12. Service provision and program design: For employers

Access to quality jobseekers

12.1Employers’ negative perceptions of long-term unemployed (LTU) or disadvantaged jobseekers is a longstanding and challenging issue and acts as a barrier to engagement.[1] Evaluations of employment services indicate that employers hold concerns about the skill and motivation of LTU people and are unwilling to engage jobseekers from the employment services caseload—regardless of government incentives.[2]

12.2The National Employment Services Association (NESA) noted that evaluations consistently indicate that employers see jobseekers on the employment services caseload as lacking work-related skills, reluctant to work, and unproductive if hired.[3] Jobs Australia similarly noted that employers expect ‘job-ready’ candidates for vacant roles, stating that experiences of service providers putting forward candidates lacking skills and qualifications—often driven by the ‘work first’ approach—leads to employer disengagement.[4]

12.3NESA told the Committee that the ability to provide an end-to-end service which matches employers with the right candidate is critical, noting that previous models funded providers to find the most suitable candidate for a vacancy—regardless of whether the candidate was on the provider’s caseload.[5]

12.4Access to job-ready candidates has been made more challenging by the fact that those jobseekers are now in Workforce Australia Online. Under previous programs, providers could add value to recruitment processes by offering a pool of job-ready candidates from their caseloads and leverage this relationship to obtain placements for jobseekers with higher barriers to employment. This is no longer feasible.[6]

12.5Stakeholders indicated that government must be proactive in addressing this issue. This would involve ensuring that jobseekers possess sufficient core skills, aligning jobseekers’ technical skills with those required by employers, and offering a service that goes beyond simply matching jobseekers to focus on long-term recruitment and workforce needs.[7] The Salvation Army Employment Plus (SAEP) also recommended that self-managed jobseekers in online services be distinguished from jobseekers in provider-led services, and that the supplementary benefits of using providers to assist with recruitment needs be clearly communicated to employers.[8]

12.6Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA) noted that requiring employers to navigate online services to recruit employees increases transaction costs. Providers, by contrast, can reduce transaction costs by matching jobseekers to roles, and can build trust with employers by adding value to their recruitment processes.[9]

12.7Per Capita argued that there may be a role for a not-for-profit labour hire model as a way to offer shorter attachments in paid work experience with less administrative burden and risk for employers. Bringing together resources available in the system, the intermediary function could include screening, recruitment, onboard and initial training, organisation around things like transport, and support for employers with rostering and supplying another worker if something falls over.[10] The Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) also detailed their social purpose labour hire service— Given the Chance—that similarly acts as an intermediary. The Given the Chance program is designed to support jobseekers experiencing disadvantage—including First Nations peoples, people with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, and people seeking asylum—and involves partnerships with businesses from a range of sectors. The program also facilitates apprenticeships, traineeships, and labour hire arrangements.[11]

12.8During site visits, the Committee also heard directly from business leaders and individual businesses about their willingness to engage disadvantaged jobseekers who were not fully job-ready or skilled for a role, and their experiences of engaging these jobseekers. Common themes were that financial incentives such as wage subsidies or training supports are necessary but not sufficient to ‘de-risk’ engaging disadvantaged jobseekers, and that post-placement support was essential. Further, while acknowledging that little can be done about perceived Occupational Health and Safety or Workcover risks, some employers expressed genuine concerns about industrial relations risks, such as the risk of—often unfounded—unfair dismissal action where an employee is terminated during their probation period because they are not a good fit for the business. This is a particular concern where the employee possesses a protected characteristic. Many small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are unable or unwilling to bear these risks. Employers also indicated that the above-mentioned not-for-profit labour hire models would address many of their concerns. However, they also suggested that stronger protections may be helpful to limit perceived industrial relations risk in the first few months.

Alignment of skills, competencies, and experience with employer needs

12.9A key theme in evidence provided to the Committee was that employers would see greater value in employment services if they aligned jobseekers’ skills and training with employer and industry needs. The Committee heard that the system remains disconnected from the skills and training sector.[12]

12.10Limited foundation and ‘soft’ skills were identified as a barrier to employers engaging jobseekers.[13] For example, Per Capita stated:

There is a clear need for employment services to ensure they are aware of and linked to every program and opportunity to build, and to certify wherever possible, foundation skills. Ideally, these skills will be taught in real-world settings … Ironically, it has been difficult to bring [relevant programs and courses] to the attention of federal employment services providers, perhaps because pre-accredited training completion is not a payable outcome, though it may be a step towards a later employment outcome. Improving jobseekers’ access to relevant courses from which they would benefit is an important challenge to resolve.[14]

12.11The Business Council of Australia (BCA) similarly observed that foundational skills—and particularly and increasingly digital skills—are critical to meeting employers’ needs, also noting that jobseekers should have access to career information and advice to maximise their job readiness.[15]

12.12A critical first step to aligning skills training with industry need will be understanding skills gaps and current and future demand. Stakeholders told the Committee that consultation and partnership with industry, employers, and peak bodies is key to this effort, and suggested potential avenues for successful engagement.[16] For example, Generation Australia noted there would be value in convening forums between industry and providers on matters such as the future prospects of industry and current and future skill needs.[17]

12.13The Committee heard that government should play a role in analysing the needs of employers and unemployed people. This would include robust data capture, linking datasets to enable labour market insights, and creating activities for jobseekers that generate skills and attributes that are valued by employers.[18]

12.14Stakeholders indicated that aligning jobseekers’ skills to employer needs could be achieved via partnership with education and training institutions, including TAFEs and universities. Employment service providers that are also Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) could capitalise on their service offerings to better target industry needs,[19] with jobseekers with an interest in certain industries or fields connected to industry specialists.[20]

12.15It was put to the Committee that partnerships with training providers could play a role in ‘de-risking’ engagement of jobseekers, noting that training pathways which involve work experience (for example, apprenticeships) will enable employers to observe jobseekers in a work environment and make informed decisions around engaging them permanently. Per Capita highlighted a 2021 study on employment solutions for younger people, noting that the study recommended:

• using financial levers to promote training investment by employers;
• revitalising existing support models for employers—and especially for sectors without strong existing apprenticeship pathways;
• creating collaborative pre-employment and training models to share the risk of hiring new and untried candidates; and
• expanding the apprenticeship model to a greater range of sectors.[21]
  16. Defining and delivering the skills required for specific sectors could assist to identify and respond to critical skills gaps and ensure a ‘pipeline’ of workers with in-demand skills.[22] The Victorian Government highlighted the approach taken by Jobs Victoria in relation to priority workforce projects, stating:

We work with the peak bodies to identify what their entry level skill needs are. We pull in the training providers to identify the right mix of training, both before and during the course of the employment. We come up with very bespoke earn-and-learn pathways where people get 12 months of paid employment and extra mentoring and supervision on the job to help them succeed. We're seeing really good retention rates … around 75 per cent—which is very promising.[23]

