Chapter 2
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio
2.1
This chapter summarises key areas of interest raised during the
committee's consideration of additional budget estimates for the 2013–14
financial year. This chapter of the report follows the order of proceedings and
is an indicative, but not exhaustive, account of issues examined.
2.2
The committee heard evidence on 26 February 2014 from
Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, as the Minister representing the
Minister for Education, along with officers from areas of the Department of Education,
and agencies responsible for education, including:
- Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority;
- Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership;
- Australian Research Council; and
- Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
2.3
On 27 February 2014 the committee heard evidence from Senator the
Hon. Eric Abetz, Minister for Employment, along with officers from areas of the
Department of Employment and agencies responsible for administering Employment
policy, and agencies responsible for employment, including:
- Fair Work Commission;
- Fair Work Ombudsman;
- Safe Work Australia;
- Comcare;
- Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate; and
- Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency.
2.4
Senators present over the two days of
hearings include Senator Back (Chair), Senator Lines (Deputy Chair),
Senators Cameron, Carr, Collins, Kroger, Ludwig, McKenzie, Moore, O'Neill,
O'Sullivan, Parry, Rhiannon, Tillem, Whish-Wilson, Williams, Wright and
Xenophon.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
The Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers
2.5
Representatives from the Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL) responded to questions on the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Ms Evans, Chief Executive Officer, explained that the
standards provide levels of examination for different aspects of quality
teaching, including graduate, proficient, highly accomplished and lead. The
standards also provide an amount of terminology while providing clear
expectations for teachers and the communities.[1]
2.6
Ms Evans further elaborated that during 2013 all registering authorities
agreed to use the standards as the basis for registration, while providers of
initial teacher education agreed to use the standards as the basis for
accreditation. In addition, the standards are being used as the basis for
professional performance and developments.[2]
2.7
The committee queried the level to which the States were adopting the
standards. Ms Evans stated that:
[T]he ACT have been very enthusiastic and very public. In all
their policy and documents within the legislation associated with their
regulatory authority, the standards are very explicit. South Australia has
similarly been embracing the standards. There would be...some teachers in some of
our schools who do not know very much about the standards and do not pay very
much attention to the standards.[3]
2.8
The committee continued by asking whether the standards also applied to
school principals. AITSL explained that there are two separate sets of
standards for teachers and principals. The principals' standard originated as a
content standard but was developed into more of a performance standard.
Different levels of the principals' standards exist, making it more coherent
regardless of whether a principal is new or highly experienced.[4]
Australian Research Council
Research Staffing at Universities
2.9
The Australian Research Council (ARC) responded to questions regarding
the research workforce in Australia and the high level of movement between
institutions both domestically and internationally. The committee specifically
questioned whether the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) program could
be a cause for the high levels of workforce movement. Professor Aidan Byrne,
Chief Executive Officer replied:
One of the things about the research evaluation exercise ERA
has done is that is has provided a focus for universities on the quality of the
research that they do. I think overall this has been a tremendously beneficial
asset to the sector...if an institution decides, on the one hand, to strengthen a
particular research area or, on the other hand, to let go of a particular
research area, that is probably a positive and beneficial aspect of the
research evaluation exercise.[5]
2.10
Professor Byrne continued by stating that the only problem that could
occur with research staff movement is that the ARC runs evaluations exercises
at specific times, while announcing time windows and specific dates. Due to
this, universities will probably be aware of this when recruiting staff from
other institutions.[6]
Streamlining of grants process
2.11
The committee began its examination of the ARC grants process by
querying whether any attempts had been made to simplify the process. The ARC
responded by stating that it had undergone a review of its funding rules and
attempted to provide a consistency in those rules. This was achieved through
researchers being able to respond to one consistent funding rule for grants
rather than having to respond differently to various schemes. Professor Byrne
further explained that the ARC had been updating its ICT systems to facilitate
the application process for researchers.[7]
2.12
The ARC informed the committee that it had also changed the Discovery
program to allow up to a five year grant and that only a small number of
applicants had so far requested grants for longer than three years.[8]
The Future Fellowships program
2.13
The committee requested an update of the Future Fellowships program. The
ARC began by explaining that the program is aimed at mid-career researchers, with
200 fellowships being awarded every year. Professor Byrne stated that the
program was extremely successful:
I am of the view... that this has been a very successful
program in that it gives support to researchers at a very critical time in
