Chapter 2
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio
2.1
This chapter summarises areas of interest and concern raised during the
committee's consideration of additional budget estimates for the 2009—10
financial year. This section of the report follows the order of proceedings and
is an indicative, but not exhaustive, list of issues examined.
2.2
The committee heard evidence on 10 February from
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib, as minister representing the
Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, along with officers
from areas of the department and agencies responsible for employment and
workplace relations, including:
- Comcare
- Fair Work Ombudsman
- Fair Work Australia
- Australian Building and Construction Commission
- Safe Work Australia
2.3
On 11 February the committee heard evidence from
Senator the Hon Kim Carr, as the minister representing the
Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and from officers
from areas of the department and agencies responsible for administering education
policy. In addition to departmental officials, officers from the newly
established Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority were
examined by the committee.
2.4
Senators present over the two days of hearings were Senator Marshall
(Chair), Senator Cash (Deputy Chair), Senators Abetz, Back, Bilyk, Brandis,
Cameron, Collins, Cormann, Crossin, Fielding, Fifield, Fisher, Hanson-Young,
Mason, Milne, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson and Ryan.
Cross portfolio
2.5
Senator Cormann contributed to much of the committee's examination of
cross portfolio issues with a series of questions relating to DEEWR's role in
the economic stimulus package. The department was asked what input they had in
the planning of the stimulus package, and if they provided advice as to how it
should be structured. The Secretary of DEEWR, Ms Lisa Paul, told the committee
that DEEWR's role centred on implementing policy, rather than providing advice
on how the policy should be formulated. The department was asked if any
assessment of the stimulus package included analysis of the impact of interest
rates on jobs, and responded that such economic assessments are a matter for
Treasury. Ms Paul reiterated that DEEWR's role in the stimulus package related
only to implementing the Building the Education Revolution program. Senator
Cormann raised with officers the Keep Australia Working program, and asked if
the department had conducted any formal evaluation into how successful it has
been. Ms Paul told the committee that the department is monitoring the changes
that happen in each priority employment region, and undertook to provide on
notice the measures the department is utilising to monitor the progress of the
program.[1]
Comcare
2.6
Much of the examination of Comcare focussed on bullying in the workplace.
Comcare told the committee that a recently released Productivity Commission
draft report into the issue examined how differing jurisdictions—federal, state
and territory—approached workplace bullying. Mr Paul O'Connor commented on a
high‑profile bullying court case in Victoria when he stated:
The recent decision in Victoria highlights and sends a very
strong message to the Australian community and to employers about the
importance that employers and colleagues at the workplace have to keep a focus
on making sure that not just the health but the welfare of people at the
workplace is kept as a priority and a focus.[2]
2.7
Senator Abetz asked a series of questions relating to psychosocial
bullying, and asked if there was delineation between traditional physical
injury claims and claims relating primarily to bullying and harassment. Comcare
explained that, within their jurisdiction, they do make a distinction between
'injury claims' and what is referred to as 'disease claims', and commented
that there has been a decline in the number of claims about work-related
harassment or workplace bullying. Comcare attributed this decline to increased
awareness in federal workplaces regarding bullying and increased skilling of
line managers in facilitating understanding of bullying policies.
2.8
Both the Chair and Senator Abetz raised the issue of the varying
definition and categorisation of psychosocial claims that exists between states
and territories, and how reclassification of definitions can result in
misleading reductions in bullying figures. Mr O'Connor explained to the
committee that the Productivity Commission report included analysis that tried
to understand and interpret the points of difference between the ways the
various jurisdictions applied classifications. The new national model of work
health and safety laws will rectify the issue of varying definitions of
bullying related injuries.[3]
Fair Work Ombudsman
2.9
Examination of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) began with questions
regarding the educational workplace visits conducted by the Ombudsman that
commenced on 5 January 2010. Intended to educate workplaces on the new modern
awards and the impact of the referral of the powers of four state systems to
the Commonwealth system, the workplace visits focussed on small businesses
moving from the state system to the Commonwealth. Senator Abetz asked the
Ombudsman if these visits would have been more effective if they had been held
prior to the changes occurring. The Ombudsman told the committee that the
workplace visits were always scheduled to commence in January 2010, as the
referral of state powers was only finalised in December 2009. The FWO expects
to conduct 26 000 transitional educational visits in 2010.[4]
2.10
Senator Cash inquired about dispute resolution pathways that are
available to people who call the FWO. Mr Wilson elaborated upon the process,
noting that the office receives approximately one million phone calls per year,
two‑thirds of which are from employees. Of these calls, the Ombudsman
estimated that 25 000 relate to complaints of underpayment of wages. Using
such a call as an example, Mr Wilson explained the process that would follow
the office receiving a complaint of underpayment. Once the claim has been
registered, officers initiate the process of 'voluntary resolution' where both
the employee and employer are contacted. The employer is told they have a
period of time to remedy the situation, and, according to the Ombudsman, it is
at this stage that a significant amount of cases are resolved. However, if
voluntary resolution does not eventuate, the matter is formally assigned to a
Fair Work inspector. If the ensuing investigation establishes that a breach has
occurred, the employer is again given time to voluntarily remedy the situation.
