Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014, in continuation. Before I pick up from where I left off last night, I want to note that this is a bill about jobs and the initiatives our government is taking in relation to jobs and in developing long-term jobs. We have just heard from the member for Grayndler, and it is with considerable disappointment that I reflect on the decision by the member for Grayndler, when he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport back in 2008, to decline permission for AirAsia X to fly into Avalon Airport. This is a wonderful regional airport—an airport that has great potential and is a home base for Jetstar. We heard the member for Grayndler talking about looking back with regret about decisions that were short-sighted. And let me say that that was a regrettable and incredibly short-sighted decision, and it has set Avalon back by a number of years. As a government we are now working very hard to support Avalon Airport as it looks to transition into a strong regional and international airport.

The relocation assistance to take up a job program, which I was referring to, gives people a great opportunity to go where the work is. It is one thing to say, 'Look, there's a great job there', but it is quite another thing to get there; often it involves considerable costs. So I am very proud that this particular program is an important part of our plank to promote workforce participation. It encourages job seekers to move to areas where jobs are available, and there is a particular focus in the regions, which is wonderful to see. In my region of Corangamite and across the Geelong region we have many great opportunities. Yes, we do have some challenges, but as a government we are working very hard to create new opportunities to bring new and emerging industries into our region. And I am really hoping that, if this bill is passed, many people will take up this opportunity to come and live in the great electorate of Corangamite and the great city of Geelong. The program will offer some very important financial support, including up to $6,000 available to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a regional area. Another $3,000 will be available to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area from a regional area to take up a job.

This is all part of a very strong plan for jobs, of our pursuit of building a strong and prosperous economy. What we are doing is scrapping the job-destroying carbon tax and we are scrapping the mining tax. Members on the other side are opposing that of course, which is very destructive in terms of jobs and our economy. We are working on re-establishing the rule of law by reintroducing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We are building the roads of the 21st Century, the infrastructure of the 21st Century, and we are fighting night and day for jobs.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very interesting listening to the previous speaker talk about the government's plan for jobs. The only plan that I have noticed from the government is to watch more and more jobs disappear on a regular basis—I think about 63,000 jobs have disappeared in six months. That is quite a record, and I think if the government puts its mind to it there could be an enormous number of people unemployed. The fact is, they do not have a plan. There is no plan whatsoever to address the issue of new jobs, or new technology. All this government does is leave it to market forces.

I will not oppose the particular legislation before us today. The legislation has two initiatives in it. One of them is the Job Commitment Bonus and the other is the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, a program that was introduced by Labor when we were in power. This bill extends it and makes it more generous. It will provide financial assistance to the long-term unemployed—people who are looking for jobs. But there will be participation requirements associated with it. It will be available to people who are receiving Newstart and Youth Allowance, though that does not count if you are an apprentice or in full-time study as a student. Also, it will be available to people who have been on the Parenting Payment for at least the preceding 12 months to relocate for the purposes of commencing ongoing employment.

The program is going to be demand driven, and will provide $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a regional area, from either a metropolitan area or another regional area, or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area. It is quite generous. Families with dependent children will receive an extra $3,000. But the catch to this is that a participant who leaves their employment, without good reason, within six months of receiving the relocation payment, will be excluded from receiving any payment for 26 weeks.

There can be a plethora of reasons why a person may choose to leave a job, and whether or not their explanation is acceptable will determine whether they are excluded from receiving any sort of financial assistance from Centrelink. I think that is a little draconian. The government could be a little bit more generous around that particular component of this legislation.

The other component of this legislation is the Job Commitment Bonus. As all of us in this place know, youth unemployment is an issue in most electorates. Young Australians aged from 18-30, who have been receiving Newstart or Youth Allowance—other than if they are an apprentice or a full-time student—will be eligible for a tax-free bonus of $2,500 if they gain employment and maintain that employment for 12 months. That is a tax-free payment. If they manage to stay in full-time employment for another 12 months, they will receive a further tax-free bonus of $4,000. For a period of continuous employment of 24 months, that is quite a significant payment. It will work as an incentive for people to look for work.

However, I do feel it is missing some salient issues when it comes to youth unemployment. The fact is that employers have to make a commitment to train young people. There needs to be jobs there for young people to undertake. I would hate to think that these payments were being used instead of wage subsidies, or support for employers to hire young people, or investing in training and education for young people seeking work.

In my electorate, particularly the southern part of it on the northern part of the Central Coast, youth unemployment is very high. The initiatives in this legislation will only touch the surface of the problem. They will not result in young people finding employment. There are problems like the availability of work, there are the actual issues around transport and getting to work, and there is the fact that young people need training. It is interesting to note that we need to have more money invested in TAFE and in apprenticeships. If this government is truly serious about reducing the number of young people who are unemployed, they really need to invest in training. They need to make sure that young people have the skills necessary to obtain the jobs that are available now and to also obtain the skills so that they will be able to obtain the jobs of the future.

Under this government we have seen, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution to this debate, jobs going one way. They are being lost and none are being created. We have a deficit in jobs yet we are putting in place incentives for people to gain jobs. It is very nice to have incentives there. That works on the assumption that people are only unemployed because they do not want to work and, if you give them an incentive, they will run out and find a job. But, if the jobs do not exist or if they do not have the necessary training for jobs, then their situation is not going to change.

On the Central Coast in my electorate there was a proposal to build a training hub for young people that were unemployed to help them gain the skills they needed. The Gulgul Barang training centre was approved under RDA prior to the last election, but in its wisdom this government have moved away from that commitment. They have deemed that it was an election promise even though the money was put aside in the 2013-14 budget for it. They have denied young people in the northern part of the Central Coast the opportunity to engage in training and the opportunity to have the support they need.

There were a number of employment agencies involved in it. The Darkinjung Aboriginal people gave land for the project. They have already spent a lot of money on getting to the DA stage, a DA that will not be submitted because the funding is not there. The wonderful San Remo Neighbourhood Centre supports a number of programs. One is the LEAP program, which is providing training for people to help them enter the workforce, and there is Youth Connections and ET Australia as well. It was one of those projects that I think members dream about, a project that involved the whole community, a project that was creating a hub in an area where there are very few resources. It was creating opportunity for people that were unemployed, young people in particular. Now that has been snatched away from them. Their opportunity to undertake training and to actually obtain jobs that they would like to have has been taken away from them.

Without training and without skills, you can give young people as much money as the deepest government pockets allow, but it is not going to make a difference. If an employer takes on a young person who does not have the skills, who is not an effective or efficient employee, who does not have the support they need to develop those skills, then that person will only hold the job for a very short period of time and the $2,500 will never be paid.

