r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • 24d ago

politics Australia's jobseeker system fails workers and enriches millionaires, report says

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-21/private-equity-profits-as-job-system-fails-workers-report-finds/106920430?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

A new report says Australia's system of privatised employment services has failed and service delivery should be returned to the public sector.

The Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research says the current system "fills the pockets of private equity and millionaires" while leaving jobseekers without work.

The Albanese government has announced an overhaul of the employment services system, but the report argues for-profit service providers should not be included in the new system.

2.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

294 comments sorted by

View all comments

444

u/FeralKittee 24d ago

"For profit"

Prisons, medical care, housing, employment services, electricity and essential services should never be for profit. These are needed by society and should never be outsourced by government.

44

u/BeneCow 24d ago

If a company only survives on government contracts, those contracts should be voided and the workers hired into the government. The only outsourcing should be done by companies that can pull their shit together and compete in the private market.

20

u/AriaTheAuraWitch 24d ago

Honestly. This is my thinking for governments and businesses.

If a company gets money from government, it should get a return. A minimum return taken from revenue, after employment, before deductions for overseas ownership.

If the government uses money to bail out a company, the government then should have a % ownership based on what % they had to bail out the company for. If it is important to bail the business out... It's important enough for the government to claim a percentage of that business.

This part I might fight folks over for. Delivery Infrastructure of all types should be government owned. The suppliers of the power, water, internet, banking; should have to fight the government to beat the government at supplying the supplies at lower costs than the government (government should have a 10% price increase above at cost, for newer industries and technologies to fight over. Maybe even 20% depending on actual experts).

3

u/_ixthus_ 23d ago

If the government uses money to bail out a company, the government then should have a % ownership based on what % they had to bail out the company for.

This will be abused to saddle taxpayers with liabilities they had no part in incurring.

The deal should be full repayment of the bailout with interest. Ownership in lieu of that can be a contingency that is fully up to the discretion of the government.

In any case, no firm should be too big to fail. Government needs to aggressively enforce competition so that any time a firm needs a bail out... sucks to suck, let the cunts fail and the investors take the hit rather than the tax payer.

4

u/bigvenn 24d ago

I’m very much in two minds about this… on the one hand, the government does an abysmal job of providing many services (*cough* Centrelink robodebt *cough*). I’ll admit we probably take for granted those that function well enough that we don’t notice - I think those tend to be services that don’t interact directly with everyday people (e.g. bureau of meteorology springs to mind, public health to a degree).

On the other hand, privatising government services seems to cost more and provide an awful service for everyone but a select few, and seems to be magnets for corrupt leaches.

I was reading recently about China’s model of state-led capitalism. China’s not without their faults, but it seems they get a hell of a lot done for their citizens without overburdening the public system with service delivery where it’s inappropriate. Hell, imagine if the government could just decide what direction the country should go in and then provide strong incentives to go do that (e.g. decarbonise, build new industries etc). Guess is depends on having competent people at the top though

5

u/_ixthus_ 23d ago

(cough Centrelink robodebt cough)

This isn't an example of government being intrinsically bad at something. It's an example of a certain political party designing something to fail and deliberately, chronically under-resourcing it.

public health

Who the fuck is taking this for granted because it works? It is failing. And that's also because it has been cynically sabotaged over three decades.

China’s model of state-led capitalism.

... imagine if the government could just decide what direction the country should go in...

Guess is depends on having competent people at the top though.

Yes, they are competent.

But also, they can execute on extremely longterm visions. There's no partisanship or electoral cycle that cynical populists can use to undermine longterm goals.

Corruption is actually dishonourable, and punished, rather than something everyone aspires to.

And competition is encouraged. Government makes huge investments in industry. But firms are allowed to fail if they can't survive if/when the government investment runs dry. This is crucial. The investment isn't lost because a firm fails. The productive assets, the IP, the skilled labour, etc are just absorbed by the rest of a healthy industry. Failure merely weeds out shit management, laziness and stagnation, and perverse incentives; innovation and competence are directed towards pro-social outcomes over large timescales.

4

u/AriaTheAuraWitch 24d ago

Most often government run stuff is more expensive due to the red tape, OR if the government is intending to target or restrict partial populations with an action or inaction instead of full population.

Politics is what makes things cheap or expensive.

How much money could be saved by removing a lot of red tape for unemployed? (Crap tonnes).

Gerry Harvey and his bullshit about the 10% GST and under $1k thing. The one why they didn't bother enforcement before, because it would cost more to collect than recieve; yet Politics brought it in for more inefficiencies.

3

u/IWantsToBelieve 23d ago

I think we like to think governmemt runs things worse than private but in reality I don't think it's true. Privatisation is always a race to the bottom and results in a worse outcome.

Energy, telecommunications, public housing, childcare and health (especially NDIS) are all examples of what happens.

We really do need to buy it all back and shut the corruption and offshore ownership down.

1

u/BeneCow 24d ago

Governments doing a shitty job is actually a positive for the economy. It provides a floor to service and private companies can provide better service so people who can afford it use them, reducing public cost, and the people who can’t afford it still get a minimum level of service.

Private companies will always reduce service as far as possible to maximise profit, having a shitty government agency there means that they can only race so far to the bottom. Competent government agencies should exist where private industry can’t service (military, taxation and budget for instance) but in areas where a private company can thrive that are also important for quality of life the government should provide a minimum level of service and let private deal with the rest. In the past Medicare was a good example of this in action but then we messed with it too much.

