Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice asked by Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Fifield today, relating to employment services.

The coalition introduced a paradigm shift in the provision of job placement services in 1998. The old CES, the Commonwealth Employment Service, was progressively replaced by the Job Network—a system of support and placement for the unemployed which, combined with a strong and growing economy, saw unemployment at record lows.

When the coalition were in office, we, like this government, re-let a number of contacts in this area. There are always winners and losers in any competitive tender—such is the nature of the process—but the outcry from providers of the Job Services Australia tender round is unlike anything seen or heard before in this sector. But Minister Arbib seemed completely unaware of the controversy swirling around the JSA tenders; unaware that a full day of Senate estimates was devoted to questions from Senator Cash alone about the tender; and unaware that, on a motion moved by Senator Siewert and me, a Senate committee is inquiring into the tender.

Mr Deputy President, I am quite fond of Senator Arbib, as you may know, so it pains me to say that I think that, if Minister Arbib had spent some time being briefed about his portfolio rather than parading around work sites in his rainbow selection of safety jackets and hard hats, he may have been aware of some of these matters. He may have been aware that the weighting in selection criteria for past performance had been reduced to 30 per cent. He may have been aware that well-regarded, highly performing providers had been turfed out. He may have been aware that, as a result of this tender bungle, 47 per cent of job seekers will be reassigned caseworkers and job providers on 1 July. I am at a loss to understand how forcing 47 per cent of job seekers to new caseworkers and new service providers at a time of slowing growth and rising unemployment helps those people find jobs. That is something Minister Arbib needs to explain.

The reason for this debacle is that 100 per cent of services in employment service areas were put to tender. The minister was also unaware of this fact. He was unaware as to why 100 per cent of contracts were put up for tender and he was unaware as to whether advice had been tendered to the department, to the then minister, recommending that approach of tendering 100 per cent of services at the same time. The minister was also unaware about the tender process itself and whether any provider deemed not to be a preferred tenderer was subsequently offered business—something which goes to the very heart, integrity and probity of this tender process.

The minister needs to get briefed—and get briefed fast—on his portfolio. He needs to get briefed and he then needs to answer why 100 per cent of contracts were put up for tender at the same time. He needs to answer why the weighting for past experience for service providers was reduced to 30 per cent. He needs to answer how it is that 47 per cent of clients having to find a new caseworker, and a new provider, helps them in their search for work. And he needs to confirm the very integrity of the tender process. In particular, he needs to confirm whether during the probity period there was any communication relating to purchasing matters between the previous minister, his staff and a tenderer. While he is doing that, he should also endeavour to establish whether there were any communications between the former minister or his office and the department regarding additional contracts being let, as I asked him in my question—something of which he was completely unaware.

Minister Arbib has been in his position only a few a weeks—I grant him that—but the tendering arrangements for Job Services Australia go to the very heart of what his portfolio is about. It is about helping Australians out of work find work. He does not understand the first principles of how his portfolio seeks to bring that about. He needs to get briefed, and get briefed fast.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I start by congratulating Senator Arbib on his elevation to the Employment Participation portfolio. He is, quite clearly, across the elements of his portfolio and is more than capable of answering the questions that he was asked today.

There is a difference between not liking the answers that you get and whether or not you accept that on this side of the chamber, under a Rudd Labor government, you have a party of reform and on the other side of the chamber you have a party of people who want to keep rolling over contracts without any accountability or any examination of whether or not those contracts have been effective. We went to the last election with a policy to reform Job Network. That is what we did in 2007. We went on the campaign trail saying that we would reform the Job Network provisions and capacity in this country. You see, the Howard government left us with a Job Network that was out of date, one size fits all, bogged down in red tape and incapable of dealing with Australia’s chronic skills shortages. They took the politically easy decision to simply roll over 95 per cent of businesses in the last Job Network tender. In 2006, when the Job Network became available again for retendering, it was not put out to tender. Ninety-five per cent of the businesses in the contracts were not put out to tender. There was no scrutiny under the Howard government. They simply lay down, rolled over and continued with the incompetent and inept system that was in place. There were no improvements and no accountability. They simply rolled over the existing contracts in 2006 for 95 per cent of businesses.

Throughout 2008, under Minister Brendan O’Connor, we embarked on a wide program of consultation with the employment service providers, employers, job seekers and community groups to actually hear their views about how to improve Job Network, now Job Services Australia. We fulfilled our promise by announcing that we will now have Job Services Australia and not Job Network. What is this going to do? One of the fundamental issues that the people opposite have failed to grasp is that the government’s new employment services will actually integrate seven programs. It will integrate Job Network, JSP, JPET, Green Corps, Work for the Dole, Harvest Labour Services and the NEIS. What we are being asked for is a different service to be provided now. That is why it went out to tender. We now have a service that will be tailored for each job seeker. We will be scrapping waiting periods for services for more job seekers. We will promote the value of real training that leads to job opportunities—unlike the previous government. They did not want to link any training to job outcomes and job seeker provisions. Our program will cut red tape for providers, freeing them up to help job seekers; retain and expand access to specialist services for highly disadvantaged job seekers; and be uncapped and demand driven. This is unlike the system we inherited, which had a waiting list of over 20,000 for the Personal Support Program.

