COMMONWEALTH SERVICES DELIVERY AGENCY
BILL 1996
REFORM OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES BILL 1996
REFORM OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
CHAPTER 3 - ISSUES
3.1 A number of issues were raised in submissions and at the public hearing
in relation to the Bills and these are discussed below. [5]
COMMONWEALTH SERVICES DELIVERY AGENCY BILL 1996
Selection of Agency CEO
3.2 The Bill provides for the establishment of an executive Board of
Management to oversee the operations of the Agency. The Bill further provides
for the Board, after consultation between its Chairman and the Minister,
to appoint a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to manage the day to day administration
and operations of the Agency.
3.3 DSS advised the Committee that pending passage of the Bill, the Government
has proceeded to put in place interim administrative arrangements in relation
to the Agency. These arrangements have included the appointment of an
interim chair of the Agency's board of management on 20 December 1996
and the subsequent appointment of Ms Sue Vardon as the Agency's interim
CEO on 6 January 1997. To assist it with these arrangements the Government
retained the services of Russell Reynolds Associates, a major executive
search organisation. [6]
Composition of the Board of Management and interaction with other
advisory mechanisms
3.4 As noted above, the Board of Management is to be an executive board
charged with oversight of the Agency. The membership of the Board will
comprise a Chairman, the CEO and at least four other members.
3.5 DSS stated that, as is anticipated by subsection 16(2) of the Bill,
at least two of the `other members' will be independent members and two
will be principal officers of Commonwealth authorities. [7]
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) argued that the Board
should comprise, inter alia, the Secretaries of the relevant policy
Departments, and at least one person with substantial community welfare
sector experience. [8] DHFS also argued
that the Board membership should include the Secretaries of major Departments.
[9] DEETYA advised the Committee that
it was `anticipated' that the Secretaries of DSS and DEETYA will be appointed
to the Board. [10]
3.6 As the structure of the Board of Management is intended to be a management
rather than an advisory board, no provision is included in the Bill for
the Board to have a formal relationship with any advisory mechanism. [11]
ACOSS suggested that the Board should be assisted by an advisory body
drawn from key client groups and the community welfare sector. [12]
DSS and DEETYA noted, however, that the Agency will put in place suitable
consultative arrangements with community groups, clients and others with
an interest in the Agency's operations when it becomes fully operational.
[13]
Agency resource requirements
3.7 DSS advised the Committee that the annual running costs budget for
the Agency would be between $1.3 to $1.5 billion. These resources
will be met through the combined transfer of funds from the existing operational
funding of the Departments of Social Security and Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs and will not involve any additional cost to
the Budget. [14]
3.8 DSS also noted that the upfront costs for the Agency will be offset
through the application of an as yet to be determined efficiency dividend
over the next three years. Over time there will be efficiency gains that
can be made from the integration of a number of government service functions
into the one service delivery outlet. [15]
Transfer/ongoing employment of staff
3.9 The Agency will be a statutory authority and will remain a public
sector organisation within the Commonwealth. DSS and DEETYA advised the
Committee that those positions in both DSS and DEETYA identified as transferring
to the Agency will be compulsorily transferred under the Public Service
Act 1922. Staff will remain as public servants and retain the same
conditions of service as those staff remaining in the broader APS. [16]
DHFS stated that it was anticipated that DHFS staff will be transferred
to the Agency on similar terms. [17]
3.10 The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) noted that the Bill
provides under clause 35(3) for the CEO to employ persons `on terms and
conditions determined by the Board'. The CPSU claimed that this would
lead to the creation of a category of employee for the Agency different
from those that would come under the Public Service Act. The CPSU argued
that this could lead to a situation where some employees would be performing
similar work but under different conditions of service. [18]
3.11 DSS stated, however, that the Agency would be staffed largely by
public servants under the Public Service Act. The Department noted that
in order to provide the necessary flexibility to meet its needs as they
arise, the Agency would also have the capacity to hire people quickly
without the need of going through the processes involved in appointments
to the Public Service. [19] DSS added
that the aim is `to meet an emergent need flexibly. It is not to take
the Agency outside the Public Service Act'. [20]
3.12 The Health Insurance Commission (HIC) indicated that none of its
staff will be required for redeployment to the Agency, and raised some
issues in relation to the capacity of the HIC to employ the excess staff
not required by the Agency. [21]
Meeting the needs of different client groups
3.13 Evidence to the Committee indicated that the Agency will deliver
a range of specialist services to specific client groups, including Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people, migrants, sole parents, people
with a disability and young people. [22]
3.14 DSS and DEETYA noted that the specialist services currently delivered