12.17Dr Ann Nevile noted that certain countries have taken an industry- or sector-specific approach to skills development and job creation. Dr Nevile highlighted the Belgian employment service system, which divides employers into sectors, such as retail, food, tourism, and social sectors such as health and social care, entertaining and culture. The system identifies competencies required by employers operating in each sector and facilitates job matching and follow-up to ensure that candidates meet employers’ needs—all through a single point of contact.[24]

12.18Other stakeholders noted that there should also be a focus on specific cohorts of jobseekers. The Coalition of Peaks highlighted a project in Victoria that mapped the location of First Nations communities against existing and future service sectors. The project found, among other matters, that social housing for First Nations peoples was not being built in areas where services were accessible. This ultimately led to a change in where services were delivered, with a focus on specific regions and communities. The Coalition called for the creation of work opportunities for First Nations peoples on country—for example by leveraging new clean energy projects.[25]

12.19Per Capita drew attention to Employer Innovation Labs conducted by Social Ventures Australia (SVA), stating that these bring together employers and young people to share experiences, perspectives and needs. Participating employers design pilot initiatives for recruitment and training. This model has the value of potential future workers in an industry learning about the work itself but having opportunities to raise important material issues such as housing and transport needs, social connection, and pay and prospects. Per Capita stated that despite the advantages of engaging with employers in this way, the Innovation Labs model remains under-developed.[26]

The role of employers in delivering and facilitating training

12.20The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) observed that there is a large and growing body of evidence showing that investment in training programs for unemployed people can yield sizable payoffs. Meta-analysis of employment programs indicates that, on average, training improves the probability of subsequent employment by two percentage in the short term (less than one year after program completion) and 6.7 percentage points over longer periods (more than two years after program completion).[27] Navitas made similar assertions about the value of training programs, stating:

Investment in ‘human capital’ approaches deliver the strongest returns. Education and training programs, including in delivering foundational skills, are the most effective and cost-efficient effective in supporting people that are not in work, including the long-term unemployed.[28]

12.21The Employment White Paper outlined the roles that a high-quality and responsive tertiary education sector, structured work-integrated training or on-the-job training through apprenticeships, and work-related training (formal, ‘non-formal’ and informal) can have in delivering skilled workers. It also noted that there is scope to better integrate support for upskilling while people are currently working, particularly for workers who are likely to need to transition during periods of structural adjustment.[29]

12.22Several stakeholders indicated that employers should have a key—or lead—role in delivering training to jobseekers, noting that this may include training linked to paid work opportunities such as apprenticeships and traineeships, and in-work training and mentoring. Stakeholders further indicated that the employment services system must ensure that training—including but not limited to training delivered by employers—is linked to the needs of employers and industry. This is to increase the likelihood that training will result in a successful work placement and to respond to skill shortages—including in growth industries.[30] For example, Anglicare WA stated:

Sectors such as aged care, childcare and other human services are crying out for workers and will need many more in the future. Rather than enforcing tick-the-box points targets for job seekers, we encourage the Government to shift focus and open up opportunities by funding job training, apprenticeships, or mentorship programs that funnel job seekers into these meaningful and much needed jobs.[31]

12.23The OECD observed that training facilitated or delivered by employers has a positive effect on workers’ performance and satisfaction, leading to improved productivity, innovation, and profitability. The OECD also highlighted the following measures to support and encourage employers to deliver or facilitate training, indicating that these measures may involve public employment services and other government support.

• Introducing regulatory requirements for employers to support training. This may include specifying minimum levels of training and leave in legislation; requiring enterprises to develop training plans—potentially co-designed with the relevant sector and accompanied by incentives; and expanding training provisions in existing agreements (where these exist).
• Implementing financial measures to lower employers’ costs associated with training. This may include introducing additional tax deductions and exemptions; minimising the cost and administrative burden of accessing government support; and subsidising training costs.
• Implementing other non-regulatory measures to lower risks associated with training. This may include introducing job rotation schemes to address concerns about the opportunity costs of providing training (especially for SMEs and where lower-skilled workers are engaged); making informal learning in workplaces eligible for financial support in certain circumstances.
• Building employers’ capacity and learning culture. This may include providing information and reaching out to enterprises to motivate them deliver or facilitate training; enhancing enterprises’ capacity to assess their skills and training needs; and promoting modern workplace practices and fostering management skills within enterprises to create the conditions for effective training.
• Promoting cooperation among employers and with the public and education sectors. This may include leveraging the work performed by employer and sector associations; linking employer training with major initiatives such as Sectoral Skills Funds, Individual Learning Accounts, and tax reform measures; instituting learning and training networks; and formalising business-education collaboration, including by involving employers and industry in the development of training that meets the industry’s precise needs.[32]
  24. Stakeholders with whom the Committee engaged during its European delegation similarly emphasised that businesses play a crucial role in providing opportunities for training and skills development, noting that the majority of adult learning happens in the workplace. Stakeholders also asserted that any employment-based training arrangements (such as internships, apprenticeships and traineeships, social enterprises, or work experience placements) must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to the participant’s needs (for example, in terms of the number of training hours), and must be of a duration sufficient to allow the jobseeker to learn from the experience.
  25. As set out in Chapter 2, Australia spends just 10 per cent of the OECD average (0.014 per cent of GDP, compared to an average of 0.133 per cent of GDP) on training, including institutional training, workplace training, integrated training, and special support for apprenticeships. Investment in training is also very small compared with Australia’s investment in other labour market programs.

Direct partnerships with employers

12.26There was strong support for direct partnerships between providers and individual employers, with stakeholders noting that these partnerships are often focused on meeting the workforce needs of a local community or individual employer. The Committee heard that these projects involve both demand- and supply-side supports and can be successful in assisting vulnerable jobseekers into entry-level roles.[33]

12.27NESA stated that bespoke pre- and post-employment solutions for employers are critical to an effective employment services system and can be implemented in almost any labour market. However, these solutions are often resource-intensive and are most effective when employers play an active role (for example by pre-screening candidates, delivering information sessions, and hosting workplace visits).[34] As an example of a project focused on the needs of a single employer, the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) drew attention to an initiative it delivered with a large caravan supplier, with financial support from the Victorian Government:

On the demand side, BSL worked with the employer to co-design a training, recruitment, and supportive onboarding process for entry level jobseekers. On the supply side, BSL provided young people with pre-employment soft skills training and accredited certificates, ensuring they were well placed to thrive in the workplace and continuously upskill once in the roles.[35]

12.28Similarly, Asuria People Services (Asuria) highlighted its work designing and delivering industry-specific pre-employment programs in the aged care and maritime sectors, targeted to First Nations jobseekers. Asuria explained that the programs enabled participants to obtain Certificate-level qualifications and work experience and led to many participants gaining employment. Asuria also stated that there is value in providers attending job fairs and other employer-focused initiatives to respond to the needs of local industries.[36]

