This was probably predictable. Amendments to the Family Law Act which require couples separating to attend counselling sessions as part of the process of separation and divorce are being interpreted in such a way as to leave open the opportunity of giving contracts to run the centres to agencies in it for a buck. Apparently the churches - who I suppose would see this as their core business - are concerned. But it’s par for the course these days. Outsource employment services to private training institutions, outsource Centrelink counselling for people with psychological disabilities to the same mob, outsource refugee settlement to language colleges, outsource tech colleges to the local chamber of commerce, and the list goes on. You wonder if any of these fine competitive enterprises would make a buck in a free market. Some are certainly making a lot of bucks off government social policy. Fortunately, perhaps, for soon to be former couples, the minimisation of costs that seem to characterise many of these outfits probably means that the 3 hour session will be as perfunctory as it can be to meet the terms of the service agreement with the A-G’s Department.
10 Responses to “Bureaucrats For profit agencies fight to save marriage!”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Mark, you’re being far too harsh. The old CES was absolutely useless - from my (limited) contact, the job network is much better - although it could still be greatly improved.
I’d prefer people running services to be interested in actually running them - if money is the motivator, I don’t see that as a problem - what matters is the outcome. Of course, any subsequent problems should be dealt with properly.
It’s a good question whether any of these outsourcing organisations could actually make money in the private sector - this I can’t comment on!
Agree with Sacha CES was a rock and deserved to be euthanized!
I would hope the Churches are more concerned with their flock and stopping the disease of divorce.
If you are referring to the self-funding arms of denominations that provide welfare services then yes they could offer the general public service in this area
I was baffled reading about all of this. Is heterosexual bourgeois marriage an approved concept by the State or isn’t it? Because if it is, and the Government attaches some kind of fetishised value to it, they should have a bit of faith in citizens to know when the marriages they’re in aren’t working.
And I thought it was the Labor Party that was pruriently obsessed with removing individual liberties.
My contact with CES was too far back to remember, but I was on the Job Network books for a coupla months once and there was no help at all. Lost count of the number of times I expressed interest in a job on the website only to be told it had expired and the website hadn’t been updated yet. A JN staff member volunteered the info that there was no assistance until/unless you fell into their ’special needs’ category.
If could be worse. In Egypt it seems that there is a controversy about whether nudity invalidates marriage.
I’m not saying that the Job Network is much good though - it was pretty useless for me. I received unemployment benefits at the end of 2004 and found a Sydney job while overseas - but the job network didn’t help me one iota in that. When I got my (current) job, I remember thinking that they shouldn’t have received any money for getting me off their books.
Here’s one measure of how useless my job network provider was: I filled out all the relevant forms and put my CV/profile on their internet sites - and in the couple of months I was on their books I received one job reference through their job web-site - for a position as a university psychology tutor!
Obviously their computer job matchmaker had matched my “experience in lecturing and tutoring in mathematics” to “tutoring in psychology”. Perhaps the computer read “statistics” in the psych tutor and matched that to “mathematics”. But who knows.
Of course, I spent a fair bit of time doing my own job searches on the internet and found heaps of jobs each day, one of which I still have.
At least same-sex couples won’t have to deal with state-sponsored information/education sessions to stop their relationship breaking up! I can’t stand going to government information sessions - I just want to run out of them! But some things you just need to do.
I don’t know which is worse - the architecture/design of government offices that deal with the public (eg centrelink/license renewal offices), or sitting and listening to information sessions (I’m thinking of the info session when you apply for unemployment benefits).
The less contact with the state the better!
I read about this new initiative and visualised large group sessions, as this would surely be the most profitable method of service delivery…
About to separate*? - Read this first.
Mondays 6-9pm Adulterers and adulteresses.
Tuesdays 6-9pm Substance abusers and gamblers.
Wednesdays 6-9pm Commitment phobics.
No childcare provided.
*Meets Family Court requirements.
Sweetly said Suki, however the session times would start at 3:15 & finish at 4:45 - no overtime for the staff then.
& though i am loath to defend the CES - it has to be said that firstly, it was pre-internet days & the CES worked under a card system, geared toward blue collar work & secondly if they didn’t find you a job, its because there weren’t any. Unemployment measured at 8-10%, dole queues snaking out DSS front doors. Brings tears to an employer’s eyes.
The current service provider arrangement is ridiculously variable from provider to provider, with the added curiosity that access to the service is only available to those on benefit.
& as for marriage counselling, i wonder if there isn’t an inherent conflict of interest here in that the current providers such as Relationships Australia, do not necessarily have the maintenance of the relationship as their primary goal, but will newly minted agencies operate under the same philosophy?