their research careers. It gives them funding for four years to pursue their
research topics. They are at a point where they are, in many ways, at their
most creative.[9]
2.14
The ARC stated the Future Fellowships program supported researchers that
have the highest rates of international participation and consequently become
part of the research agenda around the world. In addition, the program allows
targeted researchers to make important connections with industry, while
enabling the transition from short term postdoctoral positions to ongoing
academic careers.[10]
Department of Education Outcome 1
Support for the Child Care System
2.15
The committee asked the department to explain the particulars of the
Early Years Quality Fund, as well as to summarise the PricewaterhouseCoopers
evaluation of the program. The department explained that the fund to provide
wage increases for childcare workers was only made available to employees of
providers that had enterprise bargaining agreements in place, which was
approximately 30 per cent of workers in the sector. On the day the applications
opened, the department had over 453 applications where a conditional offer was
made and 619 that were registered and assessed for a total of 16 funding
agreements.[11]
2.16
Ms Wilson, Deputy Secretary of Early Childhood Education and Care, told
the committee that the PricewaterhouseCoopers evaluation of the program
concluded that $300 million was not sufficient to support higher wages to
attract and retain childcare staff in the sector. This was due to the reality
that only 30 per cent of workers in long day care and 16 per cent of workers in
the sector as a whole would have benefited from the fund. A number of providers
that received conditional offers had already met the national quality framework
and met the qualification requirements. Finally, the requirement for an enterprise
agreement disadvantaged small providers and allowed larger providers who
already had an enterprise agreement to promptly submit an application.[12]
Department of Education Outcome 2
Broadband Enabled Education
2.17
The committee sought an explanation of the functions of the Broadband
Enabled Education program. Ms Bloor, Branch Manager, disclosed that the program
provided funding for 13 projects across schools, vocational education and
training, and higher education sectors. The program targets the use of services
that use high-speed broadband technologies. Each of the 13 projects is subject
to a local evaluation and the department is considering an overarching
evaluation. The program has so far received $24.6 million in funding.[13]
Smarter Schools
2.18
The department responded to concerns the committee raised regarding the
aim of the Smarter Schools program to improve teacher quality due to a lack of
reporting by some States. Mr Cook, Associate Secretary, responded by noting
that all states in receipt of Commonwealth funding are required to improve the
quality of teaching through registration processes, professional standards and
through accredited education courses. Mr Cook continued by stating:
States and territories themselves are implementing the
teacher standards based on their own activity initiatives. The states and
territories have some very comprehensive work on teacher quality. Victoria and
New South Wales have released very explicit plans about what they intend to do
about teacher quality.[14]
2.19
The committee asked the department what the government was specifically
doing to improve teacher quality. Mr Cook stated that the government made a
number of election commitments to improving teacher quality, including
continuing the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, that
examines initial accreditation of teacher education courses in universities,
and the development of a literacy and numeracy test. The creation of the
teacher education ministerial advisory group will help to improve teacher
quality by creating a forum in which the government can consult with experts.[15]
Department of Education Outcome 3
Visa processing for education
providers
2.20
Senators asked if the Department could comment on the benefits to the
Australian education industry from the streamlining of the assessment level
framework for visas and visa processing for certain non-university education
providers. Mr Griew, Associate Secretary, commented that they expected to see a
rise in student numbers:
There have been a series of changes that have taken quite
some time to come through the system. The latest is the extension of the
streamlined visa arrangements to those 19 non-university providers... there are a
number of factors that are causing an uplift and we would expect to see a
continuing increase.[16]
Investment in Higher Education Research
Joint Research Engagement Program
2.21
The committee requested a brief description of the Joint Research
Engagement Program. The department explained that the program's general purpose
is to provide grants while also having a subcomponent that creates support for
engineering cadetships. It is one of six grants that supports infrastructure
other than buildings. The program supports collaborative research activities
between universities, and also between industry. The support for engineering
cadetships includes a subsidy for research training costs for engineering and
science degrees for institutions that are involved in the scheme.[17]
Fair Work Ombudsman
Small Business Helpline
2.22
The committee discussed with representatives from the Fair Work
Ombudsman (FWO) the creation of the Small Business Helpline. FWO stated that
since December the helpline had received over 30 000 calls. FWO uses the
helpline to provide advice for small business through accurate and credible
information to callers. This is done in a timely fashion as small business are
generally short of time. Employers are using the helpline to ensure they are following
the correct guidelines. In the occurrence of FWO giving the wrong advice and an
employer follows that advice, FWO does not seek any penalties.