12.29Professor Mark Considine stated that employers should not be the ‘last station’ on the journey to employment but components of a system that prepares jobseekers for meaningful employment—including by providing work experience and connecting jobseekers with support and mentoring.[37]

Provider engagement with employers

12.30According to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), service providers are expected to actively engage with employers. DEWR indicated that this should include pre-screening candidates, delivery of pre-employment support; provision of resources required to perform in a role such as personal protective equipment; and the delivery of post-placement support.[38]

12.31DEWR observed that many businesses engage with providers when they have an immediate need, noting that the transactional nature of these interactions can affect overall employer satisfaction as providers may either lack the time or be unwilling or unable to invest efforts in understanding workforce needs, organisational culture, or preferred communication styles. By contract, employers report high satisfaction with providers who are responsive to and interested in learning about a business’ needs and practices, work closely to ensure they understand future recruitment and training needs and have good relationships with participants on their caseloads.[39]

12.32Stakeholders asserted that relationships between employers and providers are critical to ensuring employers engage with the system and to understanding and responding to challenges relating to skills gaps and workforce planning. These relationships can be leveraged to enable meaningful employment outcomes and to overcome employers’ reluctance to hire disadvantaged jobseekers.[40] For example, Joblink Plus stated:

The employer relationship with a provider has to be highly valued enough by the employer that they call the provider before any other action is taken, for employment positions across all non-executive levels. Building this trusted relationship is paramount for both the provider and employer in order to ensure the process of participant referral is appropriate.[41]

12.33Dr Michael McGann highlighted the importance of the employer-provider relationship through the example of a provider in regional New South Wales (NSW) which had built strong relationships of trust with two local employers. The relationship enabled the provider to secure employment opportunities for a significant number of First Nations candidates—including those with significant barriers to employment.[42]

12.34The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) reflected on the need to broker employment opportunities for First Nations peoples, noting that jobseekers will have more enthusiasm to gain and develop skills if there is a clear pathway to a job. The NIAA highlighted trial reforms to the Community Development Program (CDP), noting that the trials support progression into paid work in jobs that align with jobseekers’ circumstances, including part-time and flexible roles. The NIAA emphasised that relationships between employers and providers are critical to this effort.[43]

12.35Stakeholders highlighted key elements of successful relationships between providers and employers. For example, the SAEP stated that an effective relationship requires:

• open, transparent, frequent communications, and established provider contacts;
• responsiveness to employer needs regarding the quality of candidates and the speed at which they are referred;
• pre-employment training and supports to prepare jobseekers for the job, including core employability skills and industry-specific training; and
• regular post-placement support to both employer and jobseeker to ensure a smooth transition into employment and longevity.[44]
  36. Stakeholders raised concern that existing contracting arrangements make building and maintaining relationships challenging, as government may effectively remove a provider from an Employment Region after a short period of time despite a strong performance record.[45] Workways Australia Ltd (Workways) observed that from jobactive to Workforce Australia, 22 per cent of all Employment Regions had a 100 per cent turnover of providers, including regions such as Darwin where all providers were rated five stars.[46]
  37. During site visits in Cairns, the Committee similarly heard that contracts had been cancelled for all providers in the Employment Region. While providers were granted contracts in other regions, relationships providers had established with employers and local community members were damaged if not entirely lost.

Job brokering, job design and recruitment support

12.38Stakeholders emphasised that the system (currently providers) must deliver a service to employers that cannot be found elsewhere—for example via commercial job matching services or private recruitment firms. This must include high-quality, data-driven HR and workforce planning support, as well as effective post-placement support. Stakeholders also indicated that support should complement and build upon employers’ existing recruitment practices.[47]

12.39Associate Professor Jo Ingold (Dr Ingold) and Mr Tony Carr observed that recruitment activity is often reactive and does not focus on long-term workforce needs. This is an opportunity for employment services to add value to business operations, including via education and training for recruiters and line managers, preparing organisations to employ staff; and delivering quality post-placement support—thereby reducing the number of failed placements.[48]

12.40Stakeholders emphasised that quality employer servicing requires skilled, qualified frontline staff with relevant and, critically, up to date knowledge of the industry.[49] DrIngold and Mr Carr stated:

There is a critical need to professionalise the employability sector in Australia. The majority of employment programs are focussed on the customer journey. This leads to organisational design, processes, targets, learning and professional development within provider organisations focussed on the labour supply-side rather than the business engagement side … More attention needs to be given to employer engagement as a core professional skill as employer-facing staff need to be able to connect with industry … [I]t is beneficial to have staff with relevant industry experience and to ensure that staff are equipped with good labour market intelligence and the skills to engage employers.[50]

12.41Dr Nevile emphasised that effective employer servicing and job matching requires staff supporting employers to work collaboratively with staff supporting jobseekers.[51]

12.42HR support is also critical for small businesses which may not fully understand their workforce needs and lack the resources for effective workforce planning and which may require support navigating the employment services system.[52] The Queensland Government: Department of Employment, Small Business, and Training (DESBT) stated that while in the current labour market employers are increasingly willing to hire workers from disadvantaged cohorts, many employers—and particularly small businesses—require additional support to do so. HR support to employers is an opportunity to capitalise on current labour market conditions, incentivise hiring jobseekers with barriers to employment, and create lasting changes to work practices.[53]

12.43Several stakeholders told the Committee that HR support for employers should include negotiating changes to recruitment and workplace practices to better align with jobseekers’ needs. These changes can also help to ensure employers are considering recruitment needs over the longer term and making use of overlooked talent to add value to their business.[54]

12.44The importance of direct engagement with micro, small and medium sized local employers was heavily emphasised in community models with which the Committee engaged during site visits—for example Opportunity Wyndham and the Tasmanian Jobs Hubs.[55] The Committee heard that around 40percent of jobs in Tasmania—outside Hobart—are never advertised, so word of mouth and direct engagement is critical. The Committee also heard that entry level jobs are often created where officers work directly with sole traders and with micro and small businesses to understand their needs and to design roles. Many such businesses do not have the time or skill to assess their HR needs or to advertise a position but are willing to take on or try an unemployed person with the right support.

12.45Direct engagement with business by skilled staff is critical to encourage, challenge and support employers to redesign jobs. During its European delegation, the Committee heard that this practice (commonly known as ‘job carving’) may involve reallocating tasks to create an entry level role, or splitting jobs into part-time roles to accommodate more diverse candidates. Such engagement is critical to help business adapt their workplace and culture to be more inclusive and to engage more diverse employees, such as people with disability, neurodiverse people, and people from a variety of different cultural and religious background. Measures to support workplace inclusion often need to be accompanied by in-employment support to help sustain a job match (discussed below).

