Chapter 2
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio
Introduction
2.1
This chapter summarises areas of interest and concern raised during the
committee's consideration of the Additional Budget Estimates for the 2008–09
financial year. This section of the report follows the order of proceedings of
hearings and is indicative, but not exhaustive in its listing of issues
considered.
2.2
The committee heard evidence on 25 February from Senator the Hon. Kim Carr,
as the minister representing the Minister for Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations and from officers of the department. On 26 February the
committee heard evidence from Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, as the minister
representing the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations along
with officers of the department and related agencies. At different times during
the hearings, Senators Evans, McLucas and Wong also briefly represented the
Minister for the portfolio.
2.3
Senators present over the two days of hearings were Senator Marshall
(Chair). Senator Humphries (Deputy Chair), Senators Abetz, Bernardi, Brandis, Cameron,
Cash, Colbeck, Collins, Crossin, Fielding, Fisher, Hanson-Young, Hutchins, Mason,
Milne, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson and Sterle.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Outcome 1- Early Childhood
Education and Child Care
2.4
The vast majority of questions asked during Outcome 1- Early
Childhood Education and Child Care- reflected the committee's interest in
the state of childcare in the country, with particular focus on the ABC
Learning Centres. Senator Payne began by asking questions regarding the role of
the department, the court appointed receiver and the group known as ABC2, the
cluster of 241 ABC child care centres receiving government support to remain operational.
Officers from the department were able to clarify for the committee the
relationship between the receivers and the department, stating:
...we are in no sense seeking to direct the court appointed
receiver, but we are, for obvious reasons, intimately interested in how that
process is tracking. So we are keeping in touch with them to ensure it is on
track. The court appointed receiver also is to have regard to the
Commonwealth’s views in undertaking their task. We have provided to the court
appointed receiver suggested selection criteria to help guide their work. We
are engaging with them on how they are tracking and how they are going about
the task.[1]
2.5
Further questions regarding the selection criteria for successful
bidders were asked by Senator Payne. Drawing upon a newspaper article in which Minister
Gillard appeared to emphasise the need for a diversity of child care
providers, Senator Payne inquired into the effect these comments had on the
selection process. Mr Manthorpe responded by saying the department had
indicated to the receivers that it would be a 'desirable outcome if some
economic scale of not-for-profit entity could gain some part of the outcome'[2].
Following on from Senator Payne, Senator Hanson-Young also demonstrated
interest in the ABC centres. Central to the line of questioning was the issue
of information available to prospective bidders. Senator Hanson-Young voiced
concern over the apparent lack of available income and expenditure history of
the centres, as well as raising questions about the implications of unknown
lease requirements on applications.
Outcome 2- School Education
2.6
A number of questions asked in Outcome 2- School Education,
indicated strong interest in issues like bullying and school attendance,
matters of constituency concern. However, these areas are remote from direct
Commonwealth involvement, although DEEWR administers programs which cover such
matters at a COAG level. The Department explained its remoteness from the
practical supervision of programs aimed at addressing social problems in
schools. Such questions, however, may indicate a continuing and increasingly
expectation that the Commonwealth should become more involved in developing
policies which have a direct effect in the classroom. DEEWR officials spoke of
the strong degree of co-operation offered by the states in responding to these
Commonwealth initiatives, and future estimates hearings will doubtless provide
an insight into the continuing relationship between the states and the
Commonwealth over their shared responsibilities in school education.
Outcome 6- International Influence
(international students)
2.7
Senator Cash commenced examination of Outcome 6 with a series of
questions relating to the number international enrolments in universities
across the country. Despite the economic downturn, the department claimed the
number of foreign students coming to Australia has not fallen, stating:
People do not decide on the spur of the moment to come here.
What you are seeing at the moment is the result of decisions that would have
been taken quite some time ago. People often save for years to fund their
children’s education here, so we would not necessarily expect a downturn. I
know there are difficult global financial circumstances. We would not expect to
see a downturn immediately, and we are not.[3]
2.8
Senator Cash then referred to an article in The Australian which
argued that while the number of foreign students enrolling in Australian
universities may remain stable, there has been a significant increase in the number
of deferrals of courses made by these enrolled students. Departmental officer
explained they had looked into this issue, but were unable to find any
supporting evidence to substantiate this claim.
