Audit office probes Access

Press, 26 July 1989, Page 8

Audit office probes Access

By

PETER LUKE

in Wellington

An Audit Office report claimed yesterday that General Access courses were over-priced, and that Access targeting was not working. The report also said that the $3lO million Access scheme might be attempting more than it could achieve, and questioned the way in which the results of training were monitored. No details were given in the report of those training providers or courses visited. But the Minister of Employment, Mr Goff, said later that Canterbury was the area studied most closely by the audit team. Mr Goff claimed that

the report itself was inaccurate, outdated, and lacking in adequate analysis on several counts. The Audit Office review had taken place more than eight months ago, since when many of the concerns raised had been addressed.

The report did not doubt that Access courses benefited trainees, but it contained strong criticism of its administation.

The report said that one training provider had a yearly profit of $350,000 after paying salaries, training costs and overheads. This amounted to 28 per cent of this provider’s total (M) Access (Maori and General) income and could have funded about 50 extra

trainees. Common sense dictated that the more trainees on a course, the lower the price per trainee should be, the report said. But this was not the case on average in five of the seven General Access regions visited.

But while General Access course prices were excessive, resulting in inefficiencies, most Maori Access courses were under-funded, which affected the quality of training or the viability of the providers, said the report.

But Mr Goff said the report provided only anecdotal evidence, not detailed analysis; nor did it set a benchmark for an appropriate price. The Labour Department

said that prices had been decreasing in many regions, as R.E.A.C.S had developed experience in establishing course prices. The report said the scheme’s targeting system was unsuccessful because it did not select the most disadvantaged job-seek-ers, and was riddled with anomalies.

Among the anomalies identified was that providers were judged on the number of jobs trainees got, yet were also expected to train the most disadvantaged at gaining employment.

Mr Goff said these criticisms were "confused and inaccurate,” and that Access did not aim to cater for only the most heavily disadvantaged.