by the respective Departments will transfer to the Agency. ACOSS emphasised
that the Agency should target specialised services towards specific client
groups, such as people from non-English speaking backgrounds, ATSI and
migrants. [23]
3.15 DSS outlined the range of Departmental services that would be transferred
to the Agency, including the Community Agent Program, ATSI Liaison Officers
(AILO) Scheme, remote visiting teams and the ATSI Interpreter Program
(for ATSI clients); the Social Work Service; Jobs, Education and Training
(JET) program (primarily for sole parents clients); and disability support
services. DSS stated that the Agency will continue to provide other specialist
services currently available, such as the Financial Information Service
(FIS), Youth Servicing, Family Service Centres and Retirement Service
Centres. [24]
3.16 Specialist services in the areas of employment and youth services
will also transfer from DEETYA to the Agency. These include special employment
service arrangements for ATSI people currently provided through the CES
and specialist functions currently delivered through DEETYA Youth Access
Centres and Career Reference Centres for young people. [25]
3.17 DSS noted that the Agency will `provide a means for integrating
the existing services for some groups needing specialist assistance and
continue to recognise that the arrangements for these groups or clients
require sensitive and careful consideration'. [26]
DHFS noted that the Agency `is expected to maintain, and in some cases
enhance, the services available to ... clients'. [27]
Service delivery in rural and remote areas
3.18 DSS noted that with the introduction of the Agency, there will be
`a particular focus' on specialisation in customer service in rural and
remote areas. [28] DEETYA also noted
that:
The Agency will be well placed to deliver these services to a high standard
as already there is a wide network of DSS offices, which will be expanded
as the Agency takes over some CES offices or expands existing DSS servicing
arrangements in places where currently there is no DSS office. Wider access
to services will also be available through Teleservice Centres and Student
Assistance Centres. [29]
3.19 ACOSS commented that the introduction of the Agency `provides an
ideal opportunity to build upon the existing structures and services offered
to clients in rural and remote locations'. [30]
3.20 As indicated above, the Agency will be based on the existing social
security delivery network, with Area and Regional Offices, Teleservice
Centres, Retirement Service Centres and Family Service centres forming
the core of the service outlets. DSS stated that in rural and regional
areas where the Department does not currently have an office, the inclusion
of some offices that are now part of the CES/DEETYA network is being examined.
[31]
3.21 DSS advised the Committee that services to rural and remote areas
such as mobile and visiting services in smaller or more remote towns will
continue. Remote visiting teams and the Community Agent Program for ATSI
communities in remote areas will also continue. [32]
DSS stated that the increased use of communications technology, such as
the electronic lodgement of claims and providing information about programs
via the Internet and touch screen terminals is also being considered in
the provision of services to rural and remote areas. [33]
3.22 DEETYA noted that a range of services currently provided by the
Department to rural and remote areas would transfer to the Agency. These
include assessment and referral services for job seekers and assistance
programs for students including the Assistance for Isolated Children program
and the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (ABSTUDY). The Department also
stated that it would retain responsibility for some services in remote
locations which are currently accommodated in offices of the CES network.
[34]
Privacy considerations
3.23 The Privacy Commissioner stated that the establishment of the Agency
represents a significant shift in the way the Government collects, maintains
and uses information about people and therefore has privacy implications,
especially as the Agency will draw together data that is presently held
by at least three different Departments and will eventually expand to
include more Government agencies and functions. [35]
3.24 The Commissioner noted that both DSS and DEETYA have a `strong privacy
culture' supplemented, in the case of DSS, `by very strict secrecy provisions
in its legislation (the Social Security Act)'. [36]
The Commissioner noted that there has already been extensive consultation
between her office and DSS and DEETYA on the privacy implications of the
legislation. [37]
3.25 DSS stated that `the Privacy Act and its guidelines will apply to
the Agency as fully as they apply to the Department. There will be no
weakening of those provisions'. [38]
The Privacy Commissioner argued that additional privacy safeguards to
those contained in the Privacy Act may be required due to the type and
range of data that will be collected by the Agency. [39]
One option suggested by the Commissioner would be to include a requirement
in the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Bill or in related legislation
that service arrangements contain privacy clauses, which would address
such issues as information flows between the Agency and client agencies;
responsibilities for record holding; limits on the use and disclosure
of information etc. [40] Alternatively,
the primary legislation could require the development of a `privacy code'
specific to the Agency. [41] The Commissioner
also noted that privacy issues will also need to be considered when the
addition of new functions to the Agency is considered by the Government.
