Almost lost among the hype of the Federal Government’s carbon tax announcement is a proposed change to the tax-free threshold.

Described as a strategy to offset the higher costs of goods and services likely to be brought about by the carbon tax, the tax free threshold will be tripled to $18,200 on 1 July next year; of course, this is contingent upon the carbon tax legislation’s successful passage through Parliament.

As The Australian noted today, the revised tax-free threshold  may facilitate improved workforce participation by allowing people to work up to three days a week without paying any income tax; this is particularly directed to students and mothers of young children currently not engaged in the workforce.

Increasing the tax-free threshold is an important reform, picked up from the Henry Tax Review, and will remove a key barrier to increasing labour supply, improve incentives to work, and remove inefficiencies from the tax and welfare systems. VECCI, however, questions the appropriateness of the inclusion of this reform within the carbon tax package.

VECCI has previously called on the Federal Government to look at the income tax scales and threshold not only to address the supply of workers to the economy, but to improve social inclusion across the community. The tax scale change also removes the distortion and disincentives on middle income earners created by introduction of the low income tax offset by the Howard Government.

The simplification of income tax arrangements (although the low income tax offset is not completely removed) improves the efficiency of the tax system, and is certainly a more efficient way of increasing the take-home pay of mothers and students working part-time, rather than churning taxes through the welfare payment system.

However, there is more that should be done to address the significant labour related issues facing the Australian economy.

This sort of reform should be looked at separately from the carbon tax and be part of a broader package of reform to the tax and welfare systems in order to further increase the workforce participation of youth, women, mature age, and persons with disability.

These key issues should be addressed at the Federal Government’s upcoming tax summit in October.

VECCI urges the Federal Government to consider substantive measures to address all barriers to workforce participation imposed by the existing regulatory frameworks – measures that should be more than offsets for the introduction of the carbon tax.

This task is all the more urgent given the current slump in Australian productivity, the unevenness of the economy and skills shortages.

School vouchers have been popularised in the United States as a means to empower parents and help get children out of failing schools.

A concept first articulated in the 1950s, vouchers have since been implemented in a number of countries, including the US, Ireland, Chile, Columbia, Netherlands, Sweden, and others.

There are two straightforward principles that underpin school vouchers.

First, parents should have free choice in the school they select for their child’s education.

Second, funding mechanisms should be transparent and accountable.

Some argue that Australia should consider vouchers to drive reform and lift school performance. Proponents also argue they would eliminate the ongoing conflict over state and non-government school funding models.

However, critics believe that vouchers would undermine public education and likely penalise disadvantaged students while benefiting rich private schools. It is also argued that governments have an obligation to provide universal access to education and that it’s best achieved with a public school system.

Despite those differences there is, however, broad agreement that reform of some kind is needed. But are vouchers the reform that will achieve this?

Voucher-based funding models are seen as the right policy option in other areas of education policy at state and national levels.

The previous Brumby Government’s introduction of a demand-led funding model for vocational education incorporated the two fundamentals of a voucher system: choice and transparency. The Federal Government’s proposed National Partnership for VET funding agreement, detailed in the recent budget, pushes other states to consider similar reforms.

The same principles are the basis for the Government’s ‘un-capped’ university places, to be introduced next year to not only increase the number of Australians with degrees but also introduce greater choice and competition in the higher education sector.

The most significant development however is the Victorian Government’s announcement of its alternative education pilot for disengaged students which introduces, for the first time, student-tagged funding.

Under most voucher proposals, a base rate of funding is available to each student regardless of the school chosen, and top-up funding is provided to address disadvantage. For instance a child with a disability, identified special learning needs, or from a disadvantaged community would have additional money attached to their enrolment to support the provision of additional learning resources.

It is argued this would overcome the risk of government schools being left with more disadvantaged students, while more able students shift to private schools – the basis of the Victorian re-engagement pilot.