What we have seen is a government of reform—a government that went out there last year and actually consulted right around the country about a new program of job services provision for those who are seeking employment. You may well ask, ‘What about those who did not get the tender? What about those who might have missed out?’ Quite simply, tenderers who missed out can request a debriefing. That is an opportunity that has been provided to them. They can contact the Employment Services Purchasing Hotline and get a debriefing. We know that tenderers were required by the process to nominate areas they wished to work in, and they were measured against each other on an area-by-area basis. It was a competitive tendering process. It may well be that they might have been excellent in one area but not in the other six. Remember: this is a reform, a change program, a program for the better. This is where we are rolling up seven programs into one. Just because you were good at one did not mean that you were going to be good in all of them. What we had was an open, competitive tendering process, at arm’s length from the government, that will now deliver for this country integrated and responsive job services.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Picking up from comments made by the last speaker: the government is rolling seven programs into one. I think it is more a case of rolling seven jobs into none. I had to laugh when the minister, in answer to one of Senator Fifield’s questions today, said that the job services contract is very important. I have to say, though, that I rolled my eyes when he actually told this chamber that the government had had wide consultation with industry and they had had wide consultation with community groups. What the government tend to forget is this: you can consult as much as you like, but if you do not listen to the concerns of those people and take action to rectify them, it is worth nothing. But you would expect nothing more from those in that government. Unlike them, the coalition listened to the concerns of the job providers and we ensured that this debacle was sent to a Senate committee. We are now looking forward to getting to the bottom of the mess that Labor have created.

I also have to say that it is rather ironic that the new program will be called Job Services Australia, because the bad news for those poor Australians who do need that service is that it will not be a job that they will be found, it will be absolute, complete, total and utter distress. All of the information that we have been provided with to date confirms that this tender process is a complete debacle. The last thing that this service is going to find Australians is jobs. What is more disappointing is that unemployment continues to rise, with more than 200,000 Australians having lost their jobs since August last year—and it is those on the other side who continue to tell us unemployment is going up. You would actually think that they would try to implement policies that would not result in Australians losing their jobs. But, quite the opposite, it would appear that everything that the ALP touches results in another Australian losing their job.

The minister should have revised this model back in August last year, when he had the opportunity to. But he did not. As a result of his inaction, you will have Australians languishing on the dole queue. That is un-Australian. We on this side continue to advocate that every element of government policy should be focused on implementing measures that ensure that employment in Australia remains high, not measures that will result in Australians losing their jobs.

What is interesting, though, is that the new employment services contract excludes many providers who offered exceptional service under the last employment services contract. The question must then be asked: why would providers with a proven track record be excluded this time around? I thought you wanted the best possible organisations, those with a proven track record, taking on the role of trying to find jobs for out-of-work Australians. When Senator Fifield raised this with the minister opposite, the minister said, ‘I don’t know what Senator Fifield is referring to.’ That is just not good enough. We are talking about the fact that many Australians will not have a job. They need a service that is going to assist them in getting back into the workforce.

The public also have the right to know about another issue that Senator Fifield raised—a very important one. They have a right to know if, during the probity period, there were any communications relating to purchasing matters between the previous Minister for Employment Participation, or his staff, and a tenderer. Again, the minister failed to answer the question. The public have a right to know: was probity adhered to or wasn’t it? It is going to be devastating for all of the caseworkers in the Job Network who may now themselves be facing the same dole queue, through no fault of their own. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing I would remind those on the other side about is that the previous government actually privatised the CES, and every job seeker then had to find a new provider. There were 790,000 people on unemployment benefits when that occurred. You would do well to remember that.

The Rudd government went to the last election with a policy to reform the Job Network. We are investing over $4 billion over the next three years in more effective and practical employment services. I have worked in employment services. I have run a program that put 300 long-term unemployed people back into the workforce. Let me tell you, the red tape that was involved in doing that was completely mind-boggling. Under our process, instead of people having to go and knock on seven different doors, they will be able to access the services through one door. That obviously is a benefit to those people.

Employment services and the unemployed are not an excuse for the other side to stand up and rant and rave and feign concern, especially with their history of implementing Work Choices. They do not care about working people. They do not care about unemployed people. They just stand up, feign anger, as Senator Cash did, and think that that is going to get some headlines. Senator Cash, I hate to tell you, but I do not think it is going to get any headlines.

