The Biggest Reform in Decades - But Will It Solve What’s Really Broken?
- Rana Kordahi
- 11 hours ago
- 5 min read
Yesterday I went to Canberra to hear more about the upcoming reforms to Australia’s mainstream employment services system.
My original plan was simple: Listen to Amanda Rishworth, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, take notes, go back, and write an article explaining what the reforms are and what they could mean for the sector. But the article did not go to plan.
But before I go any further, I want to acknowledge something upfront.
I fully support and welcome this once‑in‑a‑generation reform. I believe in continuous improvement, and anything that genuinely helps job seekers, especially those who have been out of work for a long time, to gain and sustain employment is a win.
This reform sounds promising, and it’s clear that Amanda and her team have put real thought into many of the proposed solutions. You can see the consultation, the research, and the intent behind it.
At a high level, it introduces a new three‑tier model designed to move away from the current one‑size‑fits‑all approach:
Tier 1: Online & Brief Support - light‑touch, mostly digital support for job‑ready participants
Tier 2: Targeted Provider Support - provider‑led support focused on capability, confidence, and short‑term barriers
Tier 3: Intensive Support - deeper, more hands‑on assistance for people with complex needs.
Mutual Obligations are designed to be flexible and supportive, acknowledging that people with significant barriers require a different approach, one that prioritises stability, trust, and readiness over rigid compliance.
On paper, it sounds promising. It sounds like a genuine attempt to redesign support around job seeker needs.
So yes, my intention was to return to my office, write an informed summary, and publish it. Simple as that.
But as I began writing, something changed. And to be honest, it was actually a seed that was planted as I sat in that room listening to the Minister, a different perspective began forming. Not about the reform itself, but about the people who will be expected to deliver it.
Because time and time again, they are an afterthought and being failed by the system itself. The employment practitioners, the site managers, and the leaders trying to hold everything together. On top of that, we already have so many articles and online commentary right now attacking providers and calling for them to be eliminated.
So as I sat there listening to the reform speech, I also noticed something else that stayed with me.
The language being used leaned heavily into words like “failure” and “failed,” repeated multiple times throughout the address. Echoing what the media and public have stated for years. “Providers have failed their job seekers.”
And while accountability matters, and yes, there are providers out there who have genuinely failed their job seekers, I couldn't help but feel that something was missing: an acknowledgement of the people who have been holding this system together through years of constant change. People who show up every day because they want to make a difference and advocate fiercely for those they serve.
And this is where something else Amanda said needs context. She mentioned that for 30 years, employment services have taken a one‑size‑fits‑all approach. But that isn’t a failure because of providers. It’s a failure of the system they were required to deliver.
Providers did not design the system, they operated within funding, compliance, and contractual frameworks set by government policy.
To frame this as a provider failure is to misunderstand the reality of the last three decades. If anything, the fact that practitioners have continued to show up, adapt, innovate, and support people despite the constraints is evidence of their commitment, not their failure.
And then another thought struck, actually more like a question:
What is the point of reforming the system if we continue to overlook the capability and sustainability of the workforce expected to deliver it?
The frontline practitioners holding everything together while navigating constant disruption. These are the people carrying the emotional pressure, compliance burden, administrative demands, and heavy caseloads, and still showing up every day because they genuinely care about helping others.
Yet workforce sustainability barely features in the reform conversation. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting government alone is responsible for turnover, culture, or retention. Providers have a role. Their leadership is responsible for the internal culture. The government is investing millions of dollars to equip providers after all.
But the systemic issue still needs to be addressed. I am asking that the people delivering this reform are at least part of the conversation.
Questions like:
How do we better invest in workforce capability?
How do we reduce structural pressure on frontline staff?
How can we support their leaders to manage so much disruption and change?
How do we improve retention and stability?
How do we ensure practitioners are properly supported, trained, and resourced?
Because right now, the reality across much of the sector is this: Frontline turnover in employment services has reportedly sat around 35 - 40% annually. That statistic is a catastrophe. And having worked with many providers, I’ve seen first‑hand how it erodes culture, destabilises teams, and disrupts job seekers’ progress.
If a hospital or a school lost that many staff every single year, it would be treated as a national scandal. There would be inquiries, media attention, urgent reviews, and public concern about the impact on quality and continuity of care. But in employment services, this level of instability barely raises attention anymore.
The pressures are well known:
High caseloads
Administrative overload
Compliance burden
Constant policy changes
KPI pressure
Emotional labour associated with supporting vulnerable people
On top of that, every contract round brings another wave of uncertainty, where thousands of people lose their jobs because the government decides their provider is no longer the preferred option. So bottom line, turnover doesn’t just affect staff wellbeing, it directly affects service quality.
When experienced staff leave:
Relationships with job seekers are disrupted
Trust with the job seekers is destroyed
Employer connections are lost
Teams become stuck in constant onboarding
Remaining staff absorb additional pressure and caseload burdens
Burnout becomes normalised
How many times have we heard a job seeker express frustration at having to repeat their story to yet another employment consultant?
Here’s a real comment from a job seeker in a Facebook group last year:
“The Whole Unemployment System is Broken’!! Is everyone reporting to an employment service provider seeing a massive turnover in staff? I’ve reported to at least 6 different people in the last two years. It’s so bloody frustrating…. As soon as I get comfortable with someone, they quit and I have to go through the whole process again. I have treatment resistant psych issues and have trouble trusting and forming a workable bond with anybody these days.”
This is the human impact of workforce instability, and it’s happening every day. Eventually, the system becomes reactive instead of relational. This is the uncomfortable truth the sector rarely says out loud: It is incredibly difficult to deliver consistent, high-quality support when workforce instability becomes the norm.
Because no matter how strong a reform model looks on paper, its success will always depend on the people delivering it. And if workforce sustainability isn’t treated as part of the reform itself, there’s a real risk we repeat the same cycle again.
Will this reform make a difference? Although we don’t know the full details yet, and as Amanda said, it’s a very complex system that will take some time to get right, I am hopeful. I’m hopeful for the job seekers. They deserve better.
But the point I was really trying to make, in a thousand‑plus‑word opinion piece, is this: Let’s not forget the people who put their hearts and souls into this work every single day. When we strengthen them, we strengthen the entire system, and that’s what leads to long‑term, sustainable employment outcomes for job seekers.
Comments