Search Results

This report sets out a new direction for labour market policy in Australia. It is the outcome of the work undertaken by the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs chaired by Peter Kirby, formed in late 1983 in response to government concerns over the deterioration of the labour market since 1970, resulting in high levels of unemployment and a number of groups being disadvantaged in terms of access to employment, including women, young people, those with disabilities, and older workers. This final report documents the Committee’s examination of labour market policy and programs and the context in which they were developed and its recommendations for improvements. The Committee focused on the ‘fundamental philosophical, systemic and structural questions that needed to be resolved to develop a coherent framework for government intervention in the labour market’. The report’s recommendations were designed to foster a labour market policy which would give greater emphasis to the needs of the individual for access to education, training and other support to deal with a variety of labour market conditions. It is also advised that there be less centralisation of administration and more involvement of employers, unions, and community groups in planning, policy formulation and review. The most important recommendation, however, was the proposal for a new structured training system for young people. The Australian Traineeship System (ATS) was introduced in 1985 as the cornerstone of the Commonwealth Government’s Priority One Program for young people. Traineeships would combine broad-based vocational education and training (VET) in education and training institution with work in a related occupation to form an integrated training system. It was also intended that graduates of the scheme would have the opportunity to progress to more advanced areas of education, training or employment if they wanted to. Other labour market programs introduced in 1985-86 in response to the Committee’s recommendations were a general wage subsidy scheme, Jobstart, the adult training program and the community training program. The Committee also recommended changes to advisory structures for employment and training. The report covers current labour market programs and government structures for education, training and employment, approaches to labour market intervention, labour market planning, traineeships for youth, trade training, further training and retraining for adults, the rationalisation of wage subsidy programs, community based programs, and new arrangements for advice and administration.

The overview of the Kirby report and recommendations is indexed at TD/TNC 87.1160. Show less

A major development within educational systems in a number of western nations since the Second World War has been the establishment by governments of special bodies to coordinate tertiary education. In Australia, a complex system has been developed with coordinating agencies being established by governments at both state and federal levels and covering three sectors of tertiary education: universities, colleges of advanced education, and technical and further education (TAFE). While the Commonwealth government has assumed the financial responsibilities for universities and colleges of advanced education, the states still retain not only the constitutional, but also the major financial, responsibility for TAFE. This places the national coordination of TAFE in a unique position. This thesis analyses national coordinating agencies in TAFE in terms of their relationships with the Commonwealth government and groups at state and institutional levels during the period 1973-1981. The analysis led to two major conclusions: (1) that the Commonwealth government established over time a ‘structure of domination’ which ensured that the coordinating agencies’ powers and functions were undertaken in ways which were consonant with the government’s interests; and (2) that groups at state and institutional levels were, in large part, able to thwart the policy initiatives taken by coordinating agencies, and thus effectively limit their ‘exercise of authority’. These led to the following general conclusion that in the performance of their powers and functions, de jure and de facto, national coordinating agencies in TAFE required the support of two groups: those with the power of resource allocation (governments) and those with the power of implementation (groups at state and institutional levels), and that where support from either or both groups was not forthcoming, the coordinating agency was ineffective in performing these functions.

Excerpts from published abstract. Show less