It makes me really sad. I am talking quite a bit here about the Central Coast part of my electorate, I know, but in that part of my electorate we have seen Kellogg's move to Thailand and we have seen Blue Tongue close its doors. I know that Wyong Shire Council is looking at an initiative to undertake a project to bottle water. That will be good because maybe that may maintain the jobs of some of the people that were working there.

But we do not need support for people that lose their jobs; we need jobs for people. We need to put in place the right sorts of programs and incentives for employers to create jobs. It is very easy for member after member in this parliament to stand up and talk about the carbon tax. Job losses in this country have more to do with government policy, government vision, a need for the government to have a plan rather than just act like an opposition, which is all this government has done in trying to blame the previous government for the fact that jobs are going faster than you can blink your eyes. It is a disgrace.

We have lost 5,000 jobs at Qantas and 2,500 jobs at Toyota—and they are direct jobs—along with 2,900 direct jobs at Holden. At Rio Tinto at the Gove refinery, 1,100 jobs have gone; at Electrolux in Orange—a regional area where jobs are really hard to come by—544 jobs have been lost. At Simplot 110 jobs have gone, at Peabody 200 jobs have gone, and at Caterpillar another 200 jobs are no more. Sixty-three jobs at Blue Tongue on the Central Coast have been lost. For those direct jobs that have been lost, there is the flow-on effect to the industries associated with them and then there is the flow-on effect to all those businesses that provide lunches and other services to the workers in industry. This government has a very sad record when it comes to employment and initiatives in the area of employment.

Whilst there is no problem with the initiatives that are highlighted in this legislation, except that I think that they are just window-dressing—they are carrots; they are ways of trying to encourage people to look for work, and then there is the undertone that the only reason that people are not in employment is that they do not want to be, and that is where you come in with the tax-free bonus—the punitive nature of the requirements that are attached to the relocation assistance program do worry me a little bit. If this government wants to be real about jobs, it needs to put in place proper training, to support apprentices and employers, to have a vision, to plan for the future and to make sure that it has a job plan that looks at the future of this country and is about the success of business, the success of the economy and the success of workers.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 is about providing real incentives to help more young people into work. The bill provides practical assistance to help our long-term unemployed find and keep a job. Importantly, it focuses on our young people, who deserve a fair go, real opportunity and real optimism for their future. As a Liberal, I believe that every Australian who is capable of working should be working, preferably for a wage but, if not, for the dole. Young Australians in particular need to be able to find and keep job opportunities that can enhance their skills, develop their knowledge base and provide a strong foundation for their future careers, experience and perspectives.

The coalition government is committed to encouraging and increasing workforce participation, particularly for our young people. There are two measures in this bill that will help to deliver what the government said it would do. Both will commence on 1 July 2014. The first measure is the job commitment bonus. This helps by paying eligible job seekers $2,500 if they get a job and remain in continuous work and off income support for 12 months. This new payment will be available for young Australians aged 18 to 30 who were unemployed for a year or more, receiving a Newstart allowance or youth allowance, and who go on to keep and stay in a job. It rewards young people who demonstrate a commitment to working. A further $4,000 will be paid if they remain in continuous work and off income support for another 12 months. This means that young people on the Central Coast who are long-term unemployed can receive up to $6,500 over the two-year program. Bonus payments will go directly to the employee at the end of the 12- and 24-month periods.

The second measure, the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, is a targeted measure to help young people who are unemployed for at least a year to be able move to where there is a job available. Under this program, should an eligible job seeker from the Central Coast choose to move to Sydney to take up a job, that would be considered a regional-to-metropolitan move and the eligible job seeker could receive up to $3,000. Should an eligible job seeker move from the Central Coast to take up a job in Newcastle, for instance, this would be considered a regional-to-regional move and they could receive up to $6,000. In addition, families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000 in recognition of the additional costs that can accrue when moving a family.

This is common-sense legislation. It is appropriate that we have strong measures to increase workforce participation. The coalition is committed to building a strong and prosperous economy, which in turn will help generate more jobs for people on the Central Coast and, indeed, across Australia. I am proud to be part of a coalition government that is determined to see a million new jobs created over the next five years and two million over the next decade by creating conditions where businesses can thrive and prosper in growing regions like my own, the Central Coast.

But full-time unemployment, particularly for young people, is a major concern for families and businesses in my electorate. Labour force figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that across the Gosford local government area there was an average of 7,100 young people aged 15 to 24 who were without work. Nationally, the figures got worse under Labor. Between November 2007 and September last year, the national youth unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 19 and looking for full-time work went from 19.6 per cent to 27.4 per cent. Worse still, the number of long-term unemployed—people who were unemployed for 52 weeks or more—nearly doubled, going from 69,000 to 133,000.

I will never forget the experience of talking to a young man near East Gosford when I doorknocked his family home about 12 months ago. His story put a stark face to these statistics and reflects those of many others I have spoken with over the last six months. Only 19 years old at the time, this young man told me of his passion for cars and photography. Despite months and months of trying he could not find a job, but he was keen and willing to do anything. Four of his own young mates could not find work locally either, even though, he said, they were also qualified mechanics and welders. There is nothing that saps the aspirations of young people more than the lack of opportunity to fulfil them. Currently, the level of youth unemployment in my electorate is far too high. It is a major challenge. We need to prevent young job seekers from sliding into this long-term welfare dependency.

That is why I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering real solutions to real challenges. After all, that is what the Australian people, including people on the Central Coast, elected us to do after six long years of Labor waste. We need a strong, stable economy where government can get out of the way and let business, particularly local businesses in my electorate, grow, prosper, thrive, succeed and create more jobs and even more opportunities for our young Australians and, importantly in my electorate, for our young coasties.

That is why we are determined to scrap the carbon tax to deliver much-needed relief not only for local families, who will save an average of $550 a year when this toxic tax is gone, but also for businesses. Since Labor's carbon tax was introduced, 120,000 more Australians are now unemployed. I spoke with Alison Vidler, president of the Gosford City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, earlier today. She commended the government on this bill, saying that the chamber supports measures that will change the cycle of welfare dependency and give young people on the Central Coast a positive outlook for their futures. She also said that abolishing the carbon tax was an important part of helping businesses reduce their costs and reduce the confusion businesses are facing because Labor is holding up the bill to scrap the carbon tax—holding it hostage in the Senate.