The Ombudsman commented that in 75 per cent of cases the process is concluded
within 90 days. In 'very few...cases, 50 or 60 per year', litigation is commenced
against the non-compliant party, with these cases going through the usual court
process. The FWO agreed to provide the committee with a breakdown of the types
of complaints that have been received since the office commenced.[5]
2.11
Senator Cameron asked the Ombudsman if a memorandum of understanding
existed between the FWO and the Australian Building and Construction Commission
(ABCC). The committee was told that there is an exchange of letters, not a
memorandum of understanding. The committee has demonstrated previous interest
in the relationship between the FWO and the ABCC, with Senator Humphries asking
a similar line of questions in the supplementary estimates hearings of October
2009.[6]
The Ombudsman elaborated on the process of the exchange of letters, explaining
that issues which relate to money matters are generally dealt with by the FWO,
while matters which relate to compliance issues are handled by the ABCC. When
asked how much work the building and construction industry generates for the FWO,
Senator Cameron was told that, between 2006 and 2010, 16 matters were formally
referred from the ABCC to the FWO and its two predecessor organisations under
the exchange of letters. Mr Wilson also told the committee that the FWO is
involved with other work in the building and construction industry, receiving 5602
matters between March 2006 and December 2009. The Ombudsman undertook to
provide the committee with aggregated data on underpayments and other matters
related to the recoveries the Ombudsman was involved in.[7]
Fair Work Australia
2.12
Fair Work Australia (FWA) first appeared before the committee at
Supplementary Budget Estimates in October 2009. The President of FWA, Justice
Giudice, was not in attendance at that hearing. On 28 October 2009, a motion
was passed in the Senate requiring the President to attend Additional Estimates
in February 2010, and all subsequent estimates hearings of the committee.[8]
2.13
Justice Giudice gave the committee an overview of the operations of the
national industrial tribunal, outlining the key areas of responsibility of the
organisation. The President explained to senators that the key area of work
relates to industrial matters, which includes disputes, agreements, various
applications that may relate to protected action ballots and industrial action.
All industrial matters are dealt with by a panel system, with industries
divided into four industry panels. While commenting that this is the
'traditional industrial work' of the tribunal, Justice Giudice remarked that
the volume of such matters is not as great as it once was.[9]
2.14
Senator Abetz asked FWA how many applications for modern award
variations had been lodged, and how many are currently being processed by FWA.
Officers told the committee that there were 208 applications for variations
lodged by 31 December 2009. Since this date, FWA has received a further 9
applications and has until 31 March 2010 to determine the variations. The
President informed the committee that the office has issued decisions in
relation to 150 applications, and he is confident that FWA will be able to
process the balance within the timeframe.[10]
2.15
From 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009, 5208 applications for unfair
dismissal remedy were lodged with FWA. Of these, 2783 have been resolved by conciliation.
The committee was told that there are 24 conciliators across the country, and
there are no plans to increase this number at the moment. The committee was
told that, while there are no formal performance indicators, there are a range
of measures and matters that FWA look at to assess how the conciliation process
is developing, including outcomes and results. However, the number of claims
settled at conciliation is not a performance indicator. Formal key performance
indicators that conciliators are to meet are currently being developed by the
FWA.[11]
2.16
In his concluding remarks to the committee, the President of FWA stated:
I am not the head of any agency for budget purposes. I would
like that to be recorded. I urge anybody connected with these proceedings to
ensure it is clear in the public domain that I am not an agency head.[12]
The committee notes that section 658(a) of the Fair Work Act
provides that the General Manager has independent responsibility for compliance
with the Financial Management and Accountability Act—which FWA falls under—and
that this may be what the President was referring to.
2.17
The President's statement about his role at FWA follows on from
correspondence with the committee during 2009 about which FWA executives are
best placed to appear and answer estimates questions. At the time of that
correspondence, the committee accepted Justice Giudice's view that the General
Manager of FWA was the appropriate representative. Having regard to the
questions asked of FWA during the additional estimates hearings, the committee
is still of that view.