The Institute for Public Affairs estimates that the introduction of a voucher system could cost around $2 billion extra a year. While that is a significant amount, in comparison to the $36.4 billion spent each year by all governments on schools, and the $14 billion ‘Education Revolution’, it is affordable.

A debate on school vouchers should not be seen as an alternative to other reforms, such as the Grattan Institute’s proposal to overhaul teacher appraisal systems that is linked to incentives, nor national teacher accreditation standards. Choice and accountability, be it delivered through vouchers or other means, are one element of a range of reforms that are needed to improve the performance of our schools.

Debate over school vouchers is usually only heard in education policy circles, and is rejected by traditionalists, teachers unions, and critics of private schools. However, with both sides of politics embracing national benchmarks, greater parental choice and looking for ways to lift performance, the benefits as well as risks of vouchers should be considered in the wider public debate on schools.

This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on ABC’s The Drum on Monday 23 May.

Do you agree with the idea of school vouchers? Let us know!

The Government’s Sustainable Australia- Sustainable Communities Strategy is a valued and welcomed contribution to the population debate; but the report does not go far enough and falls short of living up to its objective of providing a holistic, sustainable population strategy.

The development of sustainability indicators for communities will improve public policy development and implementation, and, the Federal Budget’s significant contributions to improved sustainable planning in urban and regional communities are worthwhile investments that will ease current and future growth pains.

Providing a greater emphasis on the urban and natural environment and sustainability issues, along with the quality of our community experiences, is an important contribution to the debate, and adds to the range of indicators previously examined in Treasury’s Intergenerational Reports.

The Strategy also makes important points in refuting some of the claims of no-growth advocates, for instance by “decoupling [greenhouse gas] emissions from Population Growth”.

To set a target or not?

Population Minister Tony Burke is right when he says that the population strategy is not about setting an optimal population target and that it is also about where and how people live.  

But equally, a population strategy is not just about short-term regional migration or urban planning; which seems to be the main focus of the report. A genuine population strategy should be looking at the future needs of not just individual communities, but the whole of Australia.

While we shouldn’t be setting a target – we should be acknowledging that, as former Queensland Premier Wayne Goss stated on ABC’s 7.30 this week: “people have got to be told the facts… We are heading for 35 million”.

Australia faces economic and social choices that will have a determinant impact on our economy and our communities over the coming decades. We need to be realistic about the likely growth in our population and how it contributes to the type of Australia that we want to have.

What the strategy is missing

A population strategy should examine the nation’s realistic estimated medium-term needs – and the projected long-term needs as well – in areas such as public services, economic and fiscal management, industrial and service sector trends, labour demand, environmental protection, national security and infrastructure renewal and investment.

It must also look at how our society will respond to the unprecedented shift in the demographics of our population, which will for the first time in human history see a significant share consist of the old and very old aged.

This should then become the basis on which we make decisions, through a mature and informed public debate, on various options for planned and sustainable growth at a community level, as well as a national level.

While initiatives such as the National Food Plan will contribute to this, there are many other areas that will not be covered.

It’s important that we do not conflate the challenge of long term population planning for the future with contemporary short term bottlenecks. Nor should we make the erroneous assumption that just because we’re experiencing difficulties resulting from growth influxes occurring in tandem with an under-investment in infrastructure, that this will always be the case.

The lesson we should be taking away from the current challenges is that we need to continue to make sound investments in economic and social infrastructure to meet the future population that we decide that we want.

The importance of growth

Equally, we should recognise that we don’t have to choose between population growth and high quality liveability and environmental sustainability – we can have both.

In fact, it’s important that we are honest and acknowledge that it is likely that we won’t be able to maintain our current living standards, let alone improve them, without growing our population over the coming decades. 

If we allow our population to either stabilise at current levels or decline – as some would have us do – economic growth will also likely decline as well, along with our standard of living. The only thing that can militate against this would be a vast improvement in workforce participation combined with an unheralded increase in workforce productivity.  

Even with the Government’s welfare-to-work and skills measures in last week’s Budget – which are positive and critical social and economic reforms – the ageing population will make it very difficult to main participation levels over the decades ahead without skilled migration.