Red tape is also a burden on productivity and job creation. That is why, for the first time, the national parliament will be holding a red tape repeal day to cut $1 billion in red and green tape costs. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments introduced 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and more than 21,000 additional regulations. It has been left to the coalition government to clean up this mess because it is having a real impact on business and, in turn, employment opportunities, particularly on the Central Coast. Tomorrow the government will start to announce details of more than 9,000 pieces of spent and redundant legislation and regulation. Some of this regulation is more than 100 years old. Getting rid of the more than 9,000 regulations will benefit business, schools, homes, hospitals and community groups in my electorate, and I am really looking forward to the red tape repeal day.

Building the roads of the 21st century is another key element in our plan to build a stronger economy and deliver growth and more jobs. The Prime Minister's announcement this week about NorthConnex will boost the productive capacity of people living on the Central Coast, not only by creating around 2,000 new jobs but also by getting people to and from work sooner. The Australian government is investing $405 million into this $3 billion project. Unlike when Labor was in charge, when it was announced and nothing happened, this vital piece of infrastructure is moving into the planning approval phase. NorthConnex will see the missing link between the M1 and M2 motorways built, with a nine-kilometre tunnel to reduce congestion and shorten travel times. It will help commuters and freight trucks to bypass up to 21 traffic lights and reduce travel time by up to 15 minutes each way. Construction on NorthConnex will start next year and the tunnel is expected to open in 2019. I commend the Prime Minister for his determination to see NorthConnex built, and to leave a lasting infrastructure legacy for our nation.

We also want to see young job seekers equipped with the tools required to get a job and to keep it. That is why in a couple of weeks I will be hosting a workshop on vocational education and training. By consulting with key stakeholders on the coast, we can clarify what is working well, what can be improved and where there needs to be major change. Getting more unemployed young Australians into work is not going to be easy. Labor's shameful legacy to Australians is 200,000 more unemployed. The unemployment rate went from 4.4 per cent in November 2007 to 5.7 per cent in September 2013. But it does not end there. Unfortunately Labor's legacy has delivered gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion, with $123 billion in cumulative deficits. People in my electorate know that it is the coalition that has a track record of growing the economy, reducing debt and getting people off the unemployment queue. Businesses and local residents in my electorate of Robertson understand that it is important for the Central Coast that we have as many people as possible in the workforce. In a growing region, we need to meet the economic and social challenges ahead.

One of the barriers to young people being able to find meaningful employment is education. As a former teacher on the coast, I know how important education is to the future prospects of our young people on the coast. I benefitted personally from great schooling at my former high school in Narara and from studying at Sydney University, and that why I am now proud to be part of a government that is putting students first. Under the Students First framework, the Australian government will work with the states and territories on four policies we all know will make the biggest difference to students—teacher quality, school autonomy, parental engagement and a robust curriculum. At the heart of our approach is lifting the quality, professionalism and status of our teaching profession, which, in turn, will help deliver better outcomes for our students.

The coalition also understands the crucial role that universities and vocational education and training plays in driving development on the Central Coast through job creation and educating the community, especially our young people. In our strong growth plan for the Central Coast, we underlined our commitment to boosting skills and education training, including by working in partnership with the Central Coast community to identify further training and education opportunities for the region. As part of this, we will work with local governments on the coast to progress necessary approvals to facilitate universities developing campuses on local government owned land, and I acknowledge the work of Gosford City Council, in particular the mayor, Lawrie McKinna, and the general manager, Paul Anderson, in relation to a university presence right in the heart of the Gosford CBD.

Our growth plan also outlined our commitment to deliver $2.7 million to develop a new local skills and jobs centre on the Central Coast. This funding will enable Central Coast Group Training to build stage 2 of the local skills and jobs incubator, including individual trade business models. It will give more young people on the Central Coast the skills and professional connections they need to expand their job and career potential and ensure they will have better opportunities to be mentored by experienced tradespeople.

People living and working on the Central Coast share a passion to see our region thrive and grow. There is a determination among businesses and community leaders and right across my electorate to tackle the challenge of the lack of local employment opportunities. We see it every day, with over 30,000 commuters leaving early in the morning to Sydney or Newcastle and returning home late at night because their jobs take them away from their families. I believe this does not have to be a permanent marker of life on the Central Coast. I look forward to the day when people in our community no longer have to go to Sydney or to Newcastle or anywhere else for employment, education or other opportunities because they will find them right there: in Gosford, in Umina, in Woy Woy, in West Gosford, in Erina, in Avoca, in Terrigal and in Somersby.

May I acknowledge the presence earlier in the gallery of my family: Oscar, who is five years old, and Mollie-Joy, who is just three, who came down to listen to their mother deliver a speech. It is a speech about something I am particularly passionate about, for the sake of not only my family—and their future, when they have grown to reach the age where they might want to see local employment opportunities on the Central Coast—but also the families of so many other people in my electorate.

I am pleased to support this bill as an important piece of legislation that will help deliver, to more young people, more work in my electorate and deliver real hope, real reward and real opportunity for our young people who most need it.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In making comments on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014, I just wanted to put on the record that, whilst Labor is supporting this bill, it is a light bill. There are a few amendments that are not really going to tackle the issues that we are all debating today. Those issues are about youth unemployment.

The reality, which we have to accept, is: the whole community has a shared responsibility to ensure that all young Australians reach their full social and economic potential. This should be the primary goal of any society and any government. Educating our young Australians and preparing them for life beyond school is a responsibility shared between schools, businesses, governments and the broader community. It is an important role and a complex role, because we are involving a number of constituents and organisations. So it is not something that we can dismiss with rhetoric. It is not something that we can tinker at the edges of. It is something on which we need a broad and complex plan.

There is now overwhelming evidence to suggest that an individual's level of education is the single biggest determinant of securing meaningful and life-long employment, meaning that this bill, which focuses on payment, does not actually address the core reason that people do find long-term employment. There are many complex and interrelated barriers confronting young people who are disengaged or at risk of becoming disengaged from school or employment. This bill attempts to support people in finding a long-term job. However, in my opinion, it does not go far enough.

Like many of the previous speakers, I agree that youth unemployment is a big issue for Australians—particularly young Australians. In my electorate of Bendigo it is no different. According to the figures from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, which so many speakers in this debate have referred to, Bendigo actually has one of the worst unemployment rates in regional Victoria. It is equal to Geelong and is sitting at 13.3 per cent, and is behind Warrnambool and the Hume regions. This is something that Bendigo and the Bendigo community has been working to tackle for quite some time, knowing this figure and what was ahead for us to face. It is not something that just happens overnight. It is through policy changes and cuts that we have seen from previous governments that we find ourselves in this situation.

These amendments alone will not solve the current youth unemployment crisis in this country and, in particular, in regions like my region of Bendigo. Whilst Labor supports this legislation and the principle of encouraging young people to find work, Labor does not want to see these payments to job seekers be instead of assistance and support in the areas of education, skills and training. It is important that these payments do not come at the cost of investing in education.

