By the National Employment Services Association (NESA) | June 2026
The Australian Government aspires to undertake a significant redesign of employment services since the introduction of Workforce Australia in 2022.
The proposed reform model introduces three service streams designed to provide different levels of support based on participant need. While much attention has focused on the introduction of these streams, a less discussed but more important question that significantly impacts on participant wellbeing is:
Should participants move between different providers as they move between Streams 2 and 3, or should support remain with a single provider or coordinated consortium throughout their employment journey?
This question sits at the centre of a new NESA Policy Insights Paper examining how commissioning decisions may influence participant outcomes, continuity of support and the future design of Australia’s employment services system.
The Australian Government has proposed a new employment services model based on differentiated levels of support.
Under the proposed model:
The reform recognises that job seekers do not all require the same level of support. This principle is broadly supported across the sector.
The key policy question is whether different levels of support should assume it is to be provided by different providers.
Employment services are fundamentally about helping people move towards sustainable employment.
For many participants, barriers to employment are not static.
People may experience:
Support needs often increase and decrease over time.
If participants move between streams as their circumstances change, should they also be required to change providers?
The answer has important implications for continuity of support.
One of the strongest themes emerging from employment services, disability employment, mental health and social service research is the importance of continuity.
People experiencing complex barriers often require time to develop trust in a service and confidence in the people supporting them.
The evidence reviewed in NESA’s Policy Insights Paper suggests that service transitions can become points of disengagement when participants are required to repeatedly retell their story, rebuild relationships and reconnect with services.
This does not mean transitions are always harmful.
However, it raises important questions about whether service design should minimise avoidable disruptions where possible.
An important question emerging from the reform debate relates to Inclusive Employment Australia.
Inclusive Employment Australia allows participants to move between different levels of support while remaining with the same provider.
This creates a policy question worth considering:
If integrated delivery is considered appropriate for disability employment services, what evidence supports a different approach in mainstream employment services?
This question is explored in detail in the NESA Policy Insights Paper.
The paper also raises a second question.
Some people experience barriers so significant that employment readiness within a standard service period may be unrealistic.
This includes people experiencing:
The paper does not argue that a Stream 4 should automatically be introduced.
Instead, it asks whether the proposed reform model adequately addresses this cohort and whether a distinct response warrants further investigation through consultation and the Government’s pilot process.
The paper argues that several important questions remain unanswered.
The assessment process is still being developed.
The intensive services pilot has not yet commenced.
Detailed modelling has not been publicly released.
This creates an opportunity.
The pilot can help answer critical questions including:
The answers to these questions may have significant implications for future commissioning decisions.
Employment services reform is ultimately about improving outcomes for people seeking work.
The decisions made now will influence:
The questions raised in NESA’s Policy Insights Paper are therefore not simply administrative questions.
They are questions about how employment services can best support people to move towards sustainable employment.
NESA’s Policy Insights Paper explores these issues in greater detail, drawing on evidence from employment services, disability employment, mental health, vocational rehabilitation and international policy experience.
Read the full paper here:
Stream 2 is the proposed employment services stream designed to provide targeted support to people who need more assistance than those in Stream 1 but who may not require the intensive support proposed under Stream 3.
Stream 3 is the proposed intensive-support stream within Australia’s employment services reform model. It is intended to support people experiencing more significant barriers to employment.
Streams 2 and 3 will determine how support is delivered to people experiencing barriers to employment. Decisions about how these streams are commissioned may affect continuity of support, participant outcomes and service accessibility.
This is currently a key policy question. NESA’s Policy Insights Paper examines evidence relating to integrated and separate delivery models and explores the implications of each approach.
Inclusive Employment Australia is Australia’s disability employment program. It provides tailored employment support for people with disability and allows participants to move between different support levels while remaining with the same provider.
A proposed Stream 4 has been raised as a possible future response for people experiencing the most significant barriers to employment. No decision has been made, and the concept remains a subject for consultation and policy discussion.
The pilot should test participant volumes, movement between streams, provider transfers, participant outcomes, market viability and whether different commissioning models can operate effectively at scale.