[42]
REFORM OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES BILL 1996
REFORM OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
Access to employment services
3.26 The Committee considered a number of issues relating to access to
employment placement services and labour market program assistance by
all Australians, especially in regional areas.
3.27 ACOSS and the Brotherhood of St Laurence (the Brotherhood) claimed
that the legislation provides no guarantee of employment placement services
for everyone and does not appear to enable all unemployed people to obtain
labour market assistance. [43] ACOSS
noted that eligibility does not confer entitlement to assistance, and
that the Government has effectively conceded that many eligible job seekers
will have to wait for considerable periods before they obtain assistance.
ACOSS estimated that only one in four long-term unemployed people will
have access to Employment Assistance in any given year. [44]
DEETYA responded that:
The Commonwealth does not, nor has it ever been able to, guarantee labour
market programme assistance for all unemployed people although self help
assistance has always been available. Given funding constraints it has
always been necessary to adopt arrangements whereby some job seekers gain
preferential access to different levels of labour market programme assistance.
The proposed new arrangements represent the Government's approach to rationing
assistance. Priority for labour market assistance will continue to be
directed to those most disadvantaged in the labour market, with a particular
focus on the long term unemployed and those most at risk of joining this
group. [45]
3.28 In addition, DEETYA noted that all job seekers, regardless of their
unemployment and income support receipt status, will be able to access
self help services at the Agency, including access to the National Vacancy
Data Base.
3.29 Some issues were raised by ACROD about the effect of the legislation
on people with disabilities, particularly those with higher support needs.
ACROD noted that under the Disability Reform Package non DEETYA funded
employment support programs, particularly those funded by DHFS, are able
to access DEETYA labour market assistance particularly Job Start, Work
Experience Programs for People with Disabilities and the Workforce Modifications
Allowance for their clients. ACROD stated that access to these programs
creates the level playing field between disabled and non-disabled job
seekers on entry to the labour market, the additional on-the-job support
required by many people with disabilities being provided by DHFS. However,
from 1 December 1997 people with disabilities receiving employment support
from DHFS funded programs will no longer have access to DEETYA labour
market funding. ACROD asserted that `this will have a negative impact
on the successful placement of people with disabilities with higher support
needs into the open labour market'. [46]
3.30 ACROD surveyed its members to determine the impact of this decision
on people with disabilities. Responses `indicated that access to DEETYA
subsidies was necessary for people with disabilities to be able to compete
equally with other job seekers. The employer incentives provide compensation
for employers while people with disabilities are trained on the job'.
[47]
3.31 A number of submissions suggested that difficulties could arise
regarding access by job seekers to employment services in regional Australia,
through the application of the arrangements proposed in the legislation.
The Welfare Rights Centre (WRC) maintained that:
People in economically depressed areas are more in need of the assistance
of employment placement services, but the higher degree of difficulty
in placing people in these areas could discourage providers. In these
situations we are faced with the critical issue of the role of the Government
when the market fails to provide a service. We are concerned that by making
the Public Employment Placement Agency [PEPE] a corporation there will
be difficulties in enforcing community service requirements. [48]
3.32 The CPSU also discussed the impact of possible market failure for
servicing rural and regional Australia. Whilst the Minister has stated
that PEPE would be mandated to provide services where the market does
not provide the services, this assurance is not contained in the legislation.