What needs to be done now

Australia is running up against a fast approaching demographic clock, and the window is getting smaller in which we can make prudent and affordable investment in infrastructure, while also making medium and long term plans for growth.

By 2025, the Baby Boomers will have exited the workforce, and at the same time international competition for highly skilled migrants will be more intense as western nations seek to offset their own ageing populations.

If we leave it too long, we could miss out on attracting the best and brightest to enhance our economy and our communities, and leave vital investment to a point where we are paying an unnecessary premium.

While it’s understandable that the Government’s political imperative is to take the ‘heat’ out of the population debate, it must also be mindful that such an approach risks Australia falling further behind in the necessary planning, and public debate, that will be required to ensure that we’re able to take effective advantage of an increasingly globalised world and global skilled workforce to meet our ongoing social and economic needs.

We should not tie our hands behind our backs to avoid engaging in debate and raising the implications of both high as well as low growth futures for the country. It’s vital that the population strategy leads to a fully informed choice on the type of Australia we want for the future.

As the Prime Minister was foreshadowing tougher welfare rules in the upcoming Budget in order to shift more people into the labour market, the building and construction industry officially entered “skill shortage” status.

While the Prime Minister didn’t detail any specific proposals, we all share the underlying sentiments expressed: that we must ensure all Australians benefit from the resources boom.

However, taking a ‘stick’ approach to welfare reform is not enough, and must be balanced with the right ‘carrots’ to support and enable efforts by job seekers, as well as business. A bidding war between the Government and the Opposition over who is the toughest is not the answer.

Pressure on the economy

The inability to supply sufficient skilled labour to satisfy the major resource projects is putting pressure – through higher wages and the appreciation of the dollar – on other sectors of the economy and, it should be noted, on the traditional industries that employ disadvantaged job seekers.

To relieve this pressure, we need to supply more skilled workers to the resource sector and other strained industries. However, there is no spare capacity left in the labour market to meet this demand.

While it sounds straight forward to meet skills demand by getting current job seekers to fill vacant positions, this fails to take into account – as VECCI CEO Wayne Kayler-Thomson made clear last week – the specific skills required that take years to develop, and the lack of basic literacy, numeracy and other employability skills among many disadvantaged job seekers.

To avoid inflation and overheating of parts of the economy – and to create sustainable levels of employment growth – Australia must respond with a combination of improved workforce productivity, streamlined access to skilled migration for business, and most importantly, lifting workforce participation.

However, populist opposition to population growth has limited the Government’s ability to fully utilise skilled migration as a policy option.

This makes improving workforce participation and productivity all the more critical to address not only social inclusion and skill objectives, but also long term population ageing challenges. If we don’t improve our efforts now, Australia could potentially have a shortfall of 1.4 million workers in as little as 15 years.

We need to improve employment rates for the low skilled unemployed, disengaged youth, mature aged people, persons with disability, Indigenous people and women, while also upgrading the skills of existing workers to improve productivity.

Yet this requires regulatory reforms coupled with investment in training, both of which pose their own political challenges.

Possible solutions

The Government has so far shown no indication that it’s willing to consider changes to labour laws and other regulations to make it easier for employers to create jobs, while downgraded economic growth projections limit public spending options.

But there are some promising signals coming from the Gillard Government.

The Henry Taxation Review made a range of recommendations to create incentives for people to shift from welfare to work and address the costs of undertaking education and training.

It is therefore encouraging that the Government is considering new approaches to retain older Australians in the workforce by lifting their tax free threshold and allowing people to earn more before their pension payments are phased out. Similar approaches are needed for those on welfare to creative positive incentives to work.

Foundation skills are also critically important to getting job seekers into work and further study.

Too many students are leaving school, and in some cases university, without appropriate literacy and numeracy skills. The Government’s NAPLAN tests, My School website, and policies to improve performance and accountability in the school system are critical to get more young people into work and further study.

