Heads Up on Centrelink/JSP Changes

[katydidthat]

http://unemploymentunion.com.au/2014/09/11/leaked-new-attack-unemployed/#more-712

http://peakjobs.me/2014/08/29/australia-transfering-powers-from-centrelink-to-employment-service-pro...

http://welfarewrites.org/2014/08/28/transfer-of-decision-making-from-centrelink-to-employment-servic...

These articles appear to show that from today the Job Service Providers may be able to make the decision as to whether their clients continue to receive Centrelink payments.  Previously, the decision-makers were Centrelink staff - and public servants - now, it seems they will be employees of private companies.  

Your thoughts?  

[the_great_she_elephant]

How are these private job service providers funded? Do they get paid a certain amount for each person on their books or for each person they provide with a job? If they are paid by the number of jobs provided then yes, they might want to cut out the 'dead wood' but their funding is based simply  on the number on their books, then the cynic in me says where's the incentiveeither to find anyone a job or to to stop them receiving unemployment benefit?

[katydidthat]

Good point about the incentives, TGSE ...

I'm no expert on their funding - I presume that they are funded on the amount of job seekers that they see.

What concerns me is that they are given this power.

Currently, it seems that they run a parallel process to Centrelink, without necessarily adding any value. I wonder how much the costs of running Centrelink AND JSPs are? We all know that in many areas there ARE NO JOBS.

However, against your idea about incentives ... if a job seeker is cut off from benefits ... this is potentially going to save the government money.

[cherry*135]

The Job Networks get funding for the clients (unemployed on Govt benefits) when they successfully find them a job.

The agencies get more funding for finding work for a person just out of prison or someone who has been unemployed for a very long time. The job may only be for 3 months... doesn't have to be full time, permanent, they still get the funding. A person who has only been out of work for 3 months, who would have much more chance of getting a job, they don't pay much attention too, because they don't get the higher funding for them.

The whole system is flawed.

[cherry*135]

If job seekers keep their appts with the Agency and don't turn down jobs they are offered they won't get penalties?

[katydidthat]

Heck yes, the system is flawed, AM*3. And, it seems to be getting more so. The number of available jobs is falling, and where it is rising (?) it is in only a few areas where you need particular qualifications (like mining and aged care).

I think what we need is greater emphasis on training FOR jobs, and less on punishment for the fact that few jobs are available.

[katydidthat]

AM*3, the new system only started today and there has been no coverage that I could find in the mainstream media, so it's difficult to tell what might happen.

Maybe if we consider the case of someone who is not very employable (like someone with disability), who might also have barriers to turning up to appointments???

I don't know ... I don't have all the answers ... in fact, I don't think I have any answers ... 🙂

But, I do think it's important that people know about these changes and think about them.

[cherry*135]

Yes, I can't find anything as to the source of these changes.. any Govt announcements, changes in policy, date of introduction etc that has been published in the past. 

Not sure if the service providers are able to issue penalies now but it would still be up to Centrelink to enforce or waive the no payment period.

[katydidthat]

There are a few links up there, AM*3 ... but the issue seems to be that Centrelink would have no part to play (as it does now) in the decision to enforce a no payment period. It would just be made by the JSP.

I haven't seen any information about appeal rights ...

[cherry*135]

Those links don't refer to a specific amendment or anything though.

They also rave on a bit, I would rather read just the change to exisiting policy.