The CPSU wants to `ensure that there is a public provider that will play
that role and that that community service obligation is outlined in the
legislation'. [49]
3.33 ACOSS raised a different point regarding the non-statutory base
for PEPE, asserting that:
failure to incorporate the establishment and parameters of operation
of the PEPE in the legislation (both generally and, in particular, in
relation to community service obligation delivery of services in rural
and remote regions) leaves open the possibility that the Government could,
without prior reference to the Parliament, decide to cease operation of
the PEPE and seriously prejudice its ability to guarantee service delivery
in these regions. [50]
3.34 DEETYA reiterated the Government's commitment to retaining a public
provider of employment services to ensure that there is adequate coverage
of employment services across Australia. DEETYA indicated that in those
regions, particularly some rural and remote areas, where standard tendering
on an outcomes basis does not produce a provider of sufficient quality,
it intends to invite providers to tender on a fee-for-service basis. As
a last resort the Employment Minister will be able to direct PEPE to provide
such employment services as are necessary in the public interest. The
Commonwealth will be required to pay the reasonable costs of the public
provider in providing this community service obligation. [51]
3.35 The establishment of the public provider, PEPE, under the Corporations
Law as a company wholly owned by the Commonwealth, rather than under the
legislation, was the subject of some comment. [52]
DEETYA responded that it believed that the establishment of PEPE either
by statute or company law did not affect the ability of the government
to use PEPE to fill gaps that might emerge in the market, either because
no private or community sector provider responded to a tender or if either
a private or community based company withdraws from the market in a particular
location. DEETYA stated that with PEPE being wholly owned by the Commonwealth,
`the Commonwealth is able to direct the activity of the PEPE to satisfy
its service requirements in situations where there is no alternative provider'.
[53]
3.36 In relation to the needs of special groups, DEETYA submitted that:
It is not the Government's intention to deploy the public provider to
provide employment services to special groups. Rather, the needs of special
groups will be met in the employment services market through a combination
of generalist and specialist employment services providers, including
the public provider. Organisations specialising in assisting special groups
will be encouraged to tender to be employment services providers. As well,
the needs of special groups (sole parents, people with disabilities, Indigenous
people, migrants with a non-English speaking background and young people)
will be further met under the new arrangements by having specialist officers
in the [Agency]. The referral of members of special groups to Employment
Assistance will be monitored by the [Agency] so as to meet the Government's
commitment that these groups maintain their current share of assistance.
...[T]he Government intends that the public provider will meet the employment
services needs in regions where there is no suitable alternative provider,
rather than meeting the needs of special groups more generally. [54]
Employment Placement Enterprises (EPE's)
3.37 Employment placement services will be provided by a wide range of
organisations including large for profit organisations, large not-for-profit
organisations and small community based not-for-profit organisations.
The Brotherhood stressed that it was extremely important for job seekers
themselves that there was a wide range of different types of agencies
with expertise in working closely with job seekers with different needs
and who would therefore be better placed to provide appropriate services
for these job seekers. However, the Brotherhood thought there might be
a possibility that smaller community based organisations without a sufficient
asset base may be effectively filtered out of the process in the early
competitive phase. [55]
3.38 DEETYA commented that this would not occur, based on the current
arrangements with contracts let for case management which cover a diverse
spread of organisations and that for the first tender round it is proposed
that services not be price competitive but will be set by the Commonwealth.
DEETYA advised that `one of the reasons why the Government took the decision
to set the price for the first tender round was to enable the market to
settle down so that there was not any outrageous cost cutting behaviour'.
[56]
Assessment and Accreditation
3.39 ACOSS acknowledged that the legislation contains broad provisions
enabling the Minister to make a written determination specifying the matters
to be taken into account by the Employment Secretary in deciding to engage
an EPE and the procedures to be followed in relation to the decision and
engagement. Nevertheless, ACOSS `believes that the legislation should
provide for a formal accreditation system, embracing a Code of Conduct
and a clear set of minimum sanctions for non-compliance'. [57]
3.40 The Welfare Rights Centre similarly argued that `it is essential
that the terms in the contract provide that there are certain standards
of behaviour required from providers, possibly an agreement to comply
with a code of conduct'. [58] Such a
code was envisaged as a living document, adapted from time to time to
reflect the changing needs of providers and consumers.
3.41 The Welfare Rights Centre also argued that `accreditation should
be a standard achieved before a tender is given, and compliance with that
standard should be continually monitored by an independent regulator'.
[59] The concept of an independent regulatory
agency to provide accreditation to service providers, and to ensure that
providers offer quality services to job seekers and that certain appeal
processes and freedom of choice are available to job seekers, was also
proposed by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. [60]
3.42 DEETYA advised that the assessment process to select employment
services providers will be extremely rigorous and will be designed to
ensure that any organisation selected will be financially viable and will
meet selection criteria to ensure that it is capable of delivering the
services required. Probity and competitive neutrality principles will
be observed throughout the tendering process. Although conceding that
the legislation does not provide for a formal accreditation process, DEETYA
referred to the clauses providing for Ministerial control in relation
to the nature of the services provided by organisations and to specify
what is involved in the provision of Employment Assistance. [61]
3.43 DEETYA informed the Committee that consideration is being given
by the Government to a code of practice for the employment services industry
to govern the conduct between providers and consumers. The Commonwealth
Employment Service Advisory Committee (CESAC) was asked to consider a
number of issues relating to the implementation of a code of practice
and is consulting a range of individuals and organisations on the proposed
code. CESAC is due to report back to the Government by the end of March
1997.