But while tests and websites are important tools, they’re useless if not used to drive ongoing changes and achieve better outcomes through performance management of teachers and directing resources to areas of need.

The Government has initiated a number of programs to support adult skills development, including 140,000 places for adult literacy and foundation skills. This is a good start, however, when we have estimates of 8 million workers needing further help, a lot more needs to be done.

The Gillard Government is currently considering its response to an Expert Panel Report into reforming Australia’s apprenticeship system – which is the main, and most effective, vehicle for delivering skills development.  

However, proposals to impose on employers a levy, new registration and compliance requirements, along with arbitrarily lifting apprentice wage rates and conditions, would do little to improve training quality or completion rates, and would likely see lower rates of apprenticeship commencements.

Partnerships needed between employers and governments

While the Government has ruled out an employer levy, it’s important that support for all industries to engage in nationally accredited training be maintained.

Employers are willing to do their part, but they can’t do it on their own – they don’t have the expertise or the resources to assist job seekers with serious and complex needs, which range from lack of employability skills to overcoming personal hardships.

While the ACTU has been vocal in arguing that employers should take up more of the cost of training workers, it ignores the significant contribution already made by 90 per cent of employers to training workers and investing in the skills development of their local communities.

When it comes to effective welfare reform, the Government should not attempt to shift the burden to employers. What’s required are genuine partnerships with industry.

VECCI has worked with the Victorian and Australian Government for a number of years to improve workforce participation opportunities for school students, migrants, mature aged job seekers, persons with disability and Indigenous Australians. These types of efforts should be maintained and extended to deliver real outcomes for employers and disadvantaged Australians.

Real reform will take major changes to welfare, taxation, job search support and our training systems. This will not be easy or cheap, but sincere efforts by political leaders to lift participation and productivity will win the support of industry and the wider community.

The Federal Government has confirmed it is implementing all 31 recommendations made in the ‘Resourcing the Future’ report released last year, in order to support Australia’s crucial resources sector.

While the majority of resource project investments being made are occurring outside of Victoria, these will inevitably have a national impact given their huge demand for skilled labour.

Western Australia, with an unemployment rate of just 3.8 per cent, faces not only a skills shortage but a dramatic shortage of workers across all of its industry sectors. This pushes up wages to levels where non-resource sectors in other states, such as Victoria, cannot compete and are unable to retain their own trade and professional qualified workers.

The agreement between the resource sector and the Government will alleviate the pressures that are being created by the huge skills demand of large mining projects by lifting skills development within the sector itself.

Among the recommendations now being adopted by the Government are the trials of “alternative apprenticeship models” to boost the number of qualified people in occupations where skills shortages are expected. Some of the approaches include accelerated learning, stronger pre-apprenticeships and companies training apprentices on another company’s behalf.

The report also urged greater priority to be placed on ‘upskilling’ existing workers and officially recognising the prior learning of construction workers without qualifications, to help them achieve full trade status or to undertake a fast-tracked “adult apprenticeship”.

Adult apprentices are already employed by a number of companies, and these apprenticeships are seen by many as a more attractive option because the employee is more mature and has more life and work experience.

Skills Minister Senator Chris Evans said the Government backed the concept of adult apprenticeships, with 1,000 workers able to obtain a full trade qualification within 18 months under a fast-tracked competency based approach.

“Existing resource sector employees and workers from across Australia will be recruited and on and off-the-job training provided so companies will benefit immediately from a boost to their workforces,” Senator Evans said.

The Government has opened the $200 million Critical Skills Investment Fund to, together with employers, provide the training to skill and upskill workers for resources jobs.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said 39,000 extra skilled workers would be added to the workforce over the next four years due to the investment.

The announcement also included plans to streamline and speed up the sector’s access to skilled workers through 457 visas, a critical element to ensure that mega-projects are able to meet their skilled labour needs, given that the sector needs an additional 77,500 workers by 2015. (“Labor fast-tracks training in deal with miners”, The Australian Financial Review, 16 March 2011)

These actions will go some way to alleviate the skills shortage many employers are already beginning to feel, and will reduce the pressure on Victorian businesses that are struggling to compete with the resource sector to retain their skilled workers.