2.23
Ms James, the Fair Work Ombudsman, explained the importance of the
priority line:
By providing the option, when people ring, to actually select
this priority queue, we are now getting a really good idea of precisely how many
people who classify themselves as small businesses are calling us—and it is
quite a proportion of our total calls.[18]
2.24
The FWO continued by stating that 32 per cent of all calls that are
received come through the Small Business helpline. The committee queried
whether there was a dedicated call centre for these calls and what the wait
time consisted of for the priority queue. Ms James stated that the helpline
advisers are not segregated from the FWO and that the average wait time on the
priority line was 59 seconds, compared to an average wait time of 14 minutes
for other callers. The FWO explained that most of the calls received usually
relate to wages, followed by specifically apprentice and training wages.[19]
Comcare
Compensation entitlements
2.25
The committee asked Comcare about the benefits a worker would receive if
they moved onto the Comcare scheme. Mr O'Connor, Chief Executive Officer, explained
that the main advantages were a consequence of Comcare being a national system,
and that all workers under the scheme around the country have the same
entitlements. The scheme also includes lifetime care and support arrangement that
may not be available in some states for other providers.[20]
2.26
In addition, Comcare monitors other organisations and their processes to
better improve the practices of Comcare. The national coordination is performed
under Safe Work Australia, while Comcare manages strong relationships with
other accident compensation regulators at an administrative level. Ms Parker,
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Employment, stated that the Department
reviewed the negative impact of workers moving from State to Commonwealth
schemes, and that the assessment was that the impact would be minimal. The
Department continued by stating that:
...that there were benefits operating under a single workers
compensation scheme, including the issue of employers having to currently deal
with multiple jurisdictions. So, this will reduce compliance costs, enable more
efficient operation under one regime and greater consistency in coverage and benefits
for employees.[21]
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Establishment
2.27
The committee requested a brief overview of the establishment of the
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (the Agency) considering its recent
creation. The committee heard that the Agency was established in July 2013,
with initial operations being conducted by the Office of Asbestos Safety; an
internal section of the former Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations. The Agency currently consists of five staff, with the aim
of increasing staff numbers to 14. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council
(the Council) had met on four occasions and is progressing toward some
adjustments to the national strategic plan.[22]
2.28
The committee also queried whether the Council had access to make
suggestions to the minister rather than having to go through the Chief
Executive Officer. Mr Tighe, Chief Executive Officer, stated that:
The chair of the council has a direct right to communicate to
the minister. The council has responsibilities advising the minister on the
national strategic plan that the agency is tasked with putting in place...There
are certain things they cannot give me guidance on, in relation to financial
management and provisions under public service regulation, et cetera.[23]
Workplace Gender Equality Agency
Data collection
2.29
The committee asked the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) if its
new IT system for data collection was ready for launch. WGEA informed the
committee that the reporting portal was launched on 14 February 2014. As at 24
February 2014 WGEA has received 320 inquiries regarding the portal, relating to
questions about reporting matters access and other matters of that genre, and
these were resolved appropriately. The portal engages users in a major
educational campaign that includes videos, animations, written material and
face-to-face workshops.[24]
Career progression and wages
2.30
The committee raised the issue of career progression for women as well
as wage disparity. Ms Conway, Director, replied that the disparity between
wages usually occurred through the lack of access to overtime, bonus payments and
other allowances, even though the base wage may be the same. In order to raise
awareness of the lack of promotion processes and recruitment to effective
positions WGEA is currently reporting on representation of men and women being
interviewed for manager and non-manager levels.[25]
Department of Employment Outcome 1
Tasmanian Jobs Program
2.31
The committee asked representatives of the department about the take-up rates
of the new Tasmanian Jobs Program. The Department confirmed for the committee
that the program launched on 1 January 2014 and that at 1 February 2014, five
people had employers who were on track to receive the subsidy with a first
possible payment on 1 July 2014 equal to thirteen weeks of Newstart Allowance. This
was in comparison to the Wage Connect program that had employed 305 people in
Tasmania to receive a $6 000 payment.[26]
Department of Employment Outcome 2
Employee Assistance
2.32
The committee discussed with witnesses the protections available in the
Fair Work Act to prevent an employer from forcing an employee to sign an
individual flexibility arrangement (IFA). Dr Alison Morehead, Group Manager, explained
that:
The existing protections in the Fair Work Act include that
the flexibility term in an award agreement must provide that any individual
arrangement agreement is genuinely agreed to...Then there is a set of general
protection provisions. These provide, for an example, that adverse action
cannot be taken against an employee to make them into an individual flexibility
agreement or against them because they have refused to enter into one.[27]
2.33
The Department also stated that an individual flexibility arrangement cannot
be made a condition of employment and that if a protection provision in the act
is breached then the employer can face penalties. The Fair Work Amendment
Bill 2014 proposes to increase the protection for employees by requiring
the employee to make a statement as to the reason why they would benefit from
entering into an individual flexibility arrangement. If an employer were to
force an employee to sign an IFA, it could consist of coercion and result in a
penalty of $10 200 for an individual or $51 000 for a corporation.[28]
Senator Chris Back
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page