Labor in government focused on supporting young people to finish school and get the training and higher education they needed for well-paying jobs. Under the former Labor government, we provided training and employment services for young people. Governments cannot expect young people to find well-paying jobs without providing them with the skills, education and training to get those jobs.

We are not alone in this belief. When the data was released by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Principal Dale Pearce of Bendigo Senior Secondary College in my electorate said he was very concerned by the figures. He said: 'I think it highlights the need for the government to make sure it's well and truly focused on education and training. What concerns me in this respect is generational unemployment. It's really important for those people to find ongoing sustainable employment, and the foundation for that is education and training. If the rates of youth unemployment continue, it sends a pretty strong signal that the government needs to invest in both education and training.' I agree with the principal—and with the other principals in my electorate who share their concerns about the government's commitment to funding Gonski for the full six years, as promised prior to the election.

Governments cannot expect young people to find work as unemployment continues to increase. That is the reality. When you get to a country area, when you get to a regional area, there is a growing list of job applications for every job. In Castlemaine, in my electorate, KR Castlemaine Bacon received 400 applications for 10 jobs. It is simply not good enough to say that you will reward the young person when they get a job. We need to help create the jobs that they can apply for.

This is a complex area that the government cannot simply dismiss with slogans or rhetoric as we heard from the previous speaker, or with small amendments that tinker at the edges. What we need is the right formula that includes proper funding for education and training, confidence for young people, the economic means and readiness for work and, of course, the key issue: jobs young people can actually apply for.

If I can address the last point first: young people need jobs that they can count on, particularly in the regions. I am very concerned at the job losses that we have seen since this new government has come to office. The government has so far failed to secure and create jobs that Australians can count on, particularly in the regions. We have seen, already, over 60,000 full-time jobs lost since this government came to office, and some of these are in my electorate. Nationally, we have seen job losses announced at Qantas, 5,000 jobs; Toyota, 2,500 direct jobs; Holden, almost 3,000 direct jobs; Rio Tinto at the Gove refinery, 1,100 jobs; and the list continues.

In my own electorate we have seen the loss of full-time jobs, but I think the greatest disappointment is that we have seen the loss of full-time jobs in federally funded areas, such as the Bendigo ATO facing closure; the Australia Post Mail sorting centre, where we have seen up to 6 full-time jobs go; at Centrelink, 21 jobs go; and anywhere from 50 to 350 jobs at the La Trobe University Bendigo campus. These are jobs the government could step in tomorrow and secure by funding their agencies and education providers properly. To keep the Bendigo economy strong, we need a strong public sector. To do that the government can help by ruling out further job cuts and further funding cuts to organisations in my electorate. It is one way the government can help support jobs. If we are serious about getting young people into jobs, then the government needs to be serious about job creation and be serious about creating jobs that Australians can count on.

The question also needs to be asked: what impact will the government's proposed changes to the Fair Work Act have on securing and creating jobs for young people—jobs that they can count on? There is growing concern about the affects these amendments will have on jobs and in particular the kinds of jobs young people have. This bill is designed to cut the pay of Australians. According to Essential Research polling, 80 per cent of Australians believe that people who work nights and weekends should be paid more. Nationally, more than 4.5 million Australians work in sectors where these rates apply. Many of these people working in these sectors are young people, and these young workers rely on overnight and weekend pay rates to survive. This includes paramedics, security guards, bakers, cleaners, bakers and hospitality workers.

For many young people these pay rates make up a quarter of their income. These are not people on six-figure salaries; these are people earning the minimum wage. For example, Jenny works as a cleaner. She works from six pm to 10 pm and her base wage is $17.50 per hour. With night rates and other loadings, she earns $22.70 an hour. Jenny would lose $100 per week if these penalty rates were removed, which is about $5,500 a year. For anybody to cop that pay cut it would be tough, but it is particularly tough on people already on low incomes.

Dave is a security officer. About a third of his income is overtime and weekend penalty rates. Right now he will earn a little bit over $50,000—not $500,000; $50,000—but that could drop by about $12,000 a year if these changes were to go through. Vanessa is a paramedic and works 10- to 14-hour shifts, day and night. In Victoria, paramedics receive a 26 per cent shift loading to lift their pay above $50,000, which is well short of the full-time average Australian wage of over $70,000 per year. She says that she could not afford to buy the basics, yet she is a professional with skills. This is the problem with the proposal that is before the House, the Fair Work Amendment bill. It is another example of how the government is not serious about securing and creating jobs that young people can count on.

The second point that I referred to is around skills, education and training. Whilst the measures to support young people in work are to be welcomed, it cannot be at the expense of funding for skills and training. Labor has always supported a high-quality VET system, and that is why we support TAFE. Yet funding for our TAFEs continues to be under attack from Liberal-National governments. In Victoria, the Liberal-National government has cut over $1.2 billion from our TAFEs. Bendigo TAFE has had cuts of over $9 million a year, about a quarter of its income. These cuts have had a crushing effect on the Bendigo TAFE in my electorate. Bendigo TAFE has been forced to scrap courses, cut jobs, hike fees and drop community service obligations. About 100 people have lost their jobs at the TAFE. Our Kyneton campus has closed and they are talking about further closures.

Again, if you want to get young people into work they need the skills, but, if you do not have a functioning TAFE, they cannot get the skills to get the jobs. This is another example of how this measure does not go far enough. Further focus needs to be on education. Since these changes introduced by the state Liberal-National Party government, Bendigo has seen a drop in student numbers of 3,400 fewer students in the last 12 months, a 20 per cent decrease. These are young people. How are they going to get a job, a job they can count on, if they do not have the skills? This is another example of how Liberal-National Party governments are not serious about supporting young people into work.

Another area which is of concern is the support that the government has for transition from schools to training using programs such as the Australia's network of partnership brokers, which is a national program that provides support for schools, businesses and young people to ensure that we get the right network, we get the jobs. Currently it is under threat from this government. The chair of the Partnership Brokers National Network recently wrote to the Prime Minister and said:

It is only by working together that schools, businesses and the broader community can improve student outcomes, create a more agile and responsive education and training sector, and develop young people who are qualified and work ready.

This is another example of how this government is not serious about getting young people into work. It is more than just money and the cash bonus at the end of working. People need to have the skills to get that job.

Another example of the Bendigo community acting to tackle this issue seriously is by providing targeted individual case management support demonstrated through the innovative Connect Central Youth Services project, which is provided by our local St Luke's Anglicare. This is another program under attack and threat from this government through the Youth Connections funding model. This program makes a significant difference to individuals and communities. It recognises the importance of connecting young people, providing them with the confidence and ensuring that the ones at risk do not fall through the net and they do actually have a future.