The Australian Government is in the process of considering 14 recommendations made in the controversial ‘Apprenticeships for the 21st Century Expert Panel Paper‘, which seeks to make broad changes to our national apprenticeships system.

Have your say! Business owners, please vote in our blog poll.

The Panel was instructed to “examine apprenticeship training arrangements, including current incentives, and suggest principles and evidence to improve outcomes for both apprentices and industry”.

The outcome of the Taskforce is a 130 page report that seeks to achieve this by focusing resources on improving the quality of apprenticeship outcomes in critical skill areas.

However, some of the recommendations are controversial and potentially damaging to industry and employers, as they involve picking winners.

According to the report, those industries and apprenticeships that are considered of high economic value will get priority, while those considered of lesser economic importance will receive less resources and support from the Australian Government’s Apprenticeship Employer Incentive Scheme.

The recommendations would place greater administrative requirements on employers, particularly the requirement that employers go through an accreditation process before they’re able to recruit an apprentice or trainee.

The Taskforce also believes that low wage rates are a significant disincentive for young people to go into, and complete, apprenticeships. Therefore it recommends that modern award rates should be reviewed, and that prior learning and skills should be taken into consideration in setting pay rates.

Under the recommendations put forward by the Taskforce, some sectors would see an increase in government financial support, and there would also be greater support in the form of mentors to guide apprentices throughout their training.

However, the same recommendations, if implemented, could also lead to higher wage costs for employers, and limit the financial support received by many to offset the cost of training. 

It’s likely this will ultimately impact on the ability of business to train Australian workers.

VECCI believes that reform is needed to Australia’s national training system. However, we are concerned that the Taskforce Paper will not meet its stated objectives if implemented.  

It’s important to ensure that the interests of business, particularly SMEs, are considered by the Australian Government as it prepares its response to the Paper.  

To assist us in this process, we invite you to answer the following questions.

The current election campaign has seen few new ideas from either the Government or Opposition in the area of higher education. And while a lot of change has occurred in the sector over the last three years to improve equity access and the number of available places, we must be mindful that other countries are implementing their own initiatives that pose a threat to Australia’s ability to have an internationally competitive workforce in the decades ahead.

This week, US President Barack Obama announced a plan that would see the United States return to having the highest rate of college graduates in the world by 2020. His plan would produce eight million additional graduates over the next 10 years – on top of the expected three million graduates based on current trends – to achieve a tertiary graduate rate of 60 per cent of people between the ages of 25 and 34.  

By comparison, Australia has set itself a target of 40 per cent of 25 to 34 year olds to have a bachelor degree by 2025 – a key recommendation of the Bradley Review into Higher Education to address our fall in OECD rankings. This target is higher than the current rate of one in three Australians aged 25 to 34 having a bachelor degree or higher (although this jumps to 44.6 per cent if we include diplomas and advanced diplomas).

Challenges for Australia

No matter how one interprets the numbers, the American aspiration raises an important question; does Australia need to have higher ambitions for its workforce in order to compete in the global economy?

The risk for Australian industry is the possibility of being left behind by other countries in the region, leaving us with a workforce less equipped to be innovative and compete globally. It’s also important to remember that in 15 years, we will be grappling with population ageing, and international competition for skilled migrants will be even greater.

However, on the flipside, we need to ensure that we develop the skills our industries demand, and that targets do not become an end in themselves. And our economy will need highly skilled trades people as much as it will need professionals. Yet even so, what we already know is that we don’t have enough of either today, and the skills gap is likely to widen in the immediate future, as a generation of baby boomers enters retirement.

The Victorian response

The Victorian Government’s recent advisory panel report for its Victorian Tertiary Education Plan suggests that to achieve the national 40 per cent target, Victoria needs to contribute an extra 10,000 graduates a year – the equivalent of establishing another university.

