The core claim that the Coalition government increased administrative payments to jobactive providers during the pandemic is substantially accurate, though the $300 million figure requires careful contextual interpretation.
According to the Michael West article citing Deputy Secretary Nathan Smyth of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, the median administration fee for jobactive providers was increased from $300 to $391 per new client [1].
The article states that "based on Smyth's figures this means the agencies will get more than $300 million in new administration fees due to the pandemic and the resulting mass unemployment" [1].
The Michael West analysis calculated this as follows: With approximately 813,000 new jobactive applicants by August 2020 (compared to 633,318 before the pandemic) [1], and administration fees increased to an average of $391, the government paid more than $300 million in additional administration fees to job service agencies [1].
Per Capita's April 2020 report estimated that a 700,000-person increase in the jobactive caseload would result in $210 million in additional government payments to agencies [2].
A June 2020 letter from Deputy Secretary Nathan Smyth to jobactive CEO's confirmed the temporary rebalancing of administration and outcome fees due to the COVID-19 pandemic impact [3].
The article further notes that administration fees were paid every six months, meaning "that $300 million figure only takes into account the first tranche of payments to new applicants" [1].
When considering ongoing payments to existing clients plus new applicants, the article conservatively estimates the government paid "more than half-a-billion dollars to agencies" [1].
The claim presents this as an isolated negative action without important context about why these payments occurred:
**Why payments were increased:** During the pandemic, the unemployment caseload more than doubled from 633,318 to approximately 1.45 million by July 2020 [1].
This was not a discretionary increase for profit-taking, but a structural response to mass unemployment.
**Policy trade-off:** The government directed many newly unemployed people to its Online Employment Services (OES) system to "slow the referral of unemployed workers to jobactive" and manage costs [4].
This shows the government was attempting to manage the cost blow-out of the privatized system, not carelessly expanding payments.
**Nature of administration fees:** Administration fees are standard in privatized employment services systems worldwide.
Australia's privatized jobactive model has been in place since the 1990s under both Coalition and Labor governments [1].
**Criticism applies to system design, not just Coalition actions:** The underlying issues with jobactive (such as "creaming and parking," placing clients in temporary jobs to generate outcome fees, and inadequate support for hard-to-place job seekers) were structural problems identified in 2019 Senate inquiries [1] that predated the Coalition's pandemic response [5].
* * * * Michael Michael West West Media Media : : * * * * 根据 gēn jù Media Media Bias Bias / / Fact Fact Check Check , , Michael Michael West West Media Media " " 自称 zì chēng 无党派 wú dǎng pài , , 但 dàn 强烈 qiáng liè 以 yǐ 反对 fǎn duì 企业 qǐ yè 和 hé 政府 zhèng fǔ 精英 jīng yīng 的 de 方式 fāng shì 框架 kuāng jià 故事 gù shì , , 导致 dǎo zhì 明显 míng xiǎn 的 de 左倾 zuǒ qīng 偏见 piān jiàn " " [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
**Michael West Media:** According to Media Bias/Fact Check, Michael West Media "presents itself as non-partisan but strongly frames stories against corporate and government elites, resulting in a clear left-leaning bias" [6].
The organization "frequently criticizes multinational corporations, fossil fuel firms, and political connections to wealth" and is described as having a "Left bias" in editorial stance [6].
Michael Michael West West 是 shì 一位 yī wèi 获得 huò dé Walkley Walkley 奖 jiǎng 的 de 记者 jì zhě , , 在 zài 调查 diào chá 报道 bào dào 方面 fāng miàn 有 yǒu track track record record , , 这为 zhè wèi 其 qí 研究 yán jiū 增添 zēng tiān 了 le 可信度 kě xìn dù [ [ 7 7 ] ] 。 。
Michael West is a Walkley Award-winning journalist with a track record in investigative reporting, lending credibility to his research [7].
However, the left-leaning framing suggests the article emphasizes negative aspects of Coalition policies while potentially minimizing systemic issues or policy rationales.
**Per Capita:** Per Capita is an Australian think tank that focuses on inequality and social policy.
Per Capita's research appears rigorous and evidence-based, though the organization's progressive policy orientation should be noted [2].
**Government sources:** The article relies on statements from Nathan Smyth, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, which are official government sources with direct access to spending data [1][3].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Labor established the privatized jobactive employment services system's predecessor.
* * * *
The original "Job Network" was introduced by the Howard Coalition government in the mid-1990s [1], but the subsequent Labor government (2007-2013) under Rudd and Gillard maintained and expanded this privatized model rather than reversing it [1].