2.18
However, the committee notes that the Senate order of 28 October 2009 is
of continuing effect.
Australian Building and Construction Commission
2.19
The examination of the Australian Building and Construction Commission
(ABCC) began with officers providing the committee with an update on current
investigations. Of the 59 active investigations being carried out by the ABCC,
25 are in Victoria, 21 in New South Wales, 10 in Western Australia and 3 in
Queensland. Senator Abetz asked officers to give the committee an overview of
what the most common breaches of legislation relate to. Of the cases that have
involved the ABCC, 37 per cent have related to industrial action, 21 per cent
to coercion and 15 per cent to freedom of association. Right of entry issues,
strike pay and discrimination cases form the remaining workload of the agency.[13]
2.20
Following on from previous estimates hearings, Senator Cameron showed
interest in the reports the ABCC commissioned from the economic consultancy
firm Econtech. Senator Cameron questioned the findings of the report which
suggested that GDP would rise by 1.5 per cent as a result of the activities of
the ABCC. The Commissioner assured the committee that the Econtech modelling is
rigorous and is used by the industry. The Commissioner went on to comment that
the three reports prepared by Econtech are the most thorough investigations of
the impact of the ABCC that have been undertaken, and each report has arrived
at the same conclusion.[14]
Safe Work Australia
2.21
Safe Work Australia (SWA) appeared before the committee for the first
time as a separate agency. Prior to additional estimates, SWA was part of
DEEWR. The PAES 2009—10 indicates that while SWA does not have any new measures
allocated to it, functions and resources have been transferred from the
department.[15]
Senator Abetz asked officers if SWA has been asked to investigate or look into
the recent deaths related to roof insulations in Queensland. SWA told the
committee that it is a national policy body only, and that occupational health
and safety (OHS) issues are the responsibility of the state, territory and
Commonwealth governments.[16]
Outcome 4 (Workforce participation and labour market assistance)
2.22
Senator Cormann opened examination of officers from outcome 4 with
questions relating to the Jobs Fund. The department confirmed that Jobs Fund is
part of the jobs and training compact, which is part of the Keep Australia
Working program. Senator Cormann noted that DEEWR administers three jobs
compacts—a compact with young Australians, a compact with local communities and
a compact with retrenched workers— and asked the department to elaborate on the
status of each. The committee demonstrated an interest in the compact with
young Australians, which as Ms Paul explained, has several components that are
all underway. The compact has three core principles, one of which states that
anyone under the age of 17 must be in full-time school, training or work. Ms
Paul explained to the committee that this was an aspiration and the department
will never literally achieve a 100 per cent success rate due to the impact of
factors such as homelessness and mental illness. Senator Cormann commented that
those who fit this category in the United Kingdom were referred to as NEET—neither
in education, employment or training—and that the number of young people in
this category has been increasing. DEEWR is beginning to develop data on this,
and commented that it has previously never been collected.[17]
2.23
Officers from DEEWR provided the committee with an update on the status
of job seekers within the Job Services Australia system. Senator Cormann asked
if there had been any change since the start of the new contract on 1 July 2009
to the way job seekers are allocated to the different streams. DEEWR explained
that, as a result of the global economic downturn, the compact with retrenched
workers included a commitment to include retrenched workers in stream 2
automatically, meaning that they are able to receive more intensive support. Officers
also informed the committee that there has been a 16 per cent increase in the
number of job placements in the first six months of Job Services Australia,
when compared to the first six months of the Job Network. Overall, the department
commented that the first six months of Jobs Services Australia has been very
successful.[18]
Outcome 5 (Safer and more productive workplaces)
2.24
The Chair began with questions for officers within the Safety and
Compensation Policy branch of DEEWR. Continuing on from a line of questions
that were put to Comcare officers earlier in the day, the Chair asked DEEWR to
elaborate upon Comcare policy that dictates injured employees who retire early
receive 5 per cent less in superannuation payments than injured employees
who return to work. DEEWR told the committee:
...the focus of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
is on rehabilitation and return to work, and it is probably what distinguishes
it from its predecessor acts....The act specifies 75 per cent for employees who
do not retire early, but for those employees who do retire early, the formula
provides for them to receive 70 per cent of their pre-injury earnings.[19]
2.25
According to the department, the formula in the act applies to all
employees equally—irrespective of which superannuation scheme they are covered
by—and also applies to people who retire early by choice. The Chair