The final point that I have already touched on and wish to highlight a bit more is the need for confidence and readiness for work. Young people at risk, young people that this bill aims to target, need the confidence and readiness for work. This is a complex area. It requires skill, commitment and integrated planning. It also requires commitment over the long term. Any effort to encourage young people to stay in employment must be supported. Providing an incentive does help but there needs to be more done at the education level. This is a complex area that cannot be dismissed with small changes to social security. It needs to have a commitment from the government to create jobs that young people can count on, a commitment to ensure that we are investing in education so that young people have the skills and a commitment to ensure that those young people remain connected. Whilst we support the bill, I strongly believe it does not go far enough to tackle the issue of youth unemployment in our community.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak in favour of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. I am very pleased to be able to do so because this bill is about jobs. There is nothing more important for families in my electorate and no doubt in electorates right across the country than jobs. In our lives we all learn so much from jobs and we all progress through our careers. The dignity of work is such an important aspect of life. It is critical that governments focus on the right policies to create jobs, because what is an economy other than a job-creating engine? That is what economic growth is all about.

In terms of the specifics of this bill, there are some terrific initiatives to assist people who have been unemployed for some time. The job commitment bonus will provide for young people between the ages of 18 and 30 who have been on Newstart or youth allowance for 12 months the financial incentive—a reward—for staying employed for 12 months, and it is $2,500, which, for a young person, is a very significant incentive. It is important to note that the person must stay in employment for that 12-month period. So this is not a simple handout; this is about a reward for consistent effort and for consistent application in the workforce. I think that is a commendable structure for the legislation because it ensures that we are focusing on those people who really knuckle down, who do the hard work and who commit to employment for at least 12 months.

In addition, for people who stick at it for another 12 months—two years in total—there is the opportunity for an additional $4,000. That is a total of $6,500 under the job commitment bonus. It is a terrific initiative. It says to people who have been unemployed for some time that if you make the effort, if you stick at it, if you get a job and if you keep persevering for two years then in addition to your salary and all the other benefits that come through work, we will acknowledge that hard work you have done by providing this additional incentive. That is a terrific and important initiative.

The other initiative which is the subject of this bill is the relocation assistance initiative. For many people it is not always straightforward to find a job next door. We would all love to find a job that is just around the corner or down the road but that is not always possible. There are significant costs involved in relocating to another town or perhaps to a different part of a capital city. The relocation assistance provided for under this bill says that, should you make that sometimes difficult decision to pull up stumps and relocate for the purpose of a job, you will receive assistance from $3,000 all the way up to potentially $9,000 for a family relocating to regional area. That is another tremendous initiative.

These initiatives really show the resolve of the government in the area of jobs. As I said before, jobs are at the essence of economic management, because if you do not manage the economy well, you do not create jobs. If you manage the economy well and you create the conditions in which business can prosper, what follows? Jobs follow. Government cannot create jobs out of thin air. Government cannot create jobs through make-work schemes or through central planning, although those opposite may disagree. Jobs are created by the industry of private enterprise. They are created when people see an opportunity, often at substantial risk, and say, 'Let's go for it.' It does not always work out and there are substantial risks involved. But it is the pursuit of opportunity that creates jobs, and that is what we as a government so strongly believe in and support. It is a very significant contrast, as a matter of fact, to the approach of the previous government.

The facts on the previous government's record on employment are, of course, manifestly clear. The former government started with 4.4 per cent unemployment in 2007. Then we travel along to 2013 and unemployment had gone up by then to 5.7 per cent. Youth unemployment, when the former government came to office, was at 19.6 per cent. Six years went by and at the end of those six years youth unemployment was over 27 per cent. Imagine that increase from 20 per cent to 27 per cent in human terms. That was a very substantial increase. The total number of people unemployed under Labor increased by 200,000. We get this pious rhetoric from those opposite about jobs and about fighting for jobs and so on but, if they were so flash at fighting for jobs, you would think that might be reflected perhaps in their six years of government. If those opposite had the panacea for unemployment problems, we would see some evidence of that. That would be logical. But the evidence actually points completely in the opposite direction.

Of course, there has been much discussion in this House and in other places in recent times about manufacturing. But we need to be very clear about what happened in the manufacturing sector under Labor—the so-called champions of manufacturing jobs; the champions of government industry assistance, with the government intervening to supposedly save jobs. We know that they have claimed to have secured jobs—that is their claim—in, frankly, a misleading fashion in the past. What actually happened in manufacturing is that one in 10 jobs in the entire nation in manufacturing was lost in six years. If that rate of decline were to continue, imagine how enormous that reduction in the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector would be. It is a really quite appalling record and it is something that people need to be reminded of, because, as in all things in life, what matters is results. It does not matter so much what you say and what you might excitedly shout out across a parliamentary chamber; what matters is what you actually do—what do you deliver? It is not about flowery expressions; it is not about simply professing empathy with people in a particular situation. We all feel for people that have lost jobs. The question is: what is the best solution to create more jobs? That what it is all about.

The government has a very clear agenda to create the economic conditions in which business can create jobs. That agenda is wide-ranging. One of the really important things, though, I would say, is confidence. Confidence, of course, is a hard thing to define. People such as those at the National Australia Bank do measure it, but it is always a difficult thing to define. But confidence is critical because, if you are facing a decision in business of whether you put that extra $500,000 into a project, or whatever the amount might be, large or small, the confidence you have in the future of the economy is critical. If you are worried that the economy is facing a downturn or if you are worried that things are looking on the worse side rather than the better side, you will tend to hold back from investment. That is obviously a problem because then fewer jobs are created.

Getting confidence back in the business sector is so important, and there are so many different ways that this government is working to do that. We know we have to get rid of the carbon tax. We know it is a massive impost on more than 75,000 businesses around Australia. We know it has smashed the aviation industry, with Qantas paying more $100 million in carbon tax. We know that small businesses all around the nation are struggling under the burden. Clean Brite Dry Cleaners in Mortdale in my electorate has suffered very significant costs from the carbon tax, as has been discussed previously in this chamber. So we have to get rid of the carbon tax. It is so self-evident that you really do wonder why anyone would oppose such an obvious job-creating measure as getting rid of the carbon tax. I guess the answer is the only people that would oppose it would be someone who was foolish enough to bring it in in the first place. That is, of course, what we confront on the other side of the chamber. We have to get rid of the carbon tax, but there is so much more that we need to do as well.