Outcome 3- Higher Education
2.9
The examination of Outcome 3 began with questions from Senator Mason
relating to the Education Investment Fund. Questions covered various aspects of
the fund, from eligibility requirements to the results of the first round of
funding, and details of the upcoming second round of grants. The first round of
funding allocated $580.5 million to universities. Officers explained that all
higher education institutions were able to apply for the second round of
funding, which closed on 2 March 2009. The Department informed the committee that
the government has not yet determined how much money it will make available for
this round.
2.10
Some questions were asked about university deferment rates in regional
areas by Senator Colbeck. Citing information from January which pointed to
university deferment rates of regional students being three times higher than
their city counterparts, Senator Colbeck asked the department if anything was
being done to address this issue. The question was taken on notice.
Outcome 7 & 8- Labour Market
Assistance AND Workforce Participation
2.11
Senator Cash led the questioning of Outcomes 7 and 8, commencing with
examination of the Job Network. Questions were asked regarding the current
caseload and the operations of this program. From December 2008 to 13 February 2009, officers told the committee the Job Network program saw an additional
81 412 searching for work. The Green Corps program was also discussed,
with Senator Cash inquiring as to what areas the projects of the Corps have
been involved in. The committee was told that under the new contract, the Green
Corps program has expanded beyond being a specific youth development program;
officers confirmed that the age limit has been removed.
2.12
The Personal Support Program was also scrutinised, with the department
providing information on the new model being developed. Ms Lisa Paul, Secretary
of the department elaborated upon the different philosophies of the current and
new models, with a crucial difference being the removal of sequential
assistance associated with the current model. Accordingly, the new model is
demand driven, a factor the department hopes will assist in reducing long
waiting lists.[4]
Outcome 9- More Productive and
Safer Workplaces
2.13
The examination of Outcome 9 commenced with questions regarding the
Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett Group employees (SEESA). The
operations of the scheme have recently been at the centre of public debate.
Former Ansett employees wrote to the Department and to the Minister of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations suggesting the Government is
still receiving dividends from the scheme while there are outstanding
entitlements. Due to this continued interest in SEESA, the secretariat
requested a briefing from the Department on the matter. A briefing note was
subsequently circulated to the committee, and formed the basis of questions
asked by Senator Fisher about speculation on the possibility of the government
waving its right of the priority creditor to enable more funding to former
employees. The Department told the committee that this speculation had been
raised by a former employee, but that it is not aware of any consideration by
government to follow this path.
2.14
A number of questions were asked about the Fair Work Bill in this
Outcome. Senator Fisher inquired into the election policy of government in
regards to this issue, but questions on the bill itself were disallowed as the
bill was under consideration by the committee in a separate inquiry.
2.15
The Fair Work Australia Establishment Taskforce was discussed as part of
a wider line of questions dealing with the transitional arrangements that would
follow the passing of the Fair Work Bill. The role and responsibility of the
taskforce was explained by Ms Sandra Parker, who told the committee the
taskforce was established to examine the logistical and service delivery issues
involved in the establishment of Fair Work Australia. Ms Parker told the
committee that the taskforce has had five meetings to date.[5]
2.16
The Department was unable to provide the committee with specific details
regarding the timeframe the taskforce is working from. However, Mr John Kovacic
sought to reassure the committee by stating that the taskforce is working with
already established practices and processes from different agencies, and
therefore is not starting from scratch. Mr Kovacic went on to comment that the
main a critical role of the taskforce is to standardise these processes by 1 July 2009.[6]
Workplace Ombudsman
2.17
Many of the committee's questions were concerned with how the work of
the Workplace Ombudsman will be affected by the Fair Work Bill, assuming its
passage through Parliament. Mr Wilson, the Workplace Ombudsman, explained to
the committee that a new office of the Fair Work Ombudsman will be created. The
Fair Work Ombudsman will continue the work of the Workplace Ombudsman and other
agencies as stipulated in the final legislation.[7]
2.18
Questions were asked regarding the findings of a recent compliance audit
conducted by the Workplace Ombudsman. The Workplace Ombudsman told the
committee:
We conduct targeted compliance campaigns nationally on a rolling
basis—our states and territories undertake this activity basically on a
changeable basis each month. They target things quite differently according to
the information that is coming up. Between March 2006 and the end of last year
we conducted a very large number of audits recovering a very large amount of
money. What we are consistently finding is that there is a figure of around
about 41 per cent for non-compliance. That is right across the spectrum from
not only failure to keep time and wages records or things considered fairly
minor breaches right through to systematic non-compliance in wages.[8]
area
2.19
Given these findings, the committee was interested in any follow-up
procedures and campaigns initiated by the office after such an audit. The
Ombudsman explained that campaigns are often conducted in particular industry
sectors to ascertain what improvements have been made following an audit. While
the office conducts audits and campaigns across varying sized business and
industries, the Ombudsman explained that a number of issues arise from audits
of smaller businesses. This does not limit the scope of investigations
occurring, as the Workplace Ombudsman explained:
We receive about 26,000 complaints a year from people who claim
they have been underpaid. We traditionally find that they are from people who
work in small or medium business, particularly in the casualised industries,
the retail and service industries, and that, of course, is not a particular surprise.