12.46HR and recruitment support will necessarily vary according to cohort:

• Young jobseekers may require a stronger focus on entry-level workers (at least in the short term), and on mentoring and coaching. This cohort may also require flexible work arrangements such as split shifts, job share, and part time hours, and flexible qualification requirements.[56]
• Existing recruitment processes may exclude migrant and refugee jobseekers who are not considered job-ready due to language barriers, lack of local work experience, and unrecognised qualifications. Resources should be available to assist employers to develop flexible recruitment processes and supported pathways into skilled occupations.[57]
• First Nations peoples often feel they have to ‘leave their Aboriginality at the door’ when working in working for employers outside the Aboriginal Community-Controlled sector, and experience anxiety when working in non-First Nations environments. Workplaces must also be adapted to First Nations working and communication styles.[58]
• Supporting First Nations peoples may require changes to hiring policy, with a focus on engaging and retaining First Nations jobseekers. This may involve recruitment targets, pre-employment support, job-site tours, mentors, and changes to induction processes.[59]
  47. The BSL observed that working with employers to change their recruitment practices should underpin a reciprocal relationship between employers and providers, in which providers support employers to recruit jobseekers matched to their business needs, and employers train and support candidates to adapt to the business environment.[60]
  48. Both Workforce Australia and Disability Employment Services (DES) already include some programs which seek to change recruitment practices and build employer confidence to hire a more diverse range of candidates. The Department of Social Services (DSS) drew attention to the National Disability Recruitment Coordination Officer program, which provides support for large employers to build their confidence in hiring people with disability and thereby enable opportunities for this cohort.[61] State and local governments are also taking action to meet labour needs through programs that help employers to address workforce challenges and diversify their workforce.[62]

In-employment support

12.49DEWR observed that providers deliver post-placement support, including training and skills development, assistance with clothing, tools, and equipment, HR support and communications, modifications to the workplace, employer training (for example on inclusion matters), and mentoring to help with the retention of jobseekers placed into a job.[63] There is a commercial interest in supporting retention, for up to six months, as outcome payments for providers are based on the time the jobseeker’s income support payments remain below a threshold amount, which typically corresponds to time in employment.

12.50Stakeholders strongly asserted that effective in-employment support is critical to sustaining relationships with employers and to meaningful employment outcomes—particularly for disadvantaged jobseekers—noting that this in-placement support reduces risks for employers by sharing responsibility for induction, training, and HR and increasing the likelihood that an employee will remain with the employer over the longer term.[64]

12.51Jobs Australia suggested that the employment services system should fund qualified mentors and supervisors to work with new employees onsite until the employee has adjusted to their new work environment.[65] SVA made a similar suggestion, stating:

[Disability Employment Services (DES)] used to … go into a workplace, prepare the people in that workplace for the person who is coming in and do things like job carving and job redesign—actually work really closely with the employer to create a work environment and a job that was going to be suitable.[66]

12.52In-employment support is also discussed in Chapter 11 in the context of supporting jobseekers and enabling career progression.

Outreach and marketing

12.53Some stakeholders told the Committee that providers should engage in proactive outreach to employers to broker opportunities for jobseekers and raise the profile of the employment services system.[67]

12.54SAEP stated that a key focus for the employment services system should be reverse marketing job-ready jobseekers to employers, noting that this would allow providers to personally and proactively advocate for jobseekers on their caseload and broker adjustments roles for jobseekers with higher barriers.[68] In this regard, Dr Nevile noted that while larger employers have digitally literate staff in HR departments and may prefer to source their candidates online, staff in employment services still consider face-to-face communication with employers to be critical—particularly when they first meet with a new employer to discuss their needs.[69]

12.55During site visits, the Committee heard that providers often focus too heavily on securing a placement for jobseekers on their caseload and have little regard to their suitability for the role or to the employer’s business needs. The Committee also heard that providers can be ‘pushy’ and unwilling to negotiate outcomes with the employer. This damages relationships with employers and leads to fewer and less successful job placements.

12.56Per Capita called for providers and their staff to listen to employers’ needs, indicating that a focus on productive rather merely transactional engagement with employers is crucial to ensuring that jobseekers are matched to roles:

Because provider staff tend not to think of visiting the factories, the farms, the aged care workplaces where the vacancies arise, they cannot help the person who might apply for those vacancies to prepare, or to highlight their potentially relevant skills and experience. Many employment advisers lack simple knowledge like the kinds of licences needed to drive a certain class of truck, or the need to pass a drug test. A significant reason for this is staff turnover.[70]

12.57The NIAA noted that current trials relating to the CDP have indicated that employer brokering and connections are effective in terms of securing employment for First Nations jobseekers, stating that approximately 1,500 positions have been generated through this work, with over 900 people in employment. The NIAA stated that ‘the mandate to proactively link with the employer, then supplement so that a person can get started and grow into a role, appears to be pretty fertile ground’.[71]

12.58The Committee heard that there would be value in targeted campaigns to build brand awareness of Workforce Australia, including to highlight the value of employing jobseekers from historically disadvantaged cohorts.[72] Workskil Australia (Workskil) indicated that lack of brand awareness may be due to the constant name changes, stating that while employers are typically aware that they are engaging with Workskil, they are not aware that they are engaging with Workforce Australia.[73]

12.59APM Employment Services (APM) observed that a key role for government is to educate employers on Workforce Australia and the concept of an employment services, stating:

[Providers] don't get people jobs by sending off their résumés to jobs on SEEK. We talk to the employers, we talk to the decisionmakers, and we let them know about the people we have and what their barriers are but what they can do, and we really sell that. As a whole, I don't think the employer market out there understands that. So, when you're coming from a starting point of, essentially, mismatched expectations, it can't work.[74]

12.60IntoWork expressed support for this approach, indicating that educating employers should involve addressing perceptions of people in services as ‘damaged goods’ and highlighting the value of talented but often overlooked jobseekers.[75]

Streamlining recruitment and talent acquisition

12.61Demand-led solutions are hampered by the structure of the current system which disperses jobseekers at various levels of job readiness across caseloads managed by multiple providers. This results in confusion and administrative burden for employers who must engage with multiple providers to meet recruitment and staffing needs.[76] One submitter stated:

[P]erversely, there is too much choice. Some locations have a dozen or more employment service providers servicing them. Employers recruiting staff are not likely to waste time approaching all of those offices to find staff. This lack of consolidation fragments the job market.[77]

12.62Stakeholders asserted that employers must be able to access a larger, more diverse pool of candidates via a single point of contact, with some recommending employers have access to all jobseekers in employment services, including those in digital services and those in programs such as DES.[78]

12.63Stakeholders indicated that this could be facilitated via lead agency arrangements, where a provider (or other entity) takes responsibility for engaging with employers to match jobseekers to vacant roles and to gather and disseminate data on skills needs. The agency would engage with providers in the area to identify job-ready candidates who are suitable for vacant roles. These arrangements could also feed into targeted programs which identify and address regional workforce needs.[79]

12.64NESA expressed support for this kind of local co-ordination, highlighting the success of initiatives in NSW which involved a lead provider model for Sydney Metro and Northwest Rail Link. NESA noted that these projects also involved tailored vocational training and non-vocational support and mentoring.[80]