Deregulation is really important. The last thing that you want to do in business is spend your time filling out forms. People in business have clients to worry about, they have product development, they have marketing and they have sales—they have all these matters on their minds every day. After finishing their day job at seven or eight o'clock at night, the last thing that we want to be imposing on small business and, indeed, large business as well is the need to fill out a whole lot of forms and go through a whole lot of administrative process when those processes do not actually add any substantive value. Of course, some regulation is appropriate, but there is a vast amount of regulation in this economy which is unnecessary, which is duplicative in nature and which simply ties people up in knots for no net benefit to the economy. Getting rid of a whole lot of regulation is critical and, obviously, the government will have a lot more to say on that in the coming days.

On environmental approvals, we had a situation where so many big environmental projects—projects requiring environmental approvals—were in logjam. They were held up and sitting there with nothing happening; there was no development and no employment because promoters of those projects did not know whether they were going to be allowed to do them or not. It is self-evident: if you do not have the approval to get on with your project, you cannot do it; if you cannot get on with your project, you do not hire people to do it. The Minister for the Environment, and the government more generally, has given environmental approvals in recent months for projects totalling more than $400 billion of investment. That is an extraordinary amount of investment. Getting these projects up and running is a fantastic way to create jobs.

Similarly, one of the parts of the economy where government can most sensibly get involved is infrastructure, because most infrastructure projects require some form of government involvement. It is great to see the very strong commitment to infrastructure projects right across the nation that we are seeing. WestConnex—and, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, you would be familiar with this project—is very important to my electorate of Banks in south-western Sydney. The duplication of the M5 East, which will be occurring as part of that WestConnex project, will save at least 20 minutes for someone travelling from Beverly Hills, in my electorate, to the city. Anyone who has sat in the M5 East tunnel for minutes or hours—or however long it might have been on that particular day—knows that this is a very, very important initiative. This is important because it goes to productivity. If you are spending less time stuck in your car, you have more time to get around, you have more time to attend your sales meeting and you have more time to get to work—and that means you get more things done. It also means you spend more time with your family, which is, of course, a very important benefit.

Infrastructure is critical, and of course the overarching thing we must have for economic confidence to get employment growing again is confidence in the administration of the economy, and that means getting the budget under control. The budget under the previous government was an absolute basket case. We know that time and time again they promised they would get the budget back to surplus. They failed to do so. Things got worse on a consistent basis. The Australian people look at that and say: 'Hang on. How can we consistently spend more money than we take in?' They know that you cannot do that. You cannot do that in a household, you cannot do that in a business and you cannot do that in government either. So getting the budget back under control will go a long way to getting confidence back in the economy. Confidence helps to build jobs, as do the provisions we discussed this evening.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to live in a nation where one can find a job, train for a job and receive assistance to secure and keep that job. Chances of finding work in this nation are probably better than virtually anywhere else in the world. Of course, we are a big, sparsely populated country, and our great challenge is mismatch—in many cases those employment opportunities are not where we reside.

But I am also aware that in this great nation we are failing. We are failing at two key points in life. We are failing the two- to five-year-old age group and we are failing those who are aged 15 to 24 who are transitioning out of school and into employment. We can do so much better, but history will record six years of Labor government where virtually nothing happened. I am not talking about superficial metrics like unemployment rates. I am talking about a Labor government that never showed the will or the heart to engage the issue of labour and workforce distribution.

I am not going to begin to attribute tonight why that could be, but it has become increasingly obvious that, if you are not a unionised workforce or a potentially unionisable workforce, it is a Labor government that does not care much about your future. I want to see a situation where this nation can recognise across both sides of the chamber that it is business that generates prosperity and creates jobs. That is a simple precept upon which all policy can be overlaid, and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 is going to face a whole lot more amendment than it will tonight over the coming years under an Abbott government.

That is for one very simple reason: our understanding and appreciation of welfare as an entitlement has changed, and the era of 'How little can I do to get the payment?' will be, must be and has been replaced by: 'What incentives are available so that I can work my hardest? I want a fair go and I want to be able to give it a fair go.' Under those simple liberal principles we do have 360,000 Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 who are receiving income replacement of various forms. Many of them are not engaged in full-time work or education. I appreciate that there is a proportion of those who have mental and other physical illnesses. I appreciate that a small number are primary care givers and fully occupied, often with closely spaced children, and that can certainly fill a day, as both my wife and I appreciate. But there is no excuse for 360,000 Australians lost in the never-never, doing nothing more than filling in a logbook in order to meet their activity requirements and basically being lost to Australia's economic engine.

Let's step back just for a moment. What are we? We are massively growing, the 12th largest economy in the world with one of the lowest populations in the OECD. There is nothing more valuable than our labour. Ask any boss and they will tell you there is nothing more important than the people they employ. So why do we have literally thousands of people in every electorate represented here with no connection to education, training or work? That is a failure of all previous governments, not just the one I am criticising tonight.

We have tried relocation bonuses before. I accept that they have been evaluated and many times come up short. A lot of it is not about the money; a lot of it is the support that comes with the money. I appreciate, when I talk with young people in my electorate, that the propensity to uproot and leave all of your support, your family and your loved ones to move to another city is just not something one can imagine would be easy to do. In fact, it can be quite frightening. If I had never been through school and graduated or never had a good training experience in my life, I think I would be petrified to move towns or cities, let alone to a regional area to take up a job I know so little about. I also acknowledge that, if taking up that job brings detriments like lack of access to public housing or the possibility of suspended payments if that job does not work out, I would be extremely frightened about making that move. The evidence shows that very few young people are prepared to take that risk despite the thousands of dollars on offer.

Tonight, in supporting the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014—and I know the opposition is showing support for the bill as well—I say that it is not about the money as much as it will be the support that is offered with that financial incentive. We have large numbers of public servants working in Centrelink and employment network providers who work very hard in the most complex of cases, helping young people connect to and remain in a job. It is so easy for us here in this chamber to be flippant about how easy that should be, but let every one of us here understand that, if you have grown up not enjoying and never completing school or you have never had a shot at a traineeship or apprenticeship, taking up a job and keeping it can be probably the greatest challenge you have faced in your life so far. Many young people, many of whom I have not had the chance to know, have had tough childhoods that I cannot even begin to appreciate. I know how hard this is for those who are working for job service agencies and Centrelink.

But we must not give up. We know from actuarial analysis in New Zealand that there is no better investment than in the long-term unemployed. If we can reconnect them with the real economy, there is no greater public investment. Let's step back for a moment. We are not here to create jobs for public servants; we are here to most efficiently connect people with a suitable job. As I stressed before, as the second or third most sparsely populated nation on earth, odds are that job will not be close. In a country like Australia, where public transport is not as good as in more densely populated countries, getting to that job will not be easy either.

