Audit to ‘weed’ Access trainees

Press, 8 March 1988, Page 6

Audit to ‘weed’ Access trainees

PETER LUKE,

political reporter ;

Welfare-type programmes and trainess who did not want a job have been targeted for investigation by an audit Jof the $260 million General Access training scheme. )

Such Access funding, outside the labour market framework, appeared at odds with Access policy, said the audit report. —The hard-hitting audit noted that "social welfare” programmes, generally life-skills programmes, used up a high percentage' of Access funds. But their benefits would be transitory unless they, were followed by vocational training. “In addition, the team also Came across training situations where it appeared that trainess are not available for employment oriare not genuinely interested in work or active participation in the labour market.” The 11 report recommended i further investigation of | funding for training which was outside the labour market context. The Jreport criticised the management or accountability systems at all aspects'! of the Access chain — from the training providers and agents (the

Labour ;Department) to the Regional Ejmployment and Access Councils and their .relationship to the ) Minister, of E nployment, ! Mr Goff! It noted thct many of) the problems it identified i were transitional — the scheme I will ble only one year old}on April 1 — and! said that some problems! had were already being! dealt with. The j audit,J however,; made 26 additional re-i commendations. The Opposition spokes-! man on ! employment, Mr! Winston Peters, said the; audit bore put earlier) claims that the scheme) was ili-founded, poorly! targeted, inadequately. ' monitored and "racist to boot.” I | . ’ ) Mr Goff welcomed the: report. ) saying that the ■ shortcomings | identified 1 would, j when I fixed, strengthen the scheme, j ) He said that the Gov- { ernment was; in general pleased) with the scheme’s operation, and there was

no intention of replacing Access with another training scheme.) ... Mr Goff; emphasised that the audit made by the Labour Department, the Audit Office and 'an outside consultant, had been scheduled from the scheme’s inception. It was not a response to a scandal of any sort. He said he knew’ | of reports from one area indicating that the motivation of trainees was flawed. “Clearly,;! believe that 'those who are. being trained at the tax payers’ expense should have that motivation,’! he said. I With more than 60,000 trainees, j however, some; were to be less than perfect in motivation, and el forts would be; made to “weed these' people oiit. ’ ! i i Mr Gdff indicated fhat he favou -eel all but two of the repo -t’s recommeiida-) tions. He did not favour a recommendation which

would leave R.E.A.C.s in a purely; strategic role, with no direct say in who provided training. Nor did he think that R.E.A.C.s should chose the servicing agents, saying I it was crucial that the department remained the agent until | the accountability provisions had been worked through. The audit noted that there was an absence of younger trainees '■ because of the disparity between training allowances and the unemployment benefit.

Other criticisms were that R.E.A.C. members could be appointed without . understanding their responsibilities or knowing they were accountable to the Minister, not their own organisations. Some R.E.A.C.s had not submitted regional, training plans on time, or after a reminder, ) and some training providers were afraid to I question R.E.A.C.s as it might jeopardise future funding.