12.65Other stakeholders expressed support for co-production approaches and for enabling communities of practice, noting that a provider (or other organisation) could facilitate engagement with local services including education and training, allied health and social supports, and local employers.[81] yourtown drew attention to the Community Investment Committees model in this regard, stating:

The National Youth Employment Body (NYEB) currently supports six Community Investment Committees to develop tailored solutions for communities with high youth unemployment. Employers lead the Committee, comprised by local representatives from key industries, youth services, all levels of government, and community.[82]

12.66SVA observed that there is a critical role for intermediaries in the system who can act as trusted points of contact. SVA noted in this respect that providers’ work with jobseekers and employers remains ‘incredibly transactional’ and is driven by a desire to place as jobseekers into employment as fast as possible.[83]

12.67The BSL, Centre for Policy Development (CPD), and University of Melbourne (UniMelb) observed that government could play a key role as an ‘anchor’ provider as part of a place-based delivery partnership. This would involve linking jobseekers with local employers and coordinating supports from a range of training and employment providers and social services.[84] Dr Ingold expressed similar views, stating:

There may be a system where we have a separate entity that is focused on hiding the wiring, and providers could focus on what they do really well, which is working with candidates and building those trusted relationships with candidates. From evidence, I've found that the best modes of delivery are where employer engagement and candidate engagement are separated because you need qualitatively different skills to engage candidates and employers.[85]

12.68Dr Ingold also stated that because labour markets are often local or regional, there would be value in supporting local organisations to engage with employers in the area—drawing attention to the ‘municipalised’ employment services system in the Netherlands as an example of this approach.[86] Dr Ingold and Mr Carr also recommended consideration of state-level platforms for capturing vacancies and responding to the recruitment needs of larger employers.[87]

12.69The BCA similarly observed that the employment services system must be able to anticipate and respond to the future workforce needs of larger employers, including by facilitating training and education to ensure a pool of job-ready candidates as needs arise. The BCA stated that larger employers should be able to:

… engage with the system and say, 'We need X number of people over the next 12 months to two years. Who is in our community and how can we reach out to them and make sure that they have the right training?' That could mean working with local schools, the local VET [provider] or the local university so that [individuals are] being placed into training that is going to make them job ready. This is where business is really wanting to partner up.[88]

12.70The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) state that the system as a whole, rather than individual providers, needs to ensure larger employers can easily access industry-focused case managers with the skills and capacity to flexibly design and deliver targeted employment programs focused on filling vacancies. According to the VCCI, such a mechanism would also help to identify and respond to employment needs across regions, industries, and cohorts.[89]

12.71By contrast, Jobs Australia observed that while employers and providers frequently call for a single point of contact, evidence suggests that centralised recruitment initiatives focused on large employers are often less effective in securing employment for jobseekers than direct engagement by providers with individual employers, and particularly with SMEs.[90]

12.72The Committee also heard that initiatives outside the Commonwealth employment services system have been successful in terms of engaging employers and securing placements for jobseekers—including by acting as a single, trusted point of contact. For example, the Tasmanian Government drew attention to its Regional Jobs Hubs program, noting that the Hubs are embedded in local communities and have trusted relationships with local employers that enables frank conversation and exploration of alternative employment solutions.[91] During site visits the Committee heard that partners in the Opportunity Wyndham initiative similarly collaborate to identify local vacancies through direct engagement with employers and source a selection of suitable candidates from across different caseloads. Candidates are also sourced through direct registration with the partnership.[92]

Greater collaboration

12.73Enabling employers to access a larger, more diverse talent pool will require greater collaboration between providers, and across services, employers, industry associations, and peak bodies. Stakeholders expressed concern that the current system places too great an emphasis on competition, driven by an assumption that competition will drive service improvements and better outcomes.[93]

12.74NESA observed that collaborative and supply-led initiatives exist in the sector but are not very visible. NESA highlighted the National Workforce Network as an example, noting that the network allows providers to share vacancies.[94] However, NESA also emphasised that existing funding and performance management arrangements negatively impact providers’ willingness to collaborate.[95]

12.75Dr Ingold and Mr Carr stated that competition between providers—driven by commissioning structures, funding arrangements, and performance metrics—undermines employer engagement and creates large numbers of less valuable, fragmented services. Dr Ingold and Mr Carr asserted that effective services for business require collaboration between delivery partners, highlighting the UK ReAct partnership as an example of a demand-led initiative that balances competition and cooperation and involves vacancy-sharing and shared minimum service standards for employer engagement.[96]

12.76Stakeholders asserted that place-based models will be key to collaboration between providers, employers, education and training institutions and other stakeholders, and that government should have a role in bringing together people and organisations in the local area, ensuring appropriate policy settings, and providing funding.[97]

12.77Dr Nevile emphasised that clear, explicit incentives are key to enabling collaboration between providers and other stakeholders, stating that licensing arrangements could be used for this purpose. Dr Nevile suggested that this could involve:

• providers identifying collaborative activities in ongoing practice, and how these activities contribute to quality outcomes, at the provider registration stage; and
• giving providers that score highly in terms of local collaboration but which are otherwise performing poorly extra time to improve their overall performance before being considered ‘in scope’ for license revocation.[98]

Committee comment

12.78Since marketisation, employment services in Australia have focused predominantly on conditioning jobseekers for work. The demand side of the employment compact—the needs of and connection with employers—has received less attention and has been frequently overlooked. Large employers have no effective way into the system even where they are willing to hire longer-term or otherwise disadvantaged jobseekers. SMEs and local businesses are largely disengaged and often confused.

12.79There are multiple and complex reasons for this situation, including flawed theories which underpin the system, under-resourcing of employer engagement, excessive fragmentation and competition within the employment services system, poorly targeted mutual obligation settings, and underinvestment in complementary and ALMPs.

12.80There is also compelling evidence that training is among the most effective ways of improving employment outcomes over the longer term. The Committee agrees with the view put forward by many stakeholders and reflected during the Employment White Paper review that employers should have a lead role in delivering training to clients, including through in-work training and mentoring programs, work-focused pathways such as apprenticeships and traineeships, and partnerships with organisations contracted to deliver employment services.

12.81Of course, some providers have been successful in meeting the needs of employers which they work with and brokering work outcomes for jobseekers. However, the preponderance of evidence was that—on a systemic level—employment services remain focused on moving jobseekers off welfare payments as fast as possible into any job with insufficient regard for job suitability or employers’ needs.

12.82The issues outlined above are only exacerbated by the tendency of governments to remove providers from Employment Regions with each contract or licensing round, which limits the ability to build meaningful employer-provider relationships. The Committee was astounded to learn that in one in five regions, all incumbent providers lost their contracts in the last tendering round. In Cairns, it was clearly apparent that community and business stakeholders were bemused and confused at what could reasonably be described as a ‘Hunger Games’ style market culture. The Committee visited multiple regions where providers were equally confused and had effectively swapped regions with their neighbouring providers.