There was a need to reform the previous government’s inflexible Job Network. Employers, employment providers, job seeker advocates and church groups told the government of the need for fundamental reform. Under the previous Minister for Employment Participation, Brendan O’Connor, we started that reform. Senator Arbib is a great example of someone who will take that challenge on and deal with it appropriately. He is strongly committed to making sure that the unemployed get a fair deal. That is what we are about.

The old, outdated system, mired in red tape and not linked to the training and employment required by job seekers, had to go. A key feature of Job Services Australia is its flexibility. It can provide job seekers with the right mix of training, work experience and other support to help them find and keep a job. That is critical. It is critical to the whole process of keeping the economy going and getting people into work. We are trying to make sure that people do not have to go through that 12-week cycle of revolving doors and then start again. We are making sure that people do not have to wait 10 weeks before they can get help getting their CV written. These are very important moves. The Rudd government is doing all it can to make sure that these changes are put into place efficiently.

These reforms will mean that there is personalised assistance, better links to training and greater opportunity for relevant work experience. As I said, I have run a long-term unemployment program. I managed to get 300 people into training programs and jobs in Tasmania. It is significant to see the changes in those people’s lives. The sooner you can get them into relevant work and training, as opposed to irrelevant work and training, the better it is for their self-esteem, for their families and for the place where they end up being employed.

Under our process there will be access to around 2,000 sites Australia wide—at least 200 more than existed in the Job Network under the previous government. There will be 196 providers delivering streamlined services under Job Services Australia. This model is demand driven. It can accommodate any movement in unemployment rates and it can focus on skills development and targeted assistance, particularly for those who are highly disadvantaged. Job Services Australia, senators on the other side might be interested to know, has a greater focus on employers. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today Senator Arbib shuffled his way through answers to questions from senators on this side of the chamber, stating much of what Senator Bilyk has just stated and Senator Crossin before her—simply rehearsing the details of the government’s new Job Services Australia plan.

It does appear as if none of these senators have any appreciation of the serious, persistent concerns which have been stated in a number of forums, including the Senate inquiry last week in Melbourne, about the way in which this program is being rolled out. Your ideals, the projects you want to get off the ground and the way you want to make this change happen are one thing: actually achieving that is quite another. I suggest that senators opposite who are not fully aware, as the minister appears not to be fully aware, of these concerns should go back and look to see what people on the ground, at the coalface, are saying about this process. People like Catholic Social Services Australia, people like Jobs Australia and people like the Australian Council of Social Service are not people normally known for supporting coalition initiatives, but all have expressed concerns about aspects of this process: the way in which it is impacting on the level of expertise and experience of our providers of job services in Australia and how that would be diminished as we move into this new phase and we lose that valuable experience. The National Employment Services Association said:

The loss of experienced, skilled and high performing employment service organisations weakens the sector and its ability to meet the needs of Australian job seekers and employers.

That represents a very large portion of the providers in this sector today. Those concerns need to be taken on board by the minister and by the Labor government. That statement was followed by comments from Catholic Social Services Australia, which made the point in respect of the weighting on previous performance in the sector of only 30 per cent that Senator Fifield referred to:

… the 30% weighting allocated to past performance was inadequate, allowing far too many proven performers to be dumped from the services on the basis of their written responses to selection criteria which we have already argued biases the results to larger, richer entities so often unproven in particular local areas.

ACOSS follow those comments by saying:

The playing field appears to have been tilted in favour of those with a strong submission, as distinct from a strong performance in the field.

If senators opposite, including the minister, think they can gloss over these concerns and run forward to this new start date of 1 July for their new contracts they are seriously overlooking the dislocation and disorientation taking place in this sector at the moment. I suspect they are going to find the large number of providers and job seekers who will be put out by this new system a serious surprise. That should not be the case, because the evidence that the government needs to take account of is there already.

Some providers in this field will be completely new to the particular areas in which they are operating, with no previous experience in those areas. The expertise that particular providers have already built up in those areas—the relationships with people at risk, young job seekers, Indigenous job seekers, those with disabilities and those with mental illness—is not easily substituted by a new provider walking in, with no background in that particular area, and attempting to take over. Some providers are multinationals, with no experience in Australia and the Australian job market at all. Some staff will be lost to the system; a large number of staff from the existing successful providers—ones with high performance under the previous system—are simply going to be lost to the system and that will be a great blow to the effectiveness and the expertise available within this sector. It begs the question: why did we throw that expertise away? Why have those people walked out the door?

On 1 July we will see just what happens with this new system; but I think we can reasonably expect a great deal of dislocation and a great many people with serious concerns about how this is going to be delivered. We are going to find people unable to connect with the services they need because of the loss of a trusted party at the other end of the telephone line or on the other side of the desk. The government and the minister appear completely unaware of that, and that is a great concern. I hope that in the next few weeks, before 1 July, the minister lifts his game and finds out what is going on, because if he does not know what is going on a great many people are going to get very badly hurt. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.