An Australian National Skills Passport: Misguided Investment

The proposition for an Australian National Skills Passport appears to be a step backwards, rather than forwards, for workforce development. This concept is not novel; it has resurfaced periodically over the past two decades in Australia but has never gained traction. The reasons for this are numerous and grounded in both practical and strategic considerations.

Firstly, the utility of a skills passport is more evident in contexts like Europe, where labour mobility across borders is a common phenomenon. In such a scenario, an international—not national—skills passport would be pertinent. Australia’s pursuit of a national version seems misaligned with global trends and the existing infrastructure that supports skill recognition, including giants such as LinkedIn and continuing professional development. This approach not only demonstrates a disregard for global advancements in skill databases and systems but also seems to overlook the fact that many employers and industries have moved away from formal education due to outdated content and Training Packages.

Moreover, the advent of Generative AI is set to revolutionise how skills and capabilities are assessed and recognised, rendering the concept of a skills passport potentially obsolete before it even takes off. This technology promises more dynamic and adaptable ways of recognising and certifying skills in real-time, far outpacing the static nature and expense of a skills passport.

The consultation paper on this initiative reveals a worrying lack of depth in understanding the complexities of capability recognition and the state-of-the-art approaches being adopted globally. The idea of sinking funds into a National Skills Passport, which risks becoming an expensive and underutilised initiative, is not only impractical but also unwise. A more forward-thinking strategy would be to channel these resources into an Open Innovation Fund aimed at transforming the Australian education system to better meet future needs.

Furthermore, if the government leads the design, implementation, and operation of a National Skills Passport, it is likely to contradict the principles of user-centricity and trust that are essential for such a system to succeed. The focus should instead be on revitalizing Vocational Education and Training (VET) products to ensure they remain relevant and responsive to the evolving job market.

In light of these considerations, the push for a National Skills Passport seems ill-advised. The emphasis should be on innovation and adaptation, leveraging technology and global best practices to prepare the Australian workforce for the challenges and opportunities of the future. Investing in a National Skills Passport would not only be a misallocation of resources but also a missed opportunity to truly innovate and lead in the field of education and workforce development.

So, the Australian National Skills Passport is an idea whose time has not come—and likely never will. The focus should shift towards more innovative and impactful initiatives that align with global trends and the realities of the modern workforce.

Scroll to Top