My Blog

Category: State: VIC

  • Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Employment & Unemployment, Insecure & Precarious Work, Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation

    Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Workplace and Employment Barriers
    by Fiona Macdonald

    Author

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    This report provides an overview of workplace and job-related factors found to act as barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for people in groups likely to experience labour market disadvantage. Key findings are that job quality, working arrangements, inclusivity and opportunity for participation at work all matter for inclusive and sustainable employment, along with individual and external systemic and structural barriers to work.

    Employment policy and employment assistance for jobseekers focus on individuals’ skills and job readiness, and on job placement. Less attention is given to ensuring placements are into sustainable employment in inclusive workplaces. That is, placement into jobs that people can keep, that support wellbeing and provide opportunity for long-term employment pathways, and in workplaces where people feel safe and are able to participate. Recruiting and placing people experiencing labour market disadvantage into jobs may not lead to positive outcomes if people are not able to retain jobs and benefit from their employment.

    Employment can provide people with benefits that improve wellbeing in various ways, including through increasing income, providing routine and increasing social contact. However, where job quality, pay or working conditions are poor, employment can also have cumulative negative effects. Placing people experiencing disadvantage in jobs in which they are insecure, underemployed, or cannot establish daily routines; or placing them in workplaces in which they experience poor or discriminatory treatment and disempowerment, are not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes or create social value.

    This report calls for a greater focus on workplace and job-related factors, including employer knowledge, employment practices, work organisation, job quality and employment arrangements, to addressing barriers to employment for disadvantaged jobseekers. Emphasis on employment placement alone is not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes. Action is required to tackle barriers present in workplaces and in employment arrangements.

    This report was commissioned by Jobsbank, a Victorian-based not-for-profit organisation that works with business and other partners to support sustainable, inclusive employment and make social procurement work. In Victoria, the Government’s Social Procurement Framework aims to improve employment outcomes for people from groups experiencing labour market disadvantage through requiring suppliers and contractors tendering for high value government contracts to employ people from these groups. The Victorian Government’s Fair Jobs Code promotes fair labour standards, secure employment and job security, equity and diversity, and cooperative workplace relationships and workers’ representation. This report recommends that employers be encouraged to develop strategies to meet these standards through collaboration with unions and community groups as one obvious way to address workplace and employment factors that create barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for disadvantaged jobseekers.



    Full report

    Share

  • Jailing climate protestor Violet Coco shows anti-protest laws have gone too far

    Jailing climate protestor Violet Coco shows anti-protest laws have gone too far

    by Ebony Bennett in The Canberra Times

    Ebony Bennett

    Deputy Director

    Share

    Originally published in The Canberra Times on December 11, 2022

    The anti-protest laws that have swept the country are a threat to us all, even if you’ve never attended a protest in your life. Governments are writing and passing laws which authorise companies to legally cause harm to our community and environment, while jailing individuals seeking to stop such harm through non-violent protest.

    The draconian jail sentence handed down to climate protestor Violet Coco is grossly disproportionate and should ring alarm bells for anyone concerned about living in a free and fair democracy.

    Coco was part of a protest that stopped one lane of traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for 28 minutes and she has been sentenced to jail for 15 months and refused bail. Jail is supposed to be a last resort, but this is a harsh sentence that would usually be reserved for breaching an AVO, or for serious and repeated property and theft offences. For comparison, a Canberra man was recently sentenced to 15 months jail for his role in kidnapping, beating and waterboarding another man over a dispute about missing drugs. Violet Coco was peaceful and didn’t physically harm anyone yet received a similar sentence. Are we really content to be a country that doles out prison sentences for the crime of mildly inconveniencing people?

    No matter if you support or oppose their methods, non-violent protest can be an act of community service. Like the pain signals our brain sends us when we are injured – protest is one way we know there is an injury to our community or to our natural environment that needs to be stopped or repaired.

    Draconian anti-protest laws have now been passed in several states including New South Wales, Victoria and more recently Tasmania. The laws have passed with the support of both the Labor and Liberal parties and are mainly targeted at environmental and climate protestors, though you can bet that governments won’t stop with environmental protestors.

    The purpose of these anti-protest laws is not to protect the community, but to limit the right to protest and to protect business interests above democratic interests. In its submission on Tasmania’s new anti-protest laws, the Australia Institute Tasmania, said: “[The law] continues to preference businesses’ ability to carry out work over the right of people to protest by giving broad powers to police to arrest peaceful protestors and imposing harsh penalties”.