3.44 DEETYA noted, however, that the consultations have:
exposed a tension between the need, on the one hand, to meet the Government's
concern not to introduce intrusive and cumbersome administrative requirements
and, on the other, to meet its commitment to the accountable spending
of public money and a high quality of service for job seekers. While there
is a need to avoid burdening the market with additional administrative
requirements, a code of practice could protect job seekers' interests
by ensuring the minimum quality of service that they can expect to receive
regardless of which service provider they choose. [62]
Informed choice for job seekers
3.45 The Brotherhood noted that while the legislation specifies that
job seekers may nominate an EPE, the issue remains as to how informed
choices can be made. The Brotherhood considers:
that it is the responsibility of the [Agency] staff to provide appropriate
information to all job seekers, and that job seekers should be able to
seek assistance from alternative providers if they consider the quality
of service to be inadequate. Underpinning job seeker choice of employment
placement enterprise will be sufficient breadth and depth of providers
in terms of expertise regarding target groups and geographic distribution.
[63]
3.46 The Welfare Rights Centre argued similarly that the issue of informed
choice underpins the concept of service. If service standards are to be
achieved, the Agency must be able to provide information to its customers
who wish to be referred to an employment placement provider. Information
must be relevant and accurate to enable the job seeker to make the necessary
choices. [64]
3.47 ACOSS also argued the necessity of providing information to job
seekers to ensure an informed choice can be made, and raised a related
matter that the legislation does not clearly state under what circumstances
an EPE can decline to accept a referral. ACOSS believes there is considerable
risk that some EPE's, if given the opportunity, will only select the most
job-ready clients. ACOSS therefore proposed that:
The legislation should specify the circumstances under which an EPE can
refuse a referral, and require EPE's to explain their reasons to the satisfaction
of the Employment Secretary. The job seeker should also be advised in
writing of those reasons, and should have a right to referral to another
EPE, if there is another appropriate EPE available in the region. [65]
3.48 In response to these comments, DEETYA indicated that it will contract
a diverse range of providers (both specialist and generalist, as well
as community-based, private and public) and, if at all possible, a number
of providers in each servicing region. The onus will be on service providers
to compete primarily on the basis of quality and effectiveness to gain
a market share. Better performing providers will have a higher turnover
of clients and consequently a higher market share. The performance of
providers will be regularly reviewed by the Department. With Employment
Assistance, this approach should give clients a significant level of choice
of provider, because at any given time there should be a number and range
of providers with Employment Assistance places available. [66]
3.49 DEETYA envisages that all providers would lodge information with
the Agency. The Agency would give to a participant this information about
possible employment assistance providers, including their location, outcome
performance and whether the provider specialises in assisting a particular
client group. DEETYA also anticipates that provider details will be on
touch screens available in all Agency outlets and believes that these
measures should ensure informed client choice. [67]
Employment Assistance Activity Agreements
3.50 Equality in the relationship between providers and consumers in
formulating the Employment Assistance Activity Agreements was the subject
of some comment. The Welfare Rights Centre claimed that `the Government's
role as consumer protector requires the creation of minimum standards
to be met in negotiations between job seekers and providers'. [68]
The Centre reasoned that the introduction of minimum standards should
minimise poor practices, such as providers pressuring job seekers into
signing pre-written agreements, and should facilitate the development
of good partnerships between job seekers and providers. The Centre noted
that from their experiences `the better the partnership the more likely
that a positive outcome would be achieved for the job seeker'. [69]
3.51 The CPSU suggested that by providing such a wide scope to detail
activities with which a job seeker must comply, the legislation may also
provide an EPE with the scope to impose unreasonable demands on a job
seeker through the Agreement. [70] The
Welfare Rights Centre similarly argued that it is `necessary to ensure
that the legislation recognises reasonable efforts to satisfy the terms
of any agreement and does not engineer failure and breaches by employing
an unjustifiably harsh “strict liability” for technical or trivial
failures to comply'. [71]
3.52 In response, DEETYA did not envisage anything in the legislation
or in the Government's announcements that changes the relative responsibilities
of both parties to the Agreement. [72]
Right of Appeal
3.53 The legislation provides a number of mechanisms for review and appeal
of various decisions and actions, through an internal review process,
the SSAT, AAT and Ombudsman.
