Dear Department of Employment,

I will breakdown my requests as succinctly as possible.

First, I am seeking documents and data related to the effectiveness of the work-for-the-dole program. I would also like this data to clearly differentiate job seekers who have gained real part or full-time employment (partial or full outcome) vs. the job seekers who are removed from unemployment statistics while in a work-for-the-dole placement.

Second, I request any documentation regarding what parameters are reviewed during a performance review of an employment service provider (Jobactive provider), and what the broad KPI or targets are for Jobactive providers, not the exact figures, just what a Jobactive provider is monitored on (e.g Partial outcomes, WFD placements).

Third, I would like to know which body was responsible for determining the fees paid to jobactive providers, specifically WFD placement fees vs. Partial-outcome fees, how they came to the final decision, and how the current fees are designed to reduce unemployment.

Fourth, Has there been any documentation or directive from the department of employment regarding how a Job Seeker is placed with a Jobactive provider (e.g to favour one provider over another), and also any information regarding how the system places a jobseeker with an employment service provider (E.G Location and alphabetical, or Location and performance); In addition, I request any documents pertaining to the Department increasing market share of specific jobactive providers, which providers have had their market share increased, when it was increased, and how the department increases market share.

Fifth and final, documentation regarding whether or not audits are taken on Jobactive providers, and if so, when the last audit took place. If audits are performed to give a breakdown of how many total participants a jobactive provider has, and how many of them they are claiming WFD placement fees, partial outcome fees, and full outcome fees for; Is the Department aware that Jobactive providers may be intentionally bending the law in order to double-dip and claim both WFD fees and Partial outcome fees at the same time (by placing participants who do not receive the full rate of income support into a WFD placement anyway, despite their ineligibility).

Yours faithfully,

Gaius Maxwell