One of the more controversial recommendations in the Victorian Report suggested we could avoid the cost of building another institution by allowing TAFE colleges to deliver higher education degrees. Not surprisingly, TAFE Directors Australia has since confirmed it wants to do just that. TAFE providers argue they would provide students with a wider choice and encourage participation by offering degree programs focused on “practical application”, closely linked to industry needs.

However, others are not so enthusiastic about the concept, with Ian Young, Vice Chancellor of Swinburne University, expressing concern that the proposal for TAFEs to deliver bachelors, masters and PhDs would result in a fall in quality standards and risk Australia’s reputation as a quality provider of higher education.

Possible solutions

Whatever one’s views on the merits of TAFEs delivering degree qualifications may be, it highlights the enormous challenge we have in meeting our future skills needs. Aside from capacity issues, other solutions that are needed include:

• Improved career planning, academic guidance, and learning support for students while undertaking studies to lift completion rates.
• More generous income support arrangements so young people from low socio-economic backgrounds and mature aged students are able to support themselves while undertaking full-time study.
• Greater incorporation of work-integrated learning into courses to ensure student learning is linked to industry needs, giving graduates well-developed employability skills.

Action needed now

Of course, before we consider lifting tertiary graduate numbers, we need to ensure we have the basics covered as well. Nearly a third of current 25 to 34-year-olds have no post secondary qualification, with nearly half of this group not even having a year 12 certificate. 

ABS figures indicate 46 per cent of Australians aged 15 to 74 have literacy skills below the “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy”. Clearly, we have a lot of ground to make up to not only meet our skills targets, but to improve social mobility and life opportunities.

Employers are already grappling with skill and labour shortages across a range of industries, and Treasury projections indicate it is likely to be exacerbated over the next 12 months. Australia needs to plan and invest now so our workforce and industries are better prepared to remain competitive in the global marketplace in the years ahead.

No matter which party wins the upcoming election, policy leadership will be needed to put in place solutions for our current and future skill challenges.

The current Federal Election campaign is turning into a very uninspiring display indeed, and the so-called ‘debate’ between the parties on population is verging on ugly.

The Coalition has indicated that it would slash net immigration to Australia from the current level of 300,000 a year to 170,000, and the ALP has dumped its `Big Australia’ principle in favour of a ‘Little Australia’, whatever that may mean.

As VECCI’s CEO Wayne Kayler-Thomson said yesterday, “Our primary concerns with the population debate are the blatant pandering to populism of both major parties, the craven cop outs with regards to proper infrastructure and planning, and the direct impact of proposed cuts in numbers on the international student market, a key economic strength for Victoria”.

There is very little recognition of the following facts:

• An expanding population may put pressure on infrastructure but, conversely, a small population with a low density militates against infrastructure provision in areas such as public transport.
• Australia’s small domestic market has counted against the growth of homegrown global-sized businesses, including knowledge industries such as Information and Communications Technology.
• The projected average annual rate of population growth of 1.2 per cent over the next 40 years is slightly lower than the average annual rate of 1.4 per cent over the previous 40 years.  Under this scenario, Australia’s population is projected to grow from around 22 million people currently to 35.9 million people in 2050.

Then we have the skills debate.

Yesterday’s release of Treasury and Finances Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) indicates the labour market will “[reach] full capacity over the next year”, exacerbating skill and labour shortages for business across Australia.

Unless business is able to access skilled workers through the full range of policy options, including migration, Australia faces a breakout in wage and consumer inflation, placing upward pressure on interest rates and household costs of living pressures.

In light of the populist statements made by both sides of politics on immigration during the current election campaign, these figures provide a sobering message for our policy makers to align their rhetoric and policies to address the short, medium and long term skill and population needs of Australia.