During the Global Financial Crisis (2008-2009), which also created mass unemployment, Labor's response included maintaining spending on privatized employment services [8].
Labor's government provided stimulus payments and maintained the existing employment services infrastructure without dismantling the privatized provider system [8].
**Historical context:** Both Coalition and Labor governments have operated within Australia's privatized employment services framework for decades.
The fundamental issue—relying on for-profit providers with administrative payments tied to client numbers—is not unique to the Coalition.
Labor Labor 政府 zhèng fǔ 提供 tí gōng 了 le 刺激 cì jī 付款 fù kuǎn , , 并 bìng 维持 wéi chí 了 le 现有 xiàn yǒu 的 de 就业 jiù yè 服务 fú wù 基础设施 jī chǔ shè shī , , 而 ér 没有 méi yǒu dismantle dismantle 私有化 sī yǒu huà 提供者 tí gōng zhě 系统 xì tǒng [ [ 8 8 ] ] 。 。
Labor created this system and maintained it throughout their time in government [1].
**No direct Labor equivalent during pandemic:** Labor was not in government during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022), so there is no direct comparable response to evaluate.
However, Labor's track record suggests they likely would have faced similar cost pressures if managing a comparable unemployment surge within the same privatized system.
**The criticism is valid but incomplete:**
The article correctly identifies that jobactive providers received substantial additional payments during the pandemic, funded by taxpayers.
文章 wén zhāng 正确 zhèng què 地 dì 指出 zhǐ chū jobactive jobactive 提供者 tí gōng zhě 在 zài 疫情 yì qíng 期间 qī jiān 获得 huò dé 了 le 大量 dà liàng 额外 é wài 付款 fù kuǎn , , 由 yóu 纳税人 nà shuì rén 资助 zī zhù 。 。
Administration fees are a form of government spending that could reasonably be criticized as: (a) enriching private providers while jobseekers struggle, (b) creating perverse incentives in a system where providers profit from client volume, and (c) potentially inefficient compared to alternative employment service models.
Per Capita and other critics argue the $300+ million could have been better spent on direct support to unemployed people, vocational training, or reformed employment services [4].
This is a legitimate policy position.
**However, the government's perspective:**
The Coalition government faced an unprecedented crisis: unemployment that more than doubled in weeks.
这是 zhè shì 一个 yí gè 合法 hé fǎ 的 de 政策 zhèng cè 立场 lì chǎng 。 。
Jobactive providers needed immediate funding to handle the surge in clients.
Simply stopping administration payments would have meant employment services could not function—job interviews couldn't be conducted, job plans couldn't be written, and support services would collapse.
The government also attempted to manage costs by directing newly unemployed to Online Employment Services [4], showing some effort to contain costs.
Jobactive Jobactive 提供者 tí gōng zhě 需要 xū yào 立即 lì jí 获得 huò dé 资金 zī jīn 来 lái 处理 chǔ lǐ 激增 jī zēng 的 de 客户 kè hù 。 。
And the government had trialed the New Employment Services Model (NESM) to reduce reliance on jobactive providers [1].
**The deeper systemic issue:**
The criticism of "$300 million in pandemic payments" is really a criticism of Australia's privatized employment services model itself.
This is not a partisan issue—both Coalition and Labor governments have operated within this system, though both have proposed reforms.
**Key context:** This is/is not unique to the Coalition - Australia has operated a privatized employment services system since 1994 under both Coalition and Labor governments.
The claim is factually accurate that the Coalition increased administrative payments to job finding agencies during the pandemic, and the $300 million figure is supported by government statements and independent analysis.
However, the claim presents this as an isolated negative decision without important context: (1) the payments were responses to unprecedented unemployment surging from 633k to 1.45 million clients, (2) administration fees are structural to Australia's privatized employment services model that predates the Coalition, (3) both Coalition and Labor governments have operated within this system, and (4) the government attempted to manage costs by directing clients to Online Employment Services.
The criticism is better understood as a critique of Australia's privatized employment services model generally, not Coalition-specific mismanagement during the pandemic.
The claim is factually accurate that the Coalition increased administrative payments to job finding agencies during the pandemic, and the $300 million figure is supported by government statements and independent analysis.
However, the claim presents this as an isolated negative decision without important context: (1) the payments were responses to unprecedented unemployment surging from 633k to 1.45 million clients, (2) administration fees are structural to Australia's privatized employment services model that predates the Coalition, (3) both Coalition and Labor governments have operated within this system, and (4) the government attempted to manage costs by directing clients to Online Employment Services.
The criticism is better understood as a critique of Australia's privatized employment services model generally, not Coalition-specific mismanagement during the pandemic.