Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I oppose this bill on a number of grounds. I am cognisant of the fact that my colleague the member for Jagajaga has covered the field in response to the opposition's concerns in relation to this bill. I have to refute much of what was said by the member for Macquarie. I do not accept as fact that the government is doing enough to assist young people to find work. I think it is fair to say that youth unemployment in this country is very high: 13½ per cent—well in excess now of double the national unemployment rate. That is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable rate that has to be attended to by the government.

The government has an ally in the opposition in dealing with this issue; we want to work with the government on measures. But measures have to be effective and the government has to be genuine about its concern for young people. Whilst the government has introduced some small measures that I can support, I do not think enough is being done. I do not believe that you can assist young people by introducing some of the measures that are in this bill. That is why we oppose it. We oppose it because making it hard for young people for even a month—to receive no support whatsoever when they are genuinely looking for work—is not the answer to youth unemployment. We accept that the government was embarrassed by the fact that its original proposal of cutting off any support whatsoever for people under the age of 30 was never sustainable and would never have been accepted by the parliament and so it changed its position—I think largely due to the prosecution of that case by the opposition. We made it very clear that it was an outrageously unfair measure introduced in the budget last year and was never going to be accepted, and as a result the government had to change its tune in relation to that. Whether it be six months or one month—one month is too long for a person under the age of 25 to have no support at all—no support whatsoever—when they are genuinely looking for work.

Labor supports the principle of mutual obligation. Indeed we would argue that we introduced it during the very difficult times in the early nineties under the policies of Working Nation. Then Prime Minister Paul Keating and the minister for employment, Simon Crean, introduced that principle. That principle was maintained through the Howard years—not that we would agree with all the things they did. We did not believe that work experience applied to every unemployed person. The Work for the Dole program can be useful but it can be counterproductive for some workers who spent years in the labour market; you want to find other ways for them to be getting back into the labour market, in particular accredited training in areas of demand. But let us just say there has been a bipartisan position on how to look after people, particularly young unemployed people, in this country until this government was elected and then chose to remove any support whatsoever for everyone under the age of 30 who was genuinely looking for work. That was a bridge too far; we did not support it. And we will not support this measure now in relation to the one-month suspension of any support whatsoever. We would understand that if people are not genuinely looking for work, if they are not putting in their side of the bargain—and there is a bargain here: the mutual obligation is that you must be genuinely seeking work. In return the nation—the government on its behalf—will be providing some support to you. It would not matter, if this bill were to pass, if a person under the age of 25 was looking for work genuinely; they would not receive a cracker from this government for a month. It is not acceptable and therefore the opposition will not be accepting that provision in this bill.

The other measure which has been maintained by this government—it was introduced by the Treasurer in last year's budget—is also too harsh. It is too harsh to expect 22-, 23- and 24-year-olds in this nation to lose almost 20 per cent of their income—of the modest income they are receiving while looking for work—by converting their current income from Newstart to Youth Allowance. There are reasons why people receive Youth Allowance and there are reasons why people receive Newstart. It seems to me that an independent person at the age of 24 who is looking for work, and genuinely so—that is absolutely critical to this principle—should not lose almost $50 a week, nearly 20 per cent of their income, by this measure. That is harsh. The government likes to talk about people sharing the burden. We do not believe it is sharing the burden to impose a 20 per cent cut to the modest income of a person of the age of 24 from 1 July next year. We do not think that is acceptable at all. I notice the government has moved that back until 1 July next year. Originally it was going to be 1 July this year—in the hope that something might intervene between now and 1 July next year perhaps. But the fact is: young people are not foolish; they know when they are being had; they know when they are being treated unfairly. To remove that amount of money—that remarkably large proportion of a very, very modest income—is unfair, and we do not support that measure.

We would like to see the government articulate a jobs plan for this nation, and that would include engaging with business, working out measures that work and having regional policies in place. Look at Far North Queensland. It is a great place to visit but it has a very high unemployment rate among young people. If we are going to ever have a bipartisan position in this area of public policy, you would hope it would be on youth unemployment. You would know, Deputy Speaker Ewen Jones, given the area you represent, that these challenges should be beyond partisan politics. I would suggest to the government that some of the measures could include working with businesses in regions and working with other tiers of government as well, to make sure that the policies that are being developed at the state level and even at the local government level are working in tandem with Commonwealth investment in this area. That is critical.

I will be asking the Minister representing the Minister for Employment about these estimates tomorrow afternoon in the Federation Chamber. I will be asking him about where they managed to get $300 million from. Some of it seems to have come from the current contract. In other words, it is not new money at all, but this has been dressed up as new youth policies. But we will examine that in more detail, hopefully, if the Minister for Education and Training actually answers the question when I put it to him tomorrow.