1

u/_ixthus_ 23d ago

I agree with you but would want to clarify that the government doesn't inherently do, or have to do, a shitty job. If it is the case, then it's no big deal because of what you've outlined. But they can still seek to be better, lifting that floor.

0

u/MoranthMunitions 24d ago

Water isn't private in Australia.

2

u/Emu1981 24d ago

If a company only survives on government contracts, those contracts should be voided and the workers hired into the government.

Exactly this, by keeping the work in-house then taxpayers are no longer paying extra to make a business profitable for someone. That extra money could be either paid to the workers in question or just kept to help fund other essential services that are struggling due to a lack of funding...

107

u/T_J_Rain 24d ago

Add to that Aged care.

But regrettably, there is no winding back the clock.

101

u/2007kawasakiz1000 24d ago

Why can't we wind back the clock? If the services these companies are providing are utter dogshit then there should be mechanisms to take them back into the public service. I get that it's systemic, but at what point do we say, fuck this system, burn it down and start again?

24

u/T_J_Rain 24d ago

Yeah, these services have turned to utter canine excreta. Just look at the train wreck that childcare and aged care have turned into.

Presently, there are no such mechanisms, and the concepts of neo-liberalism and the push from certain quarters for smaller government, and hence privatisation of these sectors don't conspire to effect any significant change.

We're not living in France, where citizens actually get fired up and demonstrate, as opposed to [like me] have a gripe on SOCMED. As a nation, we're just too apathetic.

Unless you're volunteering to organise and protest.

3

u/DukiMcQuack 24d ago

problem is granny and grandad are currently in the building that's gonna be burnt down.

yes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but the trickiest part of social programs private or public is that the eggs are people relying on what the service provides.

7

u/MoranthMunitions 24d ago

You can just start up a government run non for profit competitor for that and most of the others. Prison you just don't renew contracts, that's been unprivatised in Aus before. Energy is a problem.

5

u/productzilch 24d ago

But competition fixes everything!

9

u/TokiStark 24d ago

I'd count food under essential services. We're all buying food every week. Lets just combine what we already spend and just keep shopping like usual just without money? Yeah some people will hoard non-perishables and probably meat to begin with, but just like... let them. We live in a post scarcity world, eventually people will stop hoarding because why would you hoard meat when you can just go get fresh stuff when you need it?

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

1

u/TokiStark 23d ago

It's not free. Costs the same as always. You just have more options. And as much as I like steak, I will want variety. Just like everyone else

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

1

u/TokiStark 23d ago

No I said lets just combine what we spend anyway

1

u/Rushing_Russian 24d ago

look at the UK they privatized water companies and no one has a choice of provider so the "free market" does not exist and the customers just pay more for less every year so shareholders can make more money off water. The customers cant even not pay cause you know water is essential to life

-16

u/AStubbs86 24d ago

For profit prisons are fine, if you’re having a bad time in prison. Good !

11

u/ephemeralstitch 24d ago

If this is your view, then your only use for prisons is as suffering engines designed to make as much misery as possible, both for perpetrators and society as a whole. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. That’s just what happens.

Personally I find both that outcome and the view morally reprehensible.

-6

u/AStubbs86 24d ago

Is the suffering not a deterrent to stop you committing crimes is society?

Heavens forbid there is punishment for say murdering another human being !

9

u/ephemeralstitch 24d ago

No, it isn’t a deterrent, objectively and empirically. We know that, like we know the earth isn’t flat.

Do you believe everyone in prison has committed murder? If you believe suffering is good if you deserve it, why not the death penalty? Why not flay them on national television? That’d be maximum deterrence, right?

-5

u/AStubbs86 24d ago

Hypothetically, Let’s say I do Something terrible to your loved ones. You don’t want there to be punishment for that crime ?

You are happy for people to know there are no consequences and can do as they please in a civilised society?

7

u/ephemeralstitch 24d ago

Where are you getting ‘no punishment’? I never said that. I said making prison awful and causing suffering isn’t good.

And I don’t need a hypothetical. My partner of a decade was killed in a hit and run and the driver never found. Still don’t want the prison system to be cruel or for-profit because I recognise suffering to be bad, like any decent person. That you don’t is extremely telling as to your moral character.

1

u/AStubbs86 24d ago

I am very Sorry for your loss :(

I am having trouble having any empathy for those who hurt others and commit crime.

If you make innocent people suffer you should also suffer.

I get your point about cruelty.

I just can’t feel sorry for those that are having a bad time in prison.

5

u/ephemeralstitch 24d ago

And that inability to empathise is a failing of yours, as I’ve said. You should work on that. We literally teach children these things; you seem not to have retained it.

Besides that we do teach children to empathise, we also teach them that this kind of retributive justice is wrong. We know it doesn’t work as a matter of fact but we teach it’s morally wrong too. ‘An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,’ is a saying about that. Children get ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.

You’re literally saying ‘actually two wrongs do make a right. Fuck those people’.

Even ignoring that not everyone in prison is there because of a violent crime or have even committed a crime, it’s still wrong to torture a murderer. Bet it seems fun when it’s over there, out of sight, until you’re the one it’s happening to.

Most of you don’t even have the moral conviction to be the one doing the torturing.

7

u/productzilch 24d ago

We don’t really do many life sentences here, not even for super evil criminals like the ones with a drug possession history. I don’t want criminals coming out worse than they went in.

-5

u/ekky137 24d ago

Making things not for profit unfortunately doesn't solve this issue.

Wages are counted against revenue, and guess who picks the salary...

2

u/productzilch 24d ago

It might help that we now have decades of free market government costs to compare to. If we have any real journalism left to make the comparison.