With furnace-like intent we have to focus not just on the financial transaction but also on the services we can give these young people to build confidence. Part of that will be working for the dole. Part of that will be restituting and initiating some form of work-like habit among people who simply have never learnt it or witnessed it in their own family units. Australia cannot be proud of the fact that, among the OECD, we, New Zealand and the UK have the highest proportions of families who are utterly reliant on welfare. This is of enormous concern.

There is no fundamental difference between Australians and other members of the OECD except that we have a welfare system that has made it too easy to get on, and stay on, welfare for life. That nexus must be broken. It starts with job commitment bonuses and augmenting that effort are the relocation allowances for taking up a job. I do not need to reiterate today what those payments are; they have been well ventilated already in both the second reading speech and by the other speakers. I accept this will not be easy. I accept that initially, potentially, only small numbers might take up those bonuses, but I commend the coalition for proposing two or three amendments as opposed to what the opposition did when they were in government.

Firstly, there is the recognition of the additional costs faced by families having to relocate and move to a place of work. That extra $3,000 will go a long way. Secondly, I acknowledge that there are incentives for both one and for two years retention at work, with the larger payment coming after two years. That is an excellent reason to stay and to give it your all. Finally, we have the proposition that you will be paid more if you move to an area of higher unemployment or to regional Australia than coming the other way. That is perfectly sensible.

While supporting the legislation, I note that the opposition has made a big thing of the cessation, or temporary cessation, of payment for people who leave these work opportunities without a valid excuse. Of course, when we include conditions like this, the only thing the Labor opposition hears is that we are suspending a payment. They really could not care why that is occurring. But I trust Centrelink, and I trust the job service providers to work out whether a person is giving it a real shot.

In Australia, we have a fairly acute sense of whether a person is giving it a fair go or not. We have adequate Fair Work legislation which oversees that. And it may come as some surprise to the Labor opposition, but I trust employers in Australia to do the right thing. Overwhelmingly, I trust them to supervise well because they love their businesses. They will supervise, they will train, they will give the opportunities, they will wear the on-costs, and they will wear the risks of staff turnover to give a young Australian a go in an overwhelming proportion of cases. They should be liberated to do that as only a Liberal government can.

I have had enough of tolerating areas of high youth unemployment scattered around this country with just a one-size-fits-all approach. That will not be good enough in the seat of Blaxland, the seat of Port Adelaide or the seat of Gilmore—places where youth unemployment is in excess of 30 per cent. This is a national emergency. It is not enough for any government to sit back and say, 'We have a $3,000 location bonus. That's what we have done for the problem.'

I hope our government will commit to getting those figures down. I know that nobody on this side of the parliament can rest easily at night while we know that we have those double-digit unemployment rates, and we have figures in the high 20s and low 30s for youth unemployment. Between the ages of 15 and 19, the teen full-time unemployment figure that we have is in excess of 30 per cent and rising in some areas. Between 15 and 24 years—what we refer to as youth unemployment—is 13.2 per cent in Queensland, a per cent higher than the national average.

My electorate of Bowman cannot claim to be either the best or the worst. We have around average unemployment in my area, but pockets of extraordinarily high need—I have talked about the Moreton Bay islands before, and I do not need to go into detail again. These are young people separated from services, separated from opportunities, living across a watercourse and facing enormous expense just to get to the mainland, and having that trip slugged by a carbon tax only then to be told to do it twice a day if they want to hold a job, and make sure they are on time. Many of them move to the islands for the cheaper rent and many of them move there for the solace and the isolation, but connecting with the real economy is a genuine challenge. Some people want to live on islands, and I respect that choice. Seven thousand citizens in my electorate do just that. We must not rest until they have opportunities, be that green army, be it work for the dole, be it traineeships or be it assistance to get onto the mainland, connect up with work and stay there.

We have talked in depth in this chamber about the importance of young people, and I do not think we need another waxing speech about how much we care about young people without seeing some kind of material change. I do not think it is adequate that we wait 12 months to initiate some job support options for the long-term unemployed. There is no excuse to wait that long for both skills and confidence to wane. We must move that forward.

Secondly, we have to stop relying purely on public servants, in the role of managers of complex cases, in many cases where people could work but are persistent evaders. A government must take stronger action on those who do not support the system, and we must free up those who are absolutely giving their best. They deserve the support, whereas the former deserve sharper and way more immediate sanctions than currently happen. If there was a characteristic from the Labor period in office it was an unwillingness to suspend payments, and an unwillingness to take a strong- armed approach to those whom I refer to as being 'persistent evaders' of an activity requirement or genuine work.

We pay billions of dollars every year to young people who are not engaged in study, training or work—and they should be. They are not, for a variety of reasons. But I do not see why we should be paying completely unconditional cash transfers to those individuals if they are using that public money in an inappropriate way. I hope that this is the first step of a series of amendments that will see that youth allowance is more carefully targeted and is not abused. I referred to it before as 'cash for couches'. We should not have a system that makes large cash payments as an incentive for someone to leave home. Public money is there for basic essentials: protection, shelter, food, public transport, getting to work and getting employed. It is that simple transition that is not an unreasonable case to make in liberal democracy to every young person who is capable.

We should not be paying unconditional payments that are spent instead on alcohol, gambling, illicit drugs, vehicle modifications or whatever. That is not what public money is there to be spent on, no matter how people may think these public payments are an entitlement. The public will no longer tolerate that. If you want to get support from the government there is an obligation to adhere to basic and fundamental social norms in return.

In conclusion, I commend the initiation of relocation bonuses that are higher for those who move into areas of higher unemployment and regional areas and I commend the assistance that is offered to families. That is absolutely vital. I also commend the end of the Rudd era of going soft on persistent evaders. I found absolutely appalling the notion that you could wake up in the morning and decide whether you were going to turn up to work for the dole and if you did not feel like it you would be docked a day of your welfare. No, sir, that is not how the world works. There is the expectation that you will contribute to society as best you possibly can. The great challenge is that payments in many cases squeeze that out. They make it way more attractive to simply live with other people who are on income replacement and pool resources and do just enough to keep getting your payments.

I know that Centrelink and job service staff do everything they can, but they have literally millions of clients. In my electorate there are 2,000 young people disconnected from education, training and work. One of the genuinely great failures of our wonderful democracy is that we have not been able to make those connections as effectively as we could. These relocation incentives and these rewards for committing to a job are the first step. There are many more amendments to come and I will support each of those.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Christmas I was sitting at home by the television waiting to watch the Boxing Day test at the MCG in Melbourne. Australia was to play England and the crowd was pouring in. The camera was in the centre of the ground and it panned around the grandstands of the MCG. You could see in the vast grandstands that go up to the sky a wave of humanity. That day we had a world record crowd—91,000 people filled the MCG that day. While we think that is an enormous amount of people, if we filled the MCG twice it still would not be the number of people who joined the unemployment queues in the last six years of the Labor government.

