — is to ensure that decisions and advice are based on probative and comprehensive (i.e. with respect to the conclusions it draws) sources of evidence. A key source of evidence needs to be drawn from the sources of Jobs and Skills Councils and their extensive industry supported networks.  e.g. in our opinion, internet advertisements of job vacancies are not a good indicator of skills shortages, compared to the information available from the networks associated with the new Jobs and Skills Councils.

Response:

­- The interests of all stakeholders should be properly represented. We are, for example, concerned that the advisory body does not include representatives of the farming sector and simply relies on the input of the economy-wide peak bodies (ACCI, BCA, COSBOA) who do not have agricultural representation in any significant way. We would also note that the interests of other stakeholders — in addition to the priority cohorts which the paper identifies —  such as seniors, new Australians, etc, should be appropriately represented and heard.

­- That said, the size of the advisory body should be controlled; i.e. a single advisory bodies with 100 members would not allow all members a chance to be heard. As such, we would recommend multiple advisory bodies each with a specific focus e.g. with a division of responsibilities mirroring the Jobs and Skills Councils, and taking data and information from the Jobs and Skills Councils. We note that while the discussion paper contemplates sub-committees, perhaps to address this concern, this may result in an even worse outcome with individual views being diluted at both the subcommittee-level and then drowned-out at ‘principal’ committee level.

Response:

Beyond recommending the usual process of consultation with industry bodies — i.e. seeking their views of the bodies, together with introductions to people who may be able to provide valuable insights — we would note that any engagement should be targeted and authentic. JSA should only consult where it is genuinely seeking input and feedback rather than ‘ticking a box’, and the consultation should allow adequate time for a considered response noting that many peak bodies (including the NFF) need to consult with their members prior to being able to fashion a response/submission. The NSC appeared to have a standard 4 week period seeking feedback, and this is nowhere near enough as evidenced in the recent call for submissions. For example the recent call for feedback issued on the 3rd of February with a closing date on the 1st of March https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/consultations/draft-australian-skills-classification-occupation-profiles  for a release due mid-year, ie the JSA is providing themselves with far more time to consider feedback than it is allowing stakeholders to provide it.

Response:

­- JSA should conduct a frequent (annual) analysis of job attractiveness i.e. what drives/discourages a person from accepting a job and/or pursuing a career, and what can be done by individual businesses — as well as at an economy-wide level — to either build on the drivers or address the discouraging factors. For example, what is the real impact of salary/wage expectations on career (and job) decisions? What is the impact of lifestyle? Locale and workplace? And, if those expectations discourage participation, how can industry and individual business counteract that effect.

­- JSA should also consider the impact of training and delivery services on skills development, and consider how the method/medium of training can be designed to promote uptake. For example, formal training arrangements/requirements can pose a significant obstacles in rural and remote Australia; coupled with resourced required to training (expensive machinery, animal, land expanse, etc), deliver of farm skills can be very expensive and pose challenging logistical problems. 

Response:

See comments at question 3.

Response:

No comment.

Response:

In addition to publishing analysis and reports, JS should make the raw data freely and publicly available (i.e. on its website) in its entirety and in commonly used formats e.g. excel spreadsheet (together with the analysis which draws on that data).

Response:

No response provided.