acknowledged that, while the purpose of the legislation may be to dissuade
people from retiring early, some injured employees are unable to return to
work. It was suggested that a distinction should be made between people who
retire early by choice and those who, due to injury, are incapable of returning
to the workplace. Due to time constraints, the department agreed to provide the
committee with a more detailed response on notice.[20]
Outcome 2 (Schools and youth)
School funding
2.26
Questions were asked regarding the current school funding agreement,
which is due to expire in 2012. The department informed the committee that
school funding for non-government schools is currently based on socioeconomic
status, and that this model will continue until the end of the current
quadrennium of funding. In the interim, the government will conduct a review of
school funding, which will inform funding arrangements in the new quadrennium. While
the method of consultation is yet to be decided, officers told the committee
that widespread consultation with relevant stakeholders will form part of the
review process.[21]
Trade Training Centres in Schools
2.27
Senator Cormann asked a series of questions about the Trade Training
Centres in Schools program administered by the department. To date, two funding
rounds have been conducted, with DEEWR receiving 364 applications for funding,
representing 1078 schools. So far, 230 applications have been successful,
representing 734 schools. Officers informed the committee that, out of the 108
projects underway, 46 have commenced construction, five have been completed and
one is operational. Aviation High School in Brisbane has the only operational
trade training centre, catering for 190 students. Officers were unable to tell
the committee how many of these students used the centre on a full-time basis
but undertook to provide this information on notice. The department expects
that 68 trade training centres will be completed by the end of 2010.[22]
2.28
Further questions regarding the program were asked by Senator Cash.
Following on from information received during supplementary budget estimates in
October 2009, Senator Cash noted that the department had originally expected
that 27 centres would be operational by May 2010. However, based on
current progress, it would appear that only 18 will be completed in the given
timeframe. DEEWR explained that some schools had experienced unexpected delays
in implementing the centres, with one school affected by a cyclone. However,
the department explained they are in constant contact with those schools to
determine how best to progress the projects.[23]
My School website
2.29
The committee demonstrated strong interest in the recently launched My
School website. Witnesses from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA) appeared before the committee and were able to
provide senators with information regarding the functions of the website.
2.30
Responsible for the establishment of the My School website, ACARA was
able to respond to concerns some senators expressed about the ability of the
website to compare 'like' schools. ` Senator Mason commented that there had
been criticism of the methodology used to measure statistical similarity.
Elaborating on this argument, Senator Mason commented that it may be more
precise to use the characteristics of the households where students reside as a
measure of similarity, rather than the general community in which they live.
Professor McGaw told the committee that it is problematic to attempt to compile
information on individual households on a national scale. The practice that is
employed in Australia for determining funding for non‑government schools
is to use data obtained from census collections that create a profile of the
particular area. The characteristics of the census collection districts are
applied to students to give an indication of their socioeconomic background.
Professor McGaw emphasised the success of this methodology when he asserted:
There is a very high correlation between these measures of
students' social background and the average performance of schools on NAPLAN.
The correlation is over 0.8, which is extraordinarily high. So this is a very
good measure.[24]
2.31
However, ACARA acknowledged that there are certain unique situations in
which the 'straight computation' of the index does not work well. Some schools
may inadvertently be classed as 'advantaged' based on the seemingly prosperous
socioeconomic background of their students. However, factors such as government
housing in otherwise well-off communities incorrectly alter the status of students
within certain schools. In these situations, ACARA can make adjustments so that
the true socioeconomic status of the school in question is available.[25]
2.32
When asked if the index could be improved upon, ACARA officials
reiterated their belief in the robustness of the index but also told the
committee of plans to strengthen it further. ACARA will add another dimension
to the index that will incorporate the results of consecutive National
Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testing of students. Doing so
will enable the website to chart any improvements in results and add an
'educational measure' to the social measure already used. Analysis of
educational performance of OECD countries indicated that, while Australia's
education system performs well, it is clear that socioeconomic differences have
more impact in Australia than in other countries that perform similarly well.