We then use that to make decisions about where we put our auditing and that
means that, all things considered, we probably will not be getting a lot of
complaints from people, say, in the ASX 200. But, as we develop our programs,
we are of the view that we need to start looking at larger companies as well as
small.[9]
Workplace Authority
2.20
Many questions asked of the Workplace Authority were also related to the
Fair Work Bill. When asked what transitional arrangements the Workplace
Authority had in place, the Director, Ms Barbara Bennett, told the committee
that her office is working with the executive director of the taskforce to
ensure staff are adequately prepared for the passage of the legislation and the
establishment of the Fair Work Australia agencies. [10]
2.21
Senator Fisher asked questions regarding processing times of agreements
with the Authority, and subsequent complaints received. Ms Bennett, in
responding to concerns about the lack of an 'external umpire' in the complaint
handling process, assured the committee that the Workplace Authority has
established effective review arrangements as well as a quality assurance
program to deal with this matter.[11]
2.22
The Workplace Authority took on notice a question on the number of
complaints received during 2008. Ms Bennett suggested that in comparison with
the number of agreements lodged, the complaint ratio is less than one per cent
with regards to decision making and timeliness. Ms Bennett also agreed to
provide the committee with the corresponding figure for 2007 on notice.
Australian Building and
Construction Commission
2.23
The questions directed to the Australian Building and Construction
Commission (ABCC) indicated the views of senators in regard to the role and
performance of the ABCC. Senator Fisher asked if the ABCC held industry forums,
which the Commissioner confirmed. The Commissioner explained to the committee
that the purpose of these forums is to 'inform the main parties in the industry,
those that engage with the ABCC, about our activities, what we are doing, what
we have got planned and matters like that'.[12]
The Commissioner went on to explain that out of the 6 forums held, unions chose
not to attend 3 of these hearings. Following this line of questioning, Senator Cameron
argued that the absence of unions at these forums should be highlighted in
their annual report. The Commissioner undertook to respond to this matter on
notice.
2.24
Continuing a line of questioning from the supplementary round of
estimates in 2008, Senator Cameron asked about the Econtech report which was
supplied in response to a question on notice. Suggesting the report was flawed,
Senator Cameron asked if the ABCC could prepare analysis on the mistakes made
in the report to provide to the Senate, to which the Commissioner responded he
would not. The Commissioner commented that this error is noted in the report,
and was covered at the previous hearings.
2.25
The Chair asked the ABCC how often they subpoena journalists to obtain
notes on reporting of ABCC investigations. The ABCC said they were unaware of
any subpoenas. The Chair asked about a subpoena on News Limited, to which the ABCC
professed no knowledge. The Chair then suggested that perhaps this action was
done without the knowledge of the ABCC executive committee. The question was
taken on notice.[13]
Acknowledgements
2.26
The committee thanks the ministers, the Secretary of the Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, Ms Lisa Paul, as well as officers of the
various agencies, for their assistance and cooperation throughout the hearings.
Senator Gavin Marshall
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page