12.83To be clear, the Committee is not making a finding in a narrow sense in relation to the last procurement round which is being considered by the Auditor-General in a report due to be tabled soon after the Committee’s inquiry concludes. In terms though of a regulatory culture and commissioning process the Committee considers these outcomes in aggregate to be profoundly strange with little to no value placed on relationships, social capital, and past performance. The need for a different model of regulation is considered further in Chapter 15.

12.84A rebuilt and rebalanced employment services system must place far more emphasis on demand side efforts and meeting the needs of employers including to ensure that:

• employers have access to job-ready candidates through a single point of contact;
• services are flexible and adapted to employers’ needs and are not designed around individual, transactional outcomes for jobseekers;
• education, training, and targeted support is integrated into the employment service system, to ensure jobseekers possess core employability skills as well as industry-specific competencies; and
• employers—especially SMEs—can access tailored HR, job design and recruitment support, including support to adapt work environments to welcome new and diverse employees and support them to stay.
  85. Employers have expressed a strong preference for a system that enables access to clients with both core employability and industry-specific skills via a single point of contact; delivers a unique value proposition in terms of HR and recruitment support; and minimises perceived risks to employers of hiring a jobseeker. It is notable that all of the State and local workaround programs the Committee examined had stronger employer engagement – for example Jobs Victoria, the Tasmanian Jobs Hubs, and the Opportunity Wyndham Partnership
  86. The Committee concurs with Dr Ingold’s research and advice that a rebuilt Commonwealth Employment Services System should include a separate function that is focused on ‘hiding the wiring’ for employers so that job coach partners (service partners) can focus on working with candidates and building trusted relationships. In essence separating employer engagement and candidate engagement as qualitatively different skills are needed to engage candidates and employers.
  87. The Committee proposes that dedicated points of contact and engagement be provided at a regional and national level via a dedicated one-stop-shop employer-focused engagement and support service, delivered via Employment Services Australia’s (ESAs) regional hubs. This approach would reduce if not eliminate the need for employers to deal with multiple providers and streamline access to workers. The service would also provide guidance on innovative job design and carving, as well as on recruitment practices and inclusive approaches to workplaces and workforce development. This is consistent with ensuring the employment services system delivers a unique value proposition to employers.
  88. Part of this employer-focused service would also be encouraging and supporting employers to deliver training to clients—for example through co-designed training programs; support implementing job rotation arrangements; and enhancing cooperation between employers and education and training providers. This work may be supported by financial incentives such as enhanced wage subsidies discussed in Chapter 13, as appropriate. Ultimately, an employer-focused service should aim to build employers’ capacity and willingness to deliver training, consistent with a system which sees employers not only as the destination for clients but as key contributors to skills and competencies.
  89. Other, related functions of the employer-focused service would include:
• partnering with employers, peak bodies and industry groups, service providers, education and training providers, and other key stakeholders to facilitate the delivery of targeted projects focused on meeting the needs of individual employers and local communities. Projects would likely be similar to those delivered under the current Local Jobs Program;
• providing post-employment and career development support; and
• collecting and sharing local labour market data to enable insights on vacancies and local skills needs.
  90. The Committee considered other potential models including a ‘Lead Provider’ model or payments for collaboration and cross-sourcing candidates from other caseloads. The Committee concluded however that these approaches were previously tried and discarded, and that the most efficient way in a more collaborative system to provide continuity of service will be for these services to be delivered directly by ESA via ESA regional hubs. This approach—building on the Employment Facilitators in the Local Jobs Program—is considered to be the best way to rebuild and retain in the system staff with real skills in employer engagement, including sector specialists within a region.
  91. There would also be scope to experiment with other partners in delivering these services in a close (probably co-located) partnership with the Commonwealth. The Tasmanian Regional Job Hubs delivers a similar service, on which the new model for the Commonwealth has been at least partially modelled. The Wyndham City Council (via Opportunity Wyndham) delivers a comparable service with strong connections to the local community. At a State or national level there may also be a role for industry peak bodies to participate in the system and support employer engagement.
  92. Regional gateways would be responsible for meeting the needs of smaller and local employers on an ongoing basis, establishing, and leveraging connections. Larger employer or peak bodies that operate in multiple regions could engage or be engaged via any region or centrally via ESA, to source candidates in multiple regions.
  93. An employer-focused service also allows employers to access the online or hybrid caseload (that is, those jobseekers considered to be the most ‘job-ready’), as well as people who ‘walk-in’ looking for a job and jobseekers who are in training or other services. This assists to address the legitimate concern raised by providers that under Workforce Australia there is no longer an ability to persuade employers to take on or try a disadvantaged jobseeker as part of a package of more job-ready candidates—similar to arrangements that could occur under previous iterations of the fully marketized system when all jobseekers were allocated to a provider. Placing less job-ready jobseekers may also be supported by subsidies or other incentives.
  94. Importantly the establishment of a new employer-focused service is not in any way intended to preclude service providers from engaging with employers—especially if there are already established local relationships. However, in a less competitive more collaborative system, local service partners will need to work closely with regional hubs so that employer engagement is optimised.
  95. The Committee recognises that the establishment of a dedicated employer-focused service across all regions is a major reform and will require significant changes to commissioning and funding models and IT systems over time. As the service system is redesigned and rebuilt, resources will need to be reallocated from funding streams previously expected to go to providers which may not be possible under current contracts. In the interim, less optimal ‘lead provider’ or workaround approaches may be warranted, as may partnership approaches and a modest rollout to slowly build the new service.
  96. Many employers will continue to use commercial platforms to recruit candidates. Such platforms should be better integrated into the employment services system as outlined in Chapter 10. Employers should of course continue to have multiple avenues to fill vacancies—for example, local networks or working with a particular provider—and choice in recruitment should be enabled through the new employer-focused service delivered through ESA regional hubs.
  97. Some supports delivered by the employer-focused service may duplicate those in complementary programs such as the Local Jobs Program (Employment Facilitators) and Workforce Specialists. As outlined in Chapter 13, the future of complementary and facilitation programs will need to be reconsidered in developing a more streamlined, consolidated system. Employer-facing supports delivered by those programs are proposed to largely be functions of ESA.
  98. In addition to the employer-focused service delivered through ESA regional hubs, a rebuilt employment services system should include a significantly greater focus on intermediaries and ‘bridging’ services. There is compelling evidence that services of this kind are effective in reducing actual and perceived risks to employers of engaging jobseekers from the employment services caseload, including by conducting screening and onboarding processes, building clients’ core and industry-specific skills and competencies, and facilitating work placements and workplace training. Intermediaries have also proven effective in supporting large-scale social procurement, including as an aggregator of supply and demand. These may include not-for-profit labour hire firms, social enterprises or sector / industry bodies.
  99. As set out in Chapter 4, key functions of ESA regional hubs would be local service system coordination and mapping, and industry and employer engagement and support. This should include working with contracted service partners, intermediaries, and employers to identify pathways to employment for clients on the caseload. In some cases, this may involve a contracted service partner referring a single client to an intermediary which would screen the client, facilitate any necessary additional training, and support, and place the client with an employer. In other cases, one or more hubs may work with multiple contracted service partners to source and place candidates for recruitment processes, including those associated with government social procurement. Noting the value that intermediary and bridging services may add to social procurement processes, these services should be captured by the new Commonwealth Social Procurement Framework recommended in Chapter 2.