As a result, the socioeconomic status of students would continue to be used as
a measure on the index.[26]
Outcome 1 (Early childhood education)
2.33
Senator Payne led the examination of officers from outcome 1, beginning
by asking the department to give a breakdown of the number of children in
various child care arrangements. Quoting figures from the June quarter of 2009,
officers told the committee that there were 800 000 children in approved child
care. Of these, 476 000 were in long day care, and 100 000 in family day care
and in-home care. DEEWR agreed to provide the committee a breakdown of the
figures for those in family day care and in-home care on notice. Senator Payne
asked if parents are entitled to a rebate if they employ a nanny in the family
home. Officers explained that families may be eligible for the rebate if the
nanny is registered in the system as a carer; however, the rebate is at a lower
level than what is generally applied.[27]
2.34
Questions were asked about the Jobs Education and Training (JET) child
care assistance program. The JET program provides extra child care assistance
to eligible parents on income support who voluntarily take up work, study or
job search activities to meet their mandatory participation requirements. In
2008—09, 34 054 children were assisted under the JET program, and roughly 70
per cent of parents utilising the service were studying or training.[28]
Outcome 3 (Higher education, VET, international education)
2.35
The inability of the Commonwealth to access data relating to state TAFE
institutions was discussed. Senator Cormann asked officers if they had a
national picture of which TAFE providers perform highly and which do not
perform as well. DEEWR told the committee that they currently do not get access
to state-level data and that this has long been an issue under a range of
agreements that the Commonwealth has had with the states and territories.[29]
National VET regulator
2.36
The recent Council of Australian Governments (COAG) decision to establish
a national regulator for the vocational education and training (VET) sector was
discussed. Officers informed the committee of the department's progress in
implementing the regulator, advising that DEEWR has begun the consultation
process with the states and territories. This process centres on the draft
legislation and the intergovernmental agreement, which, as a requirement of
COAG, must be negotiated and back with the states and territories by May 2010.
DEEWR told the committee it was on track for this process to occur. Further
consultation would be conducted in March 2010 with relevant stakeholders,
including training providers and industry skills councils.[30]
2.37
Senator Cormann questioned whether the regulator could be described as a
national body, given that the states of Western Australia and Victoria both
agreed not to be part of the organisation. The committee was told that those
states are likely to enact mirror legislation, providing the same legislative
parameters that govern national regulation of the industry. Furthermore,
providers who operate in more than one state will be covered by the national
regulator, meaning that sectors of the Victorian and Western Australian markets
would be covered by the national body. State level regulatory bodies in
Victoria and Western Australia will be responsible for enforcing standards
which will be set by a national standards body. The national VET regulator will
enforce these standards for the remaining participating states and territories.[31]
Skills Australia
2.38
Senator Cormann asked officers from Skills Australia to comment on the
notion that some employers feel Skills Australia is out of touch and not
adequately across the needs of employers around the country. Skills Australia
refuted this notion, explaining that the strategic industry forums held by the
organisation allow Skills Australia to regularly meet with employers and all
industry groups. Moreover, it was explained that there has been a 'very
intensive series' of consultations conducted around the country, and that
specific consultations have occurred with various industry groups and
individual employers. Skills Australia agreed to provide on notice a list of
all the consultations that have occurred in the preceding 3 years. Senator
Cormann also raised the issue of workforce development programs, suggesting
that the overlap and inconsistency that exists may be construed as a lack of a
nationally cohesive strategy. Officers explained that they are in the process
of finalising a national workforce development strategy, which is anticipated
to be publicly available within the coming three months.[32]
Higher education
2.39
University compacts, and the arrangements between the Commonwealth and
universities, were raised by Senator Mason. Officers were asked if the interim
arrangements for 2010, as well as the actual compacts for 2011 will be made
publicly available. The committee was told that, at this stage, the intention
is to make the compacts public, and that there are currently 35 signed interim
agreements. The department explained that there are two aspects to transparency
in this area—the publication of the interim agreements, as well as the
commitment of DEEWR to report to the university sector on the progress and
decision-making of all universities regarding the compact.
2.40
It was explained that the compacts are mission based compacts, which
will include a clear outline of the university's mission, and will have two
aspects–research, to be overseen by Minister for Innovation, Science and
Research, and teaching and learning which will be the responsibility of the
Minister for Education. Senator Mason argued that there is a worry that the
compacts will entrench the status quo. However, Minister Carr told the
committee that the compacts will actually challenge the status quo of the
universities. The Minister elaborated upon problems the Commonwealth had
previously faced with university funding:
We have had this long tradition in the university system
that, no matter how much the Commonwealth puts in, someone will turn around and
say it is not enough. We are going to hear that again and again. And we will
hear this other argument that says, ‘It doesn’t matter what they say. We can
keep doing what we like.’ The fact is that we have to change to meet the challenges
that we currently are confronting as a country.[33]
2.41
The Minister asserted that the compact will allow government to
objectively test the performance of universities, and will assist in lifting
performance. Targets and directions that are set in the university compacts
will allow government to monitor performance, and determine whether universities
are on course to meet specified objectives. Minister Carr commented:
...we are also saying that the universities are entitled to be
challenged. They challenge each other, and we are entitled to challenge them as
to whether or not they are meeting their claims as to their directions.[34]
Senator Gavin Marshall
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page