3.54 However, ACOSS and the Welfare Rights Centre submitted that the
proposed review and appeals arrangements were inadequate in two areas.
Firstly, that decisions by the Secretary not to refer a job seeker for
Employment Assistance, which could have a significant and detrimental
impact on the job seeker, should be appealable. Secondly, the provision
that an appeal in regard to the terms of the Employment Services Activity
Agreements may only be heard if the application for appeal is made in
a certain form, should be removed. [73]
3.55 The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that a decision dealing with
whether a person is a participant in the employment assistance scheme
or when a person could no longer be referred for employment assistance,
would not be reviewable `on the basis that it is made as a result of consideration
of whether sufficient resources are available to provide such assistance.
Such resource based decisions are not amenable to administrative review'.
[74]
Special Needs Assessment and Community Support Program
3.56 Comments have been made about ensuring that the application of the
notion of `capacity to benefit' from Employment Assistance would not permanently
exclude very disadvantaged people from employment assistance and deny
them any form of government assistance other than income support. Forms
of assistance, such as the Community Support Program (CSP), designed to
ensure that these people do not end up on the job seeker scrap heap are
not specifically provided for in the legislation.
3.57 ACOSS and the Brotherhood submitted that reference to the CSP should
be included in the legislation to ensure that appropriate arrangements
for job seekers experiencing multiple personal and vocational barriers
to employment are ongoing features of the new arrangements. ACOSS also
suggested that the legislation should specify the mechanisms by which
job seekers are referred for assistance under the CSP, and the mechanisms
by which they might later obtain employment assistance. [75]
3.58 ACROD noted that the assessment of people with disabilities, particularly
determination of their workability, required specialist input. ACROD was
concerned that individuals may be classified incorrectly either as requiring
little support or as being unlikely to benefit by inexperienced assessors.
Lack of knowledge by assessors of the support that can be provided could
also lead to an incorrect assessment of the requirements of people with
disabilities. [76]
3.59 The Minister's second reading speech indicated that the Government
had decided, after holding discussions with community sector representatives
who raised concerns that some job seekers would be unfairly excluded from
assistance and put `on the scrap heap' and that the term `capacity to
benefit' was a negative term, that the issue in question was the necessity
for some job seekers to have a special needs assessment. The Government
has stated that where a special needs assessment is judged to be required,
it will be a formal and objective assessment of a job seeker's personal
characteristics to see whether Employment Assistance of the type and level
able to be offered is really fitting for their special needs. The assessment
will be administered by specialist or professionally qualified staff in
the Agency or by expert external providers. [77]
3.60 The legislation provides a framework within which the Agency can
refer a person to the new Community Support Program (CSP) in order to
gain assistance in accessing more suitable and well coordinated Commonwealth,
State or community services that will address disadvantages that are acting
as a barrier to achieving employment. [78]
Details of the CSP are outlined in Appendix 3.
Meeting Australia's obligations under ILO Conventions
3.61 Australia's compliance with obligations under ILO conventions as
a result of the reforms was raised, particularly given the abolition of
the CES and the capacity to now meet the provisions of ILO Convention
No.88 which ensures the maintenance of a free public employment service.
[79]
3.62 DEETYA indicated that the Office of International Law of the Attorney-General's
Department had advised that the new arrangements in the legislation ensured
that Australia's international obligations under ILO 88 would continue
to be met. DEETYA explained that:
ILO 88 does not require that a single entity be established to undertake
all of the functions of the “employment service”. The Convention
allows for a certain amount of flexibility in implementing arrangements.
The legislative framework will allow for the free provision of the services
which are required by ILO 88 to be provided free of charge. It is sufficient
that DEETYA, which is staffed by public officials, will be responsible
for the provision of the required services by way of its arrangements
with service providers such as the CSDA (also staffed by public officials)
and the entities to be engaged to provide employment services. [80]
3.63 A detailed explanation provided by DEETYA of how the new arrangements
satisfy international obligations under ILO 88 is at Appendix 4.