    Tasmania’s laws could see a community member protesting the destruction of old growth forests on a forestry site face a penalty of over $13,000 or two years in prison. Obstructing a business while trespassing risks one year imprisonment. These are similar penalties to those  who trespass while holding a gun, drug another person or perpetrate aggravated assault. Under Tasmania’s new laws, holding a placard will be treated roughly the same as holding a gun.

    We know these laws aren’t passed to protect the interests of the Australian community because while Violet Coco is going to jail for causing a temporary traffic jam, companies that cause real and lasting damage to the environment and the community get away virtually scot free.

    For example, no executive from Rio Tinto went to jail for permanently destroying 46,000 years of world history and heritage in the Juukan Gorge rock shelters.. No coal company executive has ever been jailed for helping to cause climate change, which is turbo-charging the extreme weather events wreaking havoc and billions of dollars in damages upon communities across the country every year. Australia has one of the worst extinction rates for mammals, yet for decades we have chosen to exempt native forest logging from our national environmental laws that are supposed to protect threatened species, something the federal Labor government is now seeking to rectify. Companies are routinely authorised by governments to cause harm to community and to our natural environment while individuals are punished for peacefully protesting to stop such harms.

    Often it is governments that impose harms on the community. Until the Freedom Rides of the 1960s, public pools were still segregated in parts of Australia, prohibiting Aboriginal people from swimming with white people. Homosexuality was a crime in Tasmania until 1997 when years of protest resulted in gay law reforms, and let us not forget equal marriage has only been legal for five years. And former Greens Leader Bob Brown was once shot at during protests against logging at Tasmania’s Farmhouse Creek and he was arrested again this year, fighting the same fight to protect Australia’s forests.

    Whether it be the struggle for basic human rights, like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the fight for equal marriage, or to struggle to protect our natural world from destruction, like the battle to end whaling in the Southern Ocean, or to stop the destruction of the Amazon rainforest—many just causes are radical until they become inevitable.

    The Franklin River blockade saw around 1500 people arrested and 600 jailed, including Bob Brown who spent 19 days in Risdon Prison. But the day after his release in 1983, he was elected as the first Green in Tasmania’s Parliament. The Franklin River flows freely today thanks to those protestors. Australians owe a debt of gratitude to all those protestors who have been willing to risk jail to stand up for what’s right. But just because protestors are willing to risk jail, does not make harsh jail sentences for protests any less draconian or anti-democratic.

    Some people may not agreewith the methods of climate protestors, but causing a traffic jam is hardly a reason to send someone to jail for more than a year. Especially not when climate change is fuelling extreme weather events that are severely impacting Australians across the country. It is imperative that all of us fight to repeal the anti-democratic laws that have been passed by state governments around the country. Because the reality is that the right to peacefully protest is as fundamental to a healthy democracy as free and fair elections.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Victorian Rate Cap Policy Costs Economy Over 7,000 jobs and $890 million to GDP

    Victorian Rate Cap Policy Costs Economy Over 7,000 jobs and $890 million to GDP

    Share

    The Victorian State Government’s policy to cap the rates of local government has cost the Victorian economy 7,425 direct and indirect jobs in 2021-22, and has reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22, according to new research from the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    Key Findings

    • The Victorian Government’s rate caps have reduced employment in Victoria (counting both direct local government jobs, and indirect private sector positions) by up to 7425 jobs in 2021-22. They have also reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22. The costs of suppressed local government revenues, and corresponding austerity in the delivery of local government services, will continue to grow with each passing year if the policy is maintained.
    • Rates on property are the largest single source of revenue to local governments in Victoria. Of total Victorian local government revenue in 2019-20 ($11.7 billion), rates accounted for $5.6 billion or almost half. Since 2016-17, the Victorian state government has capped the amounts local governments can collect from their ratepayers.
    • The rate cap policy, imposed by the Victorian state government on local governments, interferes with the mission of service delivery and expanded, secure employment.
    • The local government sector in Victoria employs about 50,000 people in a wide range of services and occupations, including road planning and maintenance, home and aged care, waste disposal, libraries, childcare, school crossing supervision, maternal and child health, the State Emergency Service, and environmental management.
    • The rate cap policy becomes more restrictive as the overall economy slows rather than less restrictive, since the rate cap is tied to inflation indexes which tend to slow when the economy is weak.
    • The rate caps act as a brake on recovery and growth by embedding a dynamic of self-fulfilling fiscal restraint and austerity.
    • Victoria’s rate cap policy has inhibited a normal trend of expanding and improving local government services in line with population growth, rising living standards, and economic expansion.