12.100The Committee recommends that the rebuilt Commonwealth Employment Services System include a dedicated employer-focused service, as a one-stop-shop to ‘hide the wiring’ for businesses. This service should be delivered by Employment Services Australia’s Regional Hubs, and should have the following key functions:

• A greater focus on matching jobseekers to vacancies, including brokering placements for jobseekers with specific needs.
• Working with employers to deliver recruitment and workforce development support, including job design and job carving, new human resources practices and adapting work environments to welcome new and diverse employees and support them to stay.
• Working with employers to encourage and support them to deliver training, and to encourage employers to see themselves as not just a destination but as a key contributor to skills development.
• Delivering or providing referrals to industry-specific training.
• Partnering with providers, employers, and other key stakeholders to deliver targeted demand-driven employment projects focused on meeting the workforce needs of an individual employer or local community or region.
• Providing in-employment support, including career development.
• Collecting and sharing local labour market data to inform insights about vacancies and local skills needs.

12.101The Committee recommends that the rebuilt Commonwealth Employment Services System make greater and more targeted use of intermediaries and bridging services such as not-for-profit labour hire firms, social enterprises, and sector and industry bodies, particularly as a means of reducing actual and perceived risks for employers associated with engaging disadvantaged jobseekers and in supporting social procurement initiatives. This should include:

• making facilitating and coordinating engagement between contracted partners, intermediaries, and employers a key function of Employment Services Australia’s regional hubs; and
• ensuring that intermediaries and bridging services are captured by the Commonwealth Social Procurement Framework contemplated by Recommendation 5.

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, Regional Development Australia (RDA) Gold Coast, Submission 96, pages [1–2]; AMES Australia (AMES), Submission 148, p. 6.

[2]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Submission 254, pages 89, 92–93. See also DEWR (2023), The Evaluation of jobactive: Final Report, p.202, www.dewr.gov.au/employment-services-evaluations/resources/evaluation-jobactive-final-report, viewed 20 November 2023.

[3]National Employment Services Association (NESA), Submission 260, p. 70.

[4]Jobs Australia, Submission 185, p. 18. See also Getting Welfare to Work Research Team, Submission 191, p. 4; The Salvation Army Employment Plus (SAEP), Submission 199, p. 52; The Angus Knight Group (AKG); Submission 208, p.[4].

[5]Ms Annette Gill, Principal Policy Adviser, NESA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2023, p. 24.

[6]See, for example, Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA), Submission 145, p. 9; MAX Solutions (MAX), Submission 146, p. 36; Campbell Page, Submission 150, p. 7; CoAct, Submission 151, p. 17; SAEP, Submission 199, p. 16; APM, Submission 213, p. 17; Jobs Statewide, Submission 272, p. 6.

[7]See, for example, SSI, Submission 193, p. 6; Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), Submission 259, p. 5.

[8]SAEP, Submission 199, p. 85.

[9]SRJA, Submission 145, p. 12. See also MAX, Submission 146, p. 12.

[10]Dr May Lam, Senior Research Fellow, Per Capita, Committee Hansard, 19 September 2023, p. 23.

[11]Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL), Submission 249, p. 57. See also BSL, Given the Chance, www.bsl.org.au/services/getting-a-job/given-the-chance, viewed 20 November 2023.

[12]See, for example, Name Withheld, Submission 142, p. [3]; Professor Jeff Borland, Submission 171, p. 3; TheBUSY Group Ltd (BUSY), Submission 227, p. 4.

[13]See, for example, Australian Centre for Career Education (ACCE), Submission 149, p. 2. See also Australian Retailers Association (ARA), Submission 175, p. 2. The ARA noted that even for entry-level positions, retail employers are looking for jobseekers with retail-ready skills, including basic literacy, numeracy, and digital competency, as well as the ability to handle customer interactions.

[14]Per Capita, Submission 252, p. 48.

[15]Ms Wendy Black, Head of Policy, Business Council of Australia (BCA), Committee Hansard, 11 August 2023, p. 16.

[16]See, for example, ACCE, Submission 149, p. 12; Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), Submission 172, p. [2]; Associate Professor Jo Ingold and Mr Tony Carr (Dr Ingold and Mr Carr), Submission 216, p. 6; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Submission 236, p. 3.

[17]Generation Australia, Submission 154, p. 2.

[18]See, for example, Asuria People Services (Asuria), Submission 246, p. 14; Per Capita, Submission 252, p.10.

[19]See, for example, Mr Colin Williams, Submission 64, p. [2]; CVGT Employment (CVGT), Submission 106, p.20; AMES, Submission 148, p. 6; ARA, Submission 175, p. 2; SAEP, Submission 199, p. 55; Dr Ingold and MrCarr, Submission 216, pages 3–4; Social Ventures Australia (SVA), Submission 232, p. 15.

[20]Antipoverty Centre, Submission 276, p. 17.

[21]Per Capita, Submission 252, p. 52.

[22]See, for example, SRJA, Submission 145, p. 9; SSI, Submission 193, p. 13; Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, pages 5–6.

[23]Ms Laura Trengove, Executive Director—Employment Policy and Strategy, Government of Victoria: Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR), Committee Hansard, 14March 2023, p. 50.

[24]Dr Ann Nevile, Submission 136, p. 6.

[25]Mrs Muriel Bamblett, Committee Member, Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Organisations (Coalition of Peaks), Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 24.

[26]Per Capita, Submission 252, p. 53.

[27]Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Submission 177, p. 3.

[28]Navitas, Submission 262, p. 5.

[29]Commonwealth Government (2023), Working Future: The Australian Government’s White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities, pages 99, 124, 125‑126.

[30]See, for example, CVGT, Submission 106, p. 6; Mission Australia, Submission 190, p. 5; Integrated Information Service (IIS), Submission 219, pages 1–2; Asuria People Services (Asuria), Submission 246, p.12; Prospert Training and Consulting (Prospert), Submission 301, p. 2.

[31]Anglicare WA, Submission 127, p. [6].

[32]OECD (2022), Good practices in Europe for supporting employers to promote skills development, 23, 31–32,www.oecd.org/skills/Good-practices-in-Europe-for-supporting-employers-to-promote-skills-development.pdf, viewed 8November2023.

[33]See, for example, WISE Employment, Submission 169, p. 19; Professor Mark Considine, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, pages 2–3.

