Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to take note of a government response presented earlier this week entitled Response to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee’s report: DEEWR tender process to award employment services contracts. The Senate committee inquiry into this matter verified the probity of the competitive tender process run by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Based on the evidence before the inquiry, it is clear that the department was well equipped and experienced in carrying out this tender process.

That is not to say there were no valid issues raised, and the government in its response has accepted, at least in principle, many of the recommendations made by the committee majority. In fact, possibly the only reflection of the committee that the government has not accepted was in a recommendation that, aside from other further work, matters should be forwarded to the Productivity Commission for further review. I must say—possibly more as a quip than anything else at this stage—that, since the Productivity Commission’s review of maternity benefits, this seems to have become a very popular approach in dealing with various policy issues. In this particular matter, I think the government quite rightly reflects that that is not the best path. It has indicated in its response the other approaches that are being undertaken to address the issues raised by the committee, and I think the response on this point is quite adequate.

In relation to this report and also the government’s response, the opposition’s attempt to undermine the probity of the tender process has left the opposition somewhat red-faced. What we now know about the inquiry is that it was more of a political stunt by the opposition. The opposition was more interested in wasting time and resources than helping job seekers find work and redesigning a competent system, whereas the government was focused on delivering a simpler, more effective and more personalised service for people looking for a job. The government had to make changes, and an independent review, as championed by the opposition, has now been proven not to be needed.

Government senators on the inquiry, however, do acknowledge that the not-for-profit organisations raised valid concerns with the tender process. That is why the government asked the Productivity Commission last year to undertake a study into improving the measurement of the not-for-profit sector’s contributions. This study is now completed. The research report was provided to the government on 29 January 2010. The government recognises that not-for-profit organisations are critical to building a fairer and stronger Australia and to enhancing the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of society. It was also noted that work was already underway by an industry reference group on alternative purchasing and incentive models. These findings are likely to be taken into consideration for future arrangements and will address issues that were raised before the Senate inquiry.

Looking back at Job Services Australia, I think it is worth while to highlight these issues again here. The development and introduction of the Rudd government’s $4 billion new employment service, Job Services Australia, represented a major change to employment services in Australia. The focus turned from privatising public services and cost cutting—the focus of the opposition when they were in government—to service delivery and achieving outcomes for job seekers. Job Services Australia folds seven separate employment programs into a one-stop shop and provides job seekers with a flexible, more personalised service—one where providers work with job seekers to develop a tailored pathway to employment, a plan that identifies a mix of the vocational and non-vocational activities that job seekers need to undertake.

Providers, employers and job seekers told the government during the nine-month consultation process that the old system, Job Network, was confusing, fragmented and laden with red tape. Under the old Job Network system there was no provision to extend 95 per cent of existing contracts beyond 30 June last year. During difficult economic times, with the global financial crisis, it is critical that job seekers remain connected to the labour market and can access training so we can enhance the nation’s skills base for when the economy recovers. The government recognises that some organisations were unsuccessful in the tender process, which has resulted in disappointment for some tenderers. This is an obvious consequence of this type of tendering process.

However, this government made provisions to help these organisations readjust. Such organisations were able to apply to a $3.5 million business adjustment fund to help them realign their organisation and identify new activities and income streams. The government provided funding to enable service provider employees affected by the new tender outcomes to register with the National Employment Services Association if they would like work in the area. The new register was a useful tool for successful tenderers to find new staff. The government believes the new Job Services Australia will deliver a better, more personalised service that responds to all economic conditions.

Let me address some of the process issues that the opposition sought to highlight in this inquiry that the government has now responded to in a fulsome and timely fashion. The government’s consultation process included the conduct of the tender process and the purchasing arrangements, and changes were put in place as a result of the feedback that the government had received. The entire tender process was scrutinised by an independent, external probity adviser. The independent probity adviser was satisfied that at all stages the assessment process followed by the department met all the requirements. In fact, the probity adviser gave an unqualified sign-off on the tender process, describing the conduct of the process as, ‘A high benchmark for the conduct of the Commonwealth procurements in that DEEWR not only met but exceeded relevant probity principles and standards.’ The tender process was conducted at arm’s length from government at all times. It resulted in a diverse range of national and local providers, as well as a significant number of providers delivering specialist services. As noted in the government’s response to the inquiry’s report, ‘For the first time since 1988 community based organisations feature significantly in the profile of providers of employment services placing them in the 20 largest employment service providers.’

In conclusion, I would like to reflect that the new Job Services Australia design is to save job seekers running from door to door. It is a simpler, more effective and more personalised service for people looking for a job, which is more important than ever in these tough global economic conditions. The system also provides for an increased opportunity for training and skill development and greater assistance for disadvantaged job seekers and those who have recently lost their jobs, aligned with measures that the Rudd government introduced during the financial crisis.

Despite this balanced approach and the unqualified support and sign-off of the process by an independent probity adviser, there are those who sought to undermine the probity of the tender process for, what can be seen in retrospect, no good reason. The opposition made extravagant claims about the probity of the process. For instance, on 17 June 2009 the then opposition employment participation spokesperson, Andrew Southcott, claimed that the Job Services Australia tender had thrown the entire employment services system into chaos. This has obviously not been the case. But the opposition is stuck in the old paradigm of the Howard government that it is only ever about delivering the cheapest option rather than the most effective outcome.

The committee’s report and the government’s response debunk the opposition’s attempt to undermine the probity of the department’s tender process to award employment contracts. The outcomes of the tender process resulted in a diverse range of national and local providers, including a large number of providers delivering specialist services. The implementation of Job Services Australia has seen the rollout of new services, a redeveloped IT system and provider staff training to help job seekers get the help they need. These all contributed to meeting the transition principles of an on-time start with least disruption to job seekers, providers and employers. This smooth transition was a direct result of effective planning and preparation.

Question agreed to.