    “Rate caps are an arbitrary policy which ties growth in overall rates revenue to price indexes which have nothing to do with demand for services or democratic accountability,” said Dan Nahum, economist at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    “It’s not even the case that ratepayers necessarily save any money as a result of the rate cap. There has been a shift to other forms of revenue-raising that are less progressive and socially equitable.

    “Rates bills are calculated based on relative property valuations – so even if local governments are collecting less from rates overall than they would in the absence of the cap, if your property value has gone up relative to others in your community, then your rates payments do as well.

    “There is no evidence that rate caps makes local councils ‘more efficient’. Instead, it simply takes money out of much-needed council services and robs local communities of employment opportunities.

    “Far from protecting ratepayers and residents, rate caps hurt them. Rate caps compromise service delivery, negatively impact employment and wages amongst residents employed in the local government sector, result in higher fees collected through other revenue tools, and reduce local government expenditures flowing back into the private sector.

    “There is simply no good economic reason for rate caps. By abolishing the rate caps policy, the Victorian Government could create jobs and stimulate the economy post-COVID.”


    Related research



    Putting a Cap on Community



    Full report

  • Putting a Cap on Community

    Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation, Wages & Entitlements

    Putting a Cap on Community

    The Economic and Social Consequences of Victoria’s Local Government Rate Caps Policy
    by Dan Nahum

    Author

    Dan Nahum

    Economist

    Media release



    Victorian Rate Cap Policy Costs Economy Over 7,000 jobs and $890 million to GDP

    Selected media impact

    The Victorian Government’s policy of capping of local government rates revenue in Victoria is a regressive move on economic, social and democratic grounds. By arbitrarily tying the growth in total rates revenue in each local government area to price indexes, the state government restricts the ability of local governments to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with expanded, secure employment and service offerings.

    Rates on property are the largest single source of revenue to local governments in Victoria. Of total Victorian local government revenue in 2019-20 ($11.7 billion), rates accounted for $5.6 billion or almost half. Since 2016-17, the Victorian state government has capped the amounts local governments can collect from their ratepayers.

    New research by the Centre for Future Work, commissioned by the Australian Services Union, finds that the imposition of rate caps has cost up to 7425 jobs in 2021-22, counting both direct local government employment and indirect private sector jobs. They have also reduced GDP by up to $890 million in 2021-22. The costs of suppressed local government revenues, and corresponding austerity in the delivery of local government services, will continue to grow with each passing year if the policy is maintained.

    The rate cap policy becomes more restrictive as the overall economy slows, since the rate cap is tied to inflation indexes which tend to slow when the economy is weak.

    The local government sector in Victoria employs about 50,000 people in a wide range of services and occupations, including road planning and maintenance, home and aged care, waste disposal, libraries, childcare, school crossing supervision, maternal and child health, the State Emergency Service, and environmental management.

    The rate caps act as a brake on recovery and growth by embedding a dynamic of self-fulfilling fiscal restraint and austerity. Additionally, there has been a shift to other forms of local government revenue-raising that are less progressive and socially equitable, such as fees and fines.

    Rates bills are calculated based on relative property valuations – so even if local governments are collecting less from rates overall than they would in the absence of the cap, growth in a particular ratepayer’s payments may well exceed the overall cap.

    The rate cap policy inhibits a normal trend of expanding and improving local government services in line with population growth, rising living standards, and economic expansion – as well as interfering with the democratically-expressed preferences of local government voters.



    Full report

    Share

  • Messing With Success

    Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation, Wages & Entitlements

    Messing With Success

    Victoria’s Puzzling Turn to Austerity
    by Troy Henderson and Jim Stanford

    Authors

    Troy Henderson

    Jim Stanford

    The Centre for Future Work has released new research estimating the negative impacts on wages and spending power of the Victoria government’s proposed 2% cap on wage increases for the state’s large public sector workforce.

    In recent years, Victoria’s economy has consistently been the strongest in Australia: with the most new jobs, the fastest growth in wages, and the biggest expansion in output. The state government has been both a key cause of that growth, and a major beneficiary of it. New expenditures on expanded public services and infrastructure have been crucial engines of the state’s growth. In turn, that strong growth generated huge fiscal dividends for the state government, through a robust, diversified and growing revenue base.

    Given this positive history, it seems inexplicable that the state government would now mimic tools of fiscal austerity that have been implemented, with negative and unintended consequences, in other Australian jurisdictions. The government has imposed a stringent cap on public sector wage increases: 2% per year over the coming four-year period. That cap falls well below relevant benchmarks: including growth rates for state GDP, state revenues, overall state wage growth, and Reserve Bank targets for both wage and price inflation. It also falls far below what the state’s elected representatives will receive in their own wage increase this year – including, in particular, the Premier and Treasurer, who have been awarded an 11.8% salary increase.