We believe that more can be done in this area, but we do not believe that you increase the likelihood of young people getting into work if you remove all support whatsoever. Yes, you can have Work for the Dole programs for young people. Work experience programs can be very helpful if they are properly structured, and preferably if there is accredited training that goes with them. For many people who may not have entered the labour market, understanding about working in teams, working under supervision, turning up for work, the importance of not being late and the fact that people are relying on them to turn up and work is really important experience. The opposition would agree with the government on that.

We would say, however, that there are other types of approaches that should be taken for older workers who, for example, might have had 30 years in the labour market and have just been retrenched because of changes in our economy—perhaps changes in manufacturing, where we are seeing terrible job losses. I do not think you should be telling a 45-year-old worker that they should go off and work for the dole. It might be better to say: 'You've shown yourself to be working for 30 years in the labour market—every day, every week, every month, every year, since you left school. You don't need to show us you can work. You don't need a work culture, because you have all of that. What you might need is skills in areas of demand.' What we need to do, therefore—and I am not pointing the finger at the government; this is a complicated area, but we should work this out—is to identify more precisely what areas in the labour market are in growing demand, where the skill deficiencies are and how we can attend to those deficiencies by providing training for people who have got great work experience, real work experience, but unfortunately, through no fault of their own, have found themselves victims of economic transition and change.

The idea that one size fits all for 800,000 unemployed people is not right. We do need to have different types of approaches for young people—to inculcate them with a sense of work and what it means and turning up and presenting yourself. These are not soft skills; these are core skills. You have got to present. You have got to show that you are part of a team, part of a community, part of a society. That is what turning up for work is—and feeling good about it and feeling that you are a productive part of your community. That is really important, and work experience, whether it be called Work for the Dole or anything else, can be very effective. But Labor thinks there are other ways to help workers who have enormous experience but who just need some new skills to join the set of skills they have so that they can find themselves back in the labour market as quickly as possible.

The government should consider how much money has been taken out of training and skills and whether we can reinvest in that area. That is really important. The area that we invest in needs to match the demand in the labour market. That is why we need to engage with business, industry, unions, training providers and others and make sure that the investment that the taxpayer's dollar is being spent on is in areas of skills that are in demand. We all know stories of young people, in particular, undergoing training that really has not suited the opportunities that are in the labour market. How frustrating would it be for a person who is desperate to find work to undergo training and find that the acquisition of those skills has left them no better off in terms of their opportunities at work?

We need to do better as a parliament in this area. We are letting down young people if we are not doing our bit as legislators to provide the right support. That means training and work experience when required, but we do not think using the stick in the case of young people is particularly helpful. I do not believe that. I believe that if you do not genuinely look for work there should be consequences in terms of your income. That is where the mutual obligation comes in. I believe if you wilfully do not genuinely look for work, of course there should be consequences for your Newstart allowance. That is the mutual obligation. But I do not believe that, if you genuinely are seeking to find work and you are under the age of 25—you might be living on your own, trying to pay rent—somehow the government can say, 'You're not getting any support from us for a month.' I do not think that is fair, and not only do I not think it is fair, I think it is counterproductive. I think it is more likely that that person will not find work. I know the government is thinking, 'Surely, if they are desperate enough, they will just find work.' But I think you have to give a little bit of support. You have to help a person up so that they can get on their feet and have a chance. That is what it is about—not a handout but a hand-up. A hand-up means giving them a modest level of support while they are genuinely looking for work, and I think the government therefore should reconsider the provision.

They have reconsidered the six-month suspension of any support at all. Why don't they go the whole way? Say, 'Provided they are genuinely looking for work, people under the age of 25 should be given support at the commencement of that time.' That is the commencement of the mutual obligation principle, a principle that started under Working Nation during the Keating years with the then minister for employment, Simon Crean, and carried on by John Howard and indeed future governments. It was torn up for the first time, I would argue, in last year's budget, when they said there would be no support. I think elements of that are still here—this removal of the mutual obligation principle. Saying that a government has no obligation to provide any support for someone under the age of 25 for the first month is wrong, and it is in breach of what has been bipartisan policy for more than 25 years.

There are other measures in the bill that the member for Jagajaga has addressed. Unemployment is too high and is forecast to go higher—a 14-year high. Anything the government can do to attend to this major challenge, the opposition will be willing to work with them on. We want to see fewer people lose their work and more people find opportunities in the labour market.

See this speech in context