The PEFO states that, “Employment is expected to grow strongly, with the unemployment rate declining to 4¾ per cent in late 2011-12, around its full-employment level.” While improving workforce participation rates and upskilling and retraining existing workers and jobseekers will be a critical component of meeting labour demand, it will not be met without transparent and timely access to skilled migrants from both employer sponsored and independent visa categories.

With a little help over the last 20 years, many businesses have quietly benefited by separating myths from facts on workers with disability.  

For many employers, the idea of recruiting a person with a disability is seen as too hard, costly and risky. The most common concern is that it will increase health and safety risks and impact on insurance costs.  And while many employers are aware that government support programs exist, they are perceived as just too hard and complex to navigate.

However, with a bit of help from Disability Employment Services (DES) providers, many employers have overcome such misperceptions, and taken on valued and highly skilled workers who just happen to have a disability.

The first task for DES providers is to assist employers overcome their misconceptions about people with disability. For example, an issue repeatedly clarified is that when calculating workers compensation premiums, no weight is given to whether or not an organisation employs a person with a disability.

Beyond that, many employers are surprised to learn that workers with a disability have fewer accidents than other workers, higher job retention rates and productivity levels similar to those employees without a disability.

A 2007 study by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council found that employees with disability had six times fewer OH&S incidences and four times lower workers compensation costs than the average employee.

In one reported study, employers were asked to estimate the cost of days absent for employees with a disability, and when compared to the actual figure it was found to be less than half ($408 v $988). It is also important to note that the number of sick days taken were less than the average employee.

The study also identifies that people with disability are just as conscious of potential risks, and self-select themselves into safe jobs that provide little or no risk of traumatic injury.

DES providers are experts in finding and retaining work for people with disability. Their tried and true formula combines competitive recruitment and training solutions to match the right worker to both the job and the company. New employees are supported with personalised on the job training until the employer is satisfied that they have reached the required level of competency. Even after this point DES providers are committed to providing ongoing support and back up for as long as required.

For over two decades, employers have expressed how valuable and important it was to have the ongoing support from their DES provider. By being able to immediately access expert advice and support as the need arose ensured job retention and productivity levels. It is the partnership between the DES provider and the employer that has for more than 20 years allowed businesses to meet their labour needs and reduce costs, while also securing thousands of jobs for people with disability.

VECCI, in partnership with National Disability Services (NDS) and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), have established an Employer Hotline to provide a direct and quick point of contact for employers seeking applicants for current job vacancies and those seeking general advice about employing a person with disability now or in the future.

Jennifer Kitchin is Senior Policy Adviser at National Disability Services.

Contact the NDS Employer Hotline on 1800 630 740.

Despite threats from the Australian Education Union, and the unethical behaviour of some teachers, this year’s NAPLAN tests went ahead successfully. These results will be critical to updating school performance information on the My School website, which ensures greater transparency and accountability of how teachers, schools and local communities are meeting the language, literacy and numeracy skill development needs of students.

However, new reports that principals have been threatened with the sack if their school’s results in national tests don’t improve are counter-productive to ensuring schools and students with additional learning needs are sufficiently supported. Threats alone do not improve accountability.

Sustained poor performance or an inability to meet the needs of students should be addressed in an appropriately constituted merit and performance appraisal system, and not ‘push down’ responsibility for failure by central bureaucracies to adequately support schools and students.

The role of NAPLAN and My School is not for bureaucrats to dictate to schools to ‘lift results or else’ or for teachers to avoid accountability, but to identify students and schools in need of additional resources, whether it be teacher training, more teachers or specialists, or improved equipment and facilities.

In addition, changes to the security of the My School website announced yesterday by Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard provide a good balance between retaining a critical element of transparency and accountability on the one hand,  and the need to prevent the misuse of data on the other.

The inclusion of further socio-economic information to improve the accuracy and reliability of data, and reduce the incentive to tamper with tests will all help in strengthening the credibility and utility of the site for parents and local school communities.

With these changes in place there is less room for complaints about the potential misuse of the website and more time to focus important attention on securing sensible and constructive outcomes at next week’s meeting between the AEU and the government.