    The wage cap would artificially suppress total state public sector compensation by over $3 billion over the coming four years – compared to normal compensation patterns. It would short-circuit a badly-needed recovery in wage growth that is just taking hold in Victoria’s broader labour market. It would damage consumer spending, exert a chilling impact on private sector wage settlements, and do particular damage to regional communities which depend especially strongly on public sector jobs and incomes. The negative spillover effects of this unnecessary cap would extend throughout Victoria’s economy, totalling far more than the direct $2 billion hit to wages.

    The wage cap would be exacerbated by a secondary, equally puzzling austerity measure announced in the state’s 2019-20 budget: an increase in the so-called “efficiency dividend,” to take effect form 2020-21, that would impose an effective and homogeneous budget cut on departments and programs. This expanded “efficiency dividend” is justified as a tool for eliciting greater efficiency in service delivery; in practice it amounts to a mindless, across-the-board cut in expenditures, service delivery, and potentially employment.

    There is no fiscal problem that justifies either of these austere measures. The state government is not experiencing a deficit; it plans to generate consistent annual operating surpluses over the next four years. Its total revenues will continue to grow strongly. Financial analysts and debt rating agencies are unanimous that the state’s net debt and interest payments are fully manageable, and the government’s net worth remains strongly positive.

    In sum, the Victoria state government enjoys a healthy and enviable fiscal position; there is no fiscal argument at all for the imposition of these unnecessary forms of fiscal austerity. The government’s flirtation with austerity, despite the proven success (both economic and political) of its previous, more expansive approach, is puzzling and concerning. And it will undermine the positive economic success which explains why Victoria currently leads Australia in employment, growth, and incomes.

    The state government in Victoria faces no fiscal challenges that could justify either of these forays into the realm of austerity. The paper concludes with five key recommendations:

    1. The state government should abandon the imposition of a wage cap on state public sector workers.
    2. Instead, the state government should enter into normal negotiation of enterprise agreements in all broader public sector enterprises and agencies. The state’s fiscal outlook is obviously a relevant and important factor in those negotiations, but it does not justify the imposition of direct wage controls.
    3. The state government should abandon the proposed increase in the annual “efficiency dividend,” which has proven to be a blunt and ineffective budgetary strategy.
    4. Instead, the state should undertake an open-ended program review of departments and agencies. The goal of this review should be enhancing genuine efficiency – defined as improving the effectiveness and quality of public service delivery – rather than attempting to attain a target budget cut.
    5. Finally, the state should commit to no forced redundancies during the course of that program review. Any identified redeployments (motivated genuinely by improving service and better allocating existing resources) should be attained through relocation, retraining, and voluntary severance.

    Please read the Centre’s full report, Messing With Success: Victoria’s Puzzling Turn to Austerity, by Troy Henderson and Dr. Jim Stanford. The report was commissioned by CPSU Victoria.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Economic, Fiscal, and Social Importance of Aluminium Manufacturing in Portland, Victoria

    Industry & Sector Policies

    The Economic, Fiscal, and Social Importance of Aluminium Manufacturing in Portland, Victoria

    by Jim Stanford

    Author

    Jim Stanford

    The unit price of aluminium is more than 50 times greater than the unit price of bauxite.  Yet Australia is growing its presence at the lower-value end of this industry – while perversely shrinking its presence in an industry whose output sells for 50 times as much.  In recent years, Australia’s downstream capabilities in aluminium manufacturing (including alumina refining, smelting, and secondary fabrication and manufacturing) have been substantially deindustrialised, even as exports of raw or barely-processed resources grow. Australia is shipping billions of dollars in value-added, and many thousands of jobs, to other countries.  This would get worse, if further manufacturing facilities — such as the smelter in Portland — are permanently closed.

    This report, prepared by the Centre for Future Work for the Australian Workers’ Union, describes the perverse evolution of Australia’s role in global aluminium production in recent years, including the growth of raw extraction, the decline of value-added activity, and the resulting shrinkage in net income and employment in the industry.  It also estimates the impact of the potential closure of another threatened smelter, in Portland, Victoria, on overall employment, output, exports, incomes, and government tax revenues.  The loss of another major manufacturing facility would be a significant blow, at a time when the failure of the previous extraction-dominated model of economic development has become abundantly clear.



    Full report

    Share