Monitoring and evaluation of changes
3.64 Some organisations noted that the legislation does not specify arrangements
for the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the changes contained
in the Bills. The Brotherhood of St Laurence believed that the Government
`should establish comprehensive and independent monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms to determine the impact and outcomes of the reforms to employment
services'. [81] ACOSS also believed
that rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the changes was
imperative. [82]
3.65 DEETYA confirmed that the legislation does provide the Employment
Secretary with certain monitoring and information gathering powers. In
addition to these legislative powers, DEETYA:
is developing systems and procedures to regularly monitor contractual
compliance, performance (in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness),
quality and equity. This will include the capacity to identify and deal
with poor performers at the local level, and to identify and promote superior
performance through benchmarking and best practice activity. This system
will allow for comprehensive reporting on the numbers of clients receiving
assistance and client outcomes for different service providers. It will
also provide information on the characteristics and the level of disadvantage
of clients assisted. DEETYA will also monitor satisfaction with the quality
of employment services. [83]
3.66 The Committee was advised that an evaluation strategy for the reforms
to labour market assistance has been developed. An interdepartmental evaluation
group chaired by DEETYA will be set up to manage the evaluation which
will report in 3 stages.
3.67 The first report, due by late 1998, will address the implementation
of the new arrangements, including whether all components of the new employment
assistance arrangements are in place, issues arising from the early experience
with the new initiatives, and areas where fine tuning may be required.
3.68 The second report, to be completed by December 2000, will provide
a more substantial assessment of how the new arrangements are progressing
and whether there is a need for further fine tuning of the initiatives.
Issues to be addressed in these reports include the type and level of
assistance being provided to job seekers, early measures of the performance
of the service providers, the effects of opening up of labour exchange
services to competition, the interactions between different providers,
the perceptions of major stakeholders to the reforms and the changes to
activity test and compliance arrangements.
3.69 The third report, to be available by December 2001, will provide
a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the reforms in improving
the employment prospects of job seekers on a sustainable basis. It will
also include an assessment of the effectiveness of different types of
assistance and different providers, as well as the effectiveness of the
administrative arrangements.
3.70 As well as the evaluation, an independent review of the new policy
framework for labour market assistance will be conducted. This will be
an independent review in order to properly examine the role of DEETYA,
the other agencies and the market, and the linkages between them. The
focus of the review will be on the process of delivery of services, areas
where the model for assistance could be improved, and the extent to which
the model is applicable to other types of government services. [84]
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
FOOTNOTES:
[5] Where an organisation provided a separate
submission on each Bill, the reference in the footnotes to the submission
number relates to the submission relevant to the Bill under consideration.
[6] Submission No.2, p.5 (DSS). See also Submission
No.5, p.10 (DEETYA).
[7] Submission No.2, p.7 (DSS).
[8] Submission No.4, p.8 (ACOSS).
[9] Submission No.1, p.1 (DHFS).
[10] Submission No.5, p.11 (DEETYA). See also
Transcript of Evidence, p. 35 (DSS).
[11] Submission No.5, p.11 (DEETYA); Submission
No.2, p.7 (DSS).
[12] Submission No.4, p.8 (ACOSS).
[13] Submission No.2, pp.7-8 (DSS); Submission
No.5, p.11 (DEETYA).
[14] Submission No.2, p.9 (DSS).
[15] Submission No.2, p.9 (DSS). See also Submission
No.5, p.13 (DEETYA).
[16] Submission No.2, p.10 (DSS); Submission
No.5, p.14 (DEETYA).
[17] Submission No.1, p.2 (DHFS).
[18] Transcript of Evidence, p.8 (CPSU).
[19] Transcript of Evidence, p.32 (DSS).
[20] Transcript of Evidence, p.33 (DSS).
[21] Submission No.3, p.2 (HIC).
[22] Submission No.5, pp.16-19 (DEETYA); Submission
No.2, p.11 (DSS); Submission No.1, p.2 (DHFS).
[23] Submission No.4, p.13 (ACOSS).
[24] Submission No.2, pp. 11-12 (DSS). The
Community Agent Program provides funding to community organisations to
employ a Community Agent to assist people with social security matters.
[25] Submission No.5, pp.16-18.
[26] Submission No.2, p.11 (DSS).
[27] Submission No.1, p.2 (DHFS).
[28] Submission No.2, p.12 (DSS). See also
Submission No.1, p.3 (DHFS).
[29] Submission No.5 p.20 (DEETYA).
[30] Submission No.4, p.15 (ACOSS).
[31] Submission No.2 p.12 (DSS).
[32] Submission No.2, pp. 12-13 (DSS).
[33] Submission No.2, pp.13-14 (DSS).