[34]NESA, Submission 260, p. 73.

[35]BSL, Submission 249, p. 66. The BSL stated that the program was successful in facilitating changes to the employer’s recruitment and workplace practices.

[36]Asuria, Submission 246, p. 13. See also Dr Sharn Erzinger, Executive Director, Delivery—Jobs Victoria, DJSIR, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p.51.

[37]Professor Considine, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 12.

[38]DEWR, Submission 254, p. 91.

[39]DEWR, Submission 254, pages 90–91.

[40]See, for example, MAX, Submission 146, p. 36. AMES, Submission 148, p. 6; CoAct, Submission 151, pages16–17; GSEM, Submission 155, p. [7]; Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 7; BUSY, Submission 227, p. 4; MatchWorks, Submission 263, p. 34.

[41]Joblink Plus, Submission 157, p. 16.

[42]Dr Michael McGann, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 12.

[43]Mr Carl Binning, Group Manager—Economic Empowerment Group, National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 14.

[44]SAEP, Submission 199, p. 55. See also CVGT, Submission 106, pages 20–21.

[45]See, for example, SRJA, Submission 145, p. 9; CoAct, Submission 151, p. 16. Getting Welfare to Work Research Team, Submission 191, p. 4; MatchWorks, Submission 263, p. 10; Professor Considine, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 2. Provider licensing and commissioning, including contract terms and performance management, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 15.

[46]Workways Australia Ltd (Workways), Submission 239.1, p. 3.

[47]See, for example, CVGT, Submission 106, p. 20; Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 2; Asuria, Submission 246, p. 12.

[48]Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 5.

[49]See, for example, Name Withheld, Submission 140, p. [4]; Generation Australia, Submission 154, p. 2; SAEP, Submission 199, p. 15; VERTO, Submission 202, p. [14].

[50]Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 6. Staff qualifications and the need to ‘re-professionalise’ the sector are also discussed in Chapter 6.

[51]Dr Nevile, Submission 136, p. 7.

[52]See, for example, Mr Colin Williams, Submission 64, p. [2]; AKG, Submission 208, p. [5].

[53]Queensland Government: Department of Employment, Small Business, and Training (DESBT), Submission243, p. 4.

[54]See, for example, GSEM, Submission 155, p. [7]; Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 3; SVA, Submission 232, p. 16; Ms Karen Rainbow, CEO, APM Employment Services (APM), Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 72.

[55]Opportunity Wyndham and the Tasmanian Job Hubs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

[56]Youth Projects, Submission 141, p. 18.

[57]AMES, Submission 148, p. 7.

[58]Mrs Bamblett, Coalition of Peaks, Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 25.

[59]Mrs Bamblett, Coalition of Peaks, Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, pages 25–26.

[60]Professor Shelley Mallett, Director—Social Policy and Research, BSL, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, pages 22–23.

[61]Ms Robyn Shannon, Acting Deputy Secretary—Disability and Carers, Department of Social Servies (DSS), Committee Hansard, 26 May 2023, p. 6. See also DSS, Submission 192.1, pages [5-6].

[62]See Ability Works, Submission 147, pages [1-2]; DESBT, Submission 243, pages 13–14; Government of Victoria, Submission 278, pages 14–16.

[63]DEWR, Submission 254, p. 93.

[64]See, for example, CVGT, Submission 106, p. 20; SAEP, Submission 199, p. 55; AKG, Submission 208, p.[6]; MatchWorks, Submission 263, p. 34.

[65]Jobs Australia, Submission 185, p. 19.

[66]Dr Lisa Fowkes, Director—Employment, SVA, Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 38.

[67]See, for example, GSEM, Submission 155, p. [8]; ACCI, Submission 236, p. 2; VCCI, Submission 259, p. 5.

[68]SAEP, Submission 199, p. 52.

[69]Dr Nevile, Submission 136, p. 6.

[70]Per Capita, Submission 252, p. 54.

[71]Mr Billing, NIAA, Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 15.

[72]See, for example, AMES, Submission 148, p. 7; atWork Australia (atWork), Submission 210, p. [8]; VCCI, Submission 259, p. 5.

[73]Workskil Australia (Workskil), Submission 196, p. 24. See also ACCI, Submission 236, p. 2.

[74]Mr James Muller, General Manager, APM, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 71.

[75]Mrs Nicole Mattsson, National Services Design and Integration Leader, IntoWork, Committee Hansard, 14March 2023, p. 71.

[76]See, for example, Workskil, Submission 196, p. 24; SVA, Submission 232, p. 14; ACCI, Submission 236, p.3; Per Capita, Submission 252, p. 54.

[77]Name Withheld, Submission 160, pages 13–14.

[78]See, for example, Enterprise and Training Company (ETC), Submission 133, p. 6; Dr Nevile, Submission 136, p. 7; Campbell Page, Submission 150, p. 7; Name Withheld, Submission 160, p. 22; Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 3; SAEP, Submission 199, p. 54; MatchWorks, Submission 263, p. 33.

[79]See, for example, Workskil, Submission 196, p. 21; APM, Submission 213, p. 18; Dr Ingold, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 16 June 2023, pages 3–4.

[80]NESA, Submission 260, p. 73.

[81]See, for example, Joblink Plus, Submission 157, p. 8; Name Withheld, Submission 93, p. 4.

[82]yourtown, Submission 198, p. 11.

[83]Dr Fowkes, SVA, Committee Hansard, 17 May 2023, p. 38.

[84]BSL, Centre for Policy Development (CPD) and University of Melbourne (UniMelb), Submission 256, p. 25.

[85]Dr Ingold, Committee Hansard, 16 June 2023, p. 4.

[86]Dr Ingold, Committee Hansard, 16 June 2023, p. 5.

[87]Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 3.

[88]Ms Black, BCA, Committee Hansard, 11 August 2023, p. 16.

[89]VCCI, Submission 259, p. 4.

[90]Mr Bryan McCormack, Senior Advisor—Government and Policy, Jobs Australia, Committee Hansard, 20September 2023, p. 20.

[91]Tasmanian Government, Submission 174, pages 10, 14. The Jobs Hubs program is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

[92]Opportunity Wyndham is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

[93]See, for example, ACCI, Submission 236, p. 3; VCCI, Submission 259, p. 5; Professor Gaby Ramia, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 6.

[94]Ms Gill, NESA, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2023, p. 21. See also National Workforce Network, About the Network, www.nwfn.com.au/about-the-network/, viewed 20 November 2023.

[95]Ms Gill, NESA, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 42.

[96]Dr Ingold and Mr Carr, Submission 216, p. 3.

[97]See, for example, Ms Annabel Brown, Deputy CEO, CPD, Committee Hansard, 14March 2023, p. 18; Professor Mallett, BSL, Committee Hansard, 14 March 2023, p. 20.

[98]Dr Nevile, Submission 136, p. 7. See also CVGT, Submission 106, p. 11.