Chapter 6
Looking at the agencies
Education, employment and workplace relations menu: Introduction | Job seeker transfers | Trades Recognition Australia | Cross–agency issues
introduction
In 2008–09 the Ombudsman's office received 571 approaches and complaints about the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). This is a significant decrease compared to the 721 approaches and complaints we received in 2007–08, and marks a return to the complaint numbers in 2006–07 (567). Figure 6.5 shows the trend in approaches and complaints about DEEWR (and the former Department of Employment and Workplace Relations) over the past five years.
There has been a decrease in the number of complaints about the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS). It has been encouraging to note that the majority of GEERS decisions we have reviewed have been well considered and consistent with the scheme's operational arrangements. Most of the complaints received about GEERS were from unsuccessful applicants who disagreed with DEEWR's decision on the merits of their cases. We will continue to monitor GEERS complaint numbers as we anticipate that the global financial crisis may have an impact on this program.
The approaches and complaints we received during 2008–09 mainly related to DEEWR's handling of complaints about providers of Australian Government employment services, a large proportion of which are Job Network Members (JNMs). If a job seeker complains to the Ombudsman's office about their provider we will generally refer them back to DEEWR so that the department has an opportunity to address the issue. During the year we noticed that many job seekers approached us again after complaining to DEEWR, although on investigation, we found that DEEWR was acting to investigate or address their complaint. We have shared this observation with DEEWR, and in the coming year will work to identify the cause of this possibly unnecessary escalation, which is an issue independent of the Employment Services Reform.
Other areas of concern we identified in 2008–09 regarding DEEWR include:
- complaints about job seeker transfers between employment service providers
- Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) complaints
- cross–agency issues.
FIGURE 6.5 Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations approach and complaint trends, 2004–05 to 2008–09
TopJob seeker transfers
The job seeker transfer process, which facilitates the transfer of a job seeker between two JNMs, has always generated a significant number of complaints for this office. Difficulties arise where the nominated receiving JNM refuses to take on the job seeker, or where the current JNM does not release the job seeker even though the relationship between the job seeker and the JNM may have deteriorated to such an extent that it is no longer productive.
Another problem can arise where the job seeker has not been properly assessed and has been referred to a JNM that is not able to meet their needs, as illustrated in the case study No transfer.
No transfer
Mr U complained to our office about the length of time taken by DEEWR to process a request for a transfer by agreement from one JNM to another. DEEWR was unable to facilitate this request as the other JNM declined to accept Mr U.
Shortly after, as a result of inappropriate behaviour by Mr U, his JNM placed a temporary service restriction on him. He was unable to attend his JNM in person, but could still access services by phone and through JNM kiosks. The JNM also requested a transfer due to irretrievable breakdown in the relationship. Three weeks later DEEWR determined that it was not possible to meet this request, as no other JNM was willing to accept the transfer.
After our intervention DEEWR requested a new job capacity assessment for Mr U. After the assessment, Mr U was referred to the Personal Support Program which offered more assistance to address his non–vocational barriers to employment. This occurred some two–and–a–half months after his initial request for transfer.
Trades Recognition Australia
TRA provides occupational skills assessments for tradespeople intending to migrate to Australia and domestic trade skills assessments for Australian residents in some trade occupations. There was a marked decrease in complaints about TRA over 2008–09 to almost half the number made in 2007–08, and to a very similar level to 2006–07. This supports the view we expressed last year that the 2007–08 spike resulted from the closure by TRA of Pathway D, a skills assessment pathway based solely on a person's work experience rather than formal training. There have been no similar skills pathway closures since then.
The majority of the complaints we receive about TRA involve applicants not understanding the reasons for TRA's decisions. These complaints are often resolved by TRA providing a more detailed explanation for an unsuccessful outcome to the complainant through the Ombudsman's office. When we last reported on this issue, we noted that TRA had undertaken to review the content of its decision letters. There appears to be some improvement in the detail provided to applicants in these letters. However, in line with the Ombudsman's Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling published this year, we believe that more detailed information and explanation, particularly where claims are rejected, would address many of the complainants' concerns.
DEEWR had scheduled the introduction of a new Migration Assessment Policy (MAP) to replace the Uniform Assessment Criteria from 1 September 2008. All international TRA applications received from 1 September 2008 were expected to comply with the guidelines set out in the MAP. On 29 August 2008 DEEWR decided to delay the implementation of the MAP indefinitely. This late withdrawal meant that applicants directly, or through their agents, may well have prepared applications against the wrong guidelines, and led to complaints to this office.
Cross–agency issues
The interaction, overlap or gap between the responsibilities of various agencies and bodies involved in employment services and support continues to challenge complainants to this office. It can be exceedingly difficult for complainants to know where and how to address problems that arise in relation to their income support and associated activities. This confusion often extends to agency staff, compounding the negative experience of the complainant, as the case studies Revolving door and No response show.
Revolving door
Ms V had been participating in Work for the Dole until she found part–time work. She was exited from the program at that time, but several months later was referred to Work for the Dole again despite her doing enough work hours to satisfy her activity requirements.
Ms V complained about this issue to her JNM, which referred her to Centrelink. Centrelink referred her back to her JNM and provided the contact number for DEEWR's customer service line. She contacted DEEWR the same day and was again referred to the JNM.
On investigating Ms V's complaint to us, we found that neither Centrelink nor DEEWR had accepted responsibility for resolving her problems. Ultimately it was determined, and agreed by the agencies, that a limitation in the design of the computer system used by all agencies was the major cause of Ms V's problem. Centrelink and DEEWR have expressed confidence that new systems supporting the Employment Services Reform model from 1 July 2009 will not have the same limitation.
No response
Mr W complained about an unreasonable delay in paying him under the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme. He had emailed his contact in DEEWR but not received a response. Our investigation found that email 'out-of-office' messages were not sent to external parties. While there were good reasons for this policy, neither Mr W nor relevant staff in DEEWR were aware of it. When the person looking after Mr W's case went on leave he wrongly assumed that Mr W would receive his message with alternative contact details. Mr W believed his emails were being ignored.
Following our investigation DEEWR clarified this policy and the reasons for it. DEEWR made all staff aware of the circumstances in which out–of–office messages would and would not be received, and promoted the use of shared mailboxes or applying mailbox rules to divert mail from an absent staff member's mailbox to those who are present. This was a pleasing response to an issue which was likely to affect many people dealing with the agency.
Previous
page | Next page—Chapter 6–Looking at the agencies–Immigration