[34] Submission No.5, p.20 (DEETYA). The Assistance
for Isolated Children program provides assistance to families of children
who are unable to attend an appropriate school on a daily basis due to
geographic isolation.
[35] Submission No.6, p.14 (Privacy Commissioner).
[36] Submission No.6, p.4 (Privacy Commissioner).
[37] Submission No.6, p.14 (Privacy Commissioner).
[38] Transcript of Evidence, pp.38-39
(DSS).
[39] Submission No.6, p.5 (Privacy Commissioner).
[40] Service arrangements are agreements entered
into between Secretaries of the relevant Departments and the CEO of the
Agency for the delivery of services. The arrangements will specify the
services to be delivered on behalf of Departments, the key performance
indicators and the resources appropriated for their delivery.
[41] Submission No.6, pp.13-14 (Privacy Commissioner).
[42] Submission No.6, p.15 (Privacy Commissioner).
[43] Submission No.5, p.4 (ACOSS); Submission
No.4, p.1 (BSL).
[44] Submission No.5, p.4 (ACOSS).
[45] Submission No.8, p.3 (DEETYA).
[46] Submission No.1, pp.1-2 (ACROD). See also
Transcript of Evidence, p.5 (ACROD).
[47] ACROD, Supplementary information, DEETYA
Subsidies for Clients on Open Employment Services, p.1.
[48] Submission No.3, p.13 (WRC).
[49] Transcript of Evidence, p.9 (CPSU).
See also Transcript of Evidence, p.21 (BSL).
[50] Submission No.5, p.5 (ACOSS). See also
Transcript of Evidence, pp.17 and 19 (ACOSS).
[51] Submission No.8, p.3 (DEETYA). See also
Transcript of Evidence, p.39 (DEETYA, DSS).
[52] Submission No.5, p.6 (ACOSS); Submission
No.4, p.1 (BSL); Submission No.9, p.2 (CPSU).
[53] Transcript of Evidence, p.42 (DEETYA).
[54] Submission No.8, pp.6-7 (DEETYA).
[55] Transcript of Evidence, p.24 (BSL).
[56] Transcript of Evidence, p.46 (DEETYA).
[57] Submission No.5, pp.12-13 (ACOSS).
[58] Submission No.3, p.12 (WRC).
[59] Submission No.3, p.12 (WRC).
[60] Submission No.4, p.2 (BSL).
[61] Submission No.8, p.15 (DEETYA).
[62] Submission No.8, p.7 (DEETYA).
[63] Submission No.4, p.2 (BSL). See also Transcript
of Evidence, p.23 (BSL).
[64] Submission No.3, p.13 (WRC).
[65] Submission No.5, p.13 (ACOSS). The CPSU
also argued that job seekers should have the right to change EPEs after
a set trial period, Submission No.9, p.6 (CPSU).
[66] Submission No.8, p.16 (DEETYA).
[67] Submission No.8, p.17 (DEETYA). See also
Transcript of Evidence, p.51 (DEETYA).
[68] Submission No.3, p.4 (WRC).
[69] Submission No.3, p.5 (WRC). See also Transcript
of Evidence, p.13 (WRC).
[70] Submission No.9, p.17 (CPSU).
[71] Submission No.3, p.5 (WRC).
[72] Transcript of Evidence, p.50 (DEETYA).
[73] Submission No.5, pp.10-11 (ACOSS); Submission
No.3, p.10 (WRC).
[74] Reform of Employment Services Bill 1996,
Explanatory Memorandum, p.39. See also Submission No.8, p.10 (DEETYA).
[75] Submission No.5, p.11 (ACOSS); Submission
No.4, p.3 (BSL).
[76] Submission No.1, p.2 (ACROD).
[77] Minister's Second Reading speech. See
also Submission No.7, p.12 (DSS).
[78] Submission No.8, pp.12-13 (DEETYA).
[79] Submission No.5, p.11 (ACOSS); Submission
No.9, p.4 (CPSU).
[80] Submission No.8, p.11 (DEETYA).
[81] Submission No.4, p.2 (BSL).
[82] Submission No.5, p.12 (ACOSS).
[83] Submission No.8, p.14 (DEETYA).
[84] See Submission No.8, pp.13-15 (DEETYA);
DEETYA Supplementary Information, Draft Evaluation Strategy for the
Reforms to Labour Market Assistance, March 1997, pp.2-9; and Transcript
of Evidence, p.51 (DEETYA).