We saw over the last six years the unemployment queues of this country increase by 200,000 people. So we could take the MCG ground with all those seats in the massive stands and fill it once and fill it again and still have to find space for the other 20,000 people who joined the ranks of the full-time unemployed over the last six years. That was despite the previous Labor government running up deficit after deficit. When they left they had combined deficits of over $300 billion, yet we still had this massive blow-out in unemployment. This was also during a mining boom. A boom like that had not been seen in this nation's history since the gold rush and still we had this massive increase in unemployment.

Contrast that to the previous time the coalition was in government. During the Howard and Costello years we saw the number of full-time unemployed decrease by 300,000. The policies of the previous coalition government took 300,000 full-time unemployed people and got them into full-time work. Yet, in six years of Labor we saw the exact opposite, with the queues growing by 200,000 people.

The previous coalition government were amazing. The previous coalition government allowed the economy to create all those additional jobs while at the same time paid back the $96 billion of debt they inherited, plus the $54 billion of interest payments along the way, and put another $45 billion in the bank. That was all money that came out of the economy, yet they were still able to shorten the unemployment queues by 300,000 people. In contrast, in six years of Labor we saw those queues increase by 200,000 people.

One only has to look at the states. Last weekend we had state elections in South Australia and Tasmania. They were the only two states where Labor held government. In South Australia they held government for 12 years and in Tasmania they held it for 16 years. Just perhaps by coincidence the two states where Labor still held government are the states that have the highest rates of unemployment in the country.

I believe many good people sit on the opposition benches and they would like to see the unemployment queues go down, but the problem is that their policies simply do not work. They simply do not understand job creation. It is not governments that create jobs. This is perhaps the most fundamental difference between the two sides of politics in this country. The opposition believe that it is governments that create jobs. I have heard that from speaker after speaker in this debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. We in the government understand that the job creators of this country are private small- and medium-sized businesses. It is our entrepreneurs who create the jobs in this country. Those are the people we need to encourage. We need to encourage those small business people. We need to encourage our entrepreneurs. That is the only way we are going to get our unemployment rates down.

Perhaps we saw such an increase under the previous Labor government, despite all their concerns about job creation, because they did not understand that every time they introduced more regulation, every time they introduced more red tape for small business, every time they slugged them with additional taxes, such as the carbon tax, and every time they took moves to make our banking sector further concentrated all they did was create disincentives for our entrepreneurs and our small business people to create jobs. Was it any wonder that we saw our small business sector during the previous six years decline by 400,000 people? Unless we can free the hands of our entrepreneurs and our small businesses we are going to be stuck with these high levels of unemployment.

The other mistake we have seen the previous government make is trying to protect jobs with subsidies. What we have to appreciate is that one company's subsidy is another company's tax increase. When the government steps in to tax a company to get the money to provide subsidies for another company, all they are doing is weakening the ability of those efficient and prosperous companies to create jobs. We should have learned by now, after the mistakes of the past, that central planning simply does not work. Central planning simply does not work because it does not allow for innovation, creation, experimentation, and for failure and therefore further experimentation. That is what creates jobs.

To start with, we have to look at our education system. In this nation, we need to build an entrepreneurial culture because that is the way we are going to create jobs. It all starts with our education system. Our education system should teach our kids about innovation and enterprise, but instead we have the concept of sustainability embedded across every subject of our education system. Of course, it all depends on how you define sustainability. This is how it is defined in our education system. I quote directly from the national curriculum, 'Sustainability education is futures-oriented,'—whatever that means—'focusing on protecting environments and creating a more ecologically and socially just world through informed action.' This sounds very nice, this political correctness. But this teaches low growth, social conformity and constraint. We need to teach our kids about entrepreneurship. We need to be teaching them that they can go out and they can create jobs, that they can create businesses and that they can succeed. Instead, what is taught in our schools is this negative green ideology that our resources are running out. What we need to do is inspire our kids. We need to be reminding them that the greatest resource is their own human ingenuity. That is a resource that is unlimited.

Getting onto the specifics of this bill, which I commend to the House, there are two measures that help achieve those objectives to get those unemployment numbers down and to create incentives. The first is a job commitment bonus for young Australians. This will be a new payment. It will be available to any Australian aged between 18 and 30 who has been unemployed for 12 months or more and who has been in receipt of Newstart allowance or youth allowance. If they get a job and hold that job for 12 months, they will get a $2,500 cash bonus. If they go on to hold that job for a further 12 months—that is, for two years—they get another $4,000. This is a great incentive. That is what we need to do; we need to incentivise our young people. There is a cash bonus available for them. If they can get a job, this cash bonus is available for them.

The second part of this job commitment bonus is the additional relocation assistance bonus. This helps people who might have to relocate from one part of the country to another, from a metropolitan area to a regional area or vice versa, or from one city to another city. It provides them with a relocation bonus. If a jobseeker has been on Newstart allowance, youth allowance or a parenting payment for at least 12 months and they need to relocate to take up a job, they can get a payment of up to $6,000. In addition, families with dependent children will be provided an extra $3,000 in recognition of the additional costs that can accrue for moving families.

This is just the start of the coalition's plans to get that unemployment down, to get more Australians into work. But we must remember, at the end of the day, it is not government that creates jobs. All government does is provide the landscape, the incentives and the systems. These enable private enterprise to get on, to start up new companies and new businesses, to innovate, to invest and to take risks. That is what creates jobs. We must never, ever forget that in this place. For the government to create jobs, it is taxing those companies and taking the opportunity, destroying the opportunity and weakening the opportunity for those businesses to create jobs.

We saw a great example of that recently with SPC. We heard horror stories from the opposition that, unless the government gave SPC subsidies, all these jobs would be lost. They said we should throw this company, a multinational company owned by Coca-Cola, another $25 billion of taxpayers' money to save all these jobs. We know members of the government who were espousing those thoughts were left with egg all over their faces. What actually happened was that the public saw an Australian company making a Australia produce, a good product, and they rushed to our major supermarkets and purchased those products. If we had listened to what the opposition encouraged us to do and borrowed another $25 billion to give to that company, there would not have been an incentive for the Australian consumer to go out there and support that company. This is because they would knew they would have been doing it through their taxpayers' dollars.

We also must realise the delusion that we have heard about the creation of green jobs. Our natural competitive advantage as a nation has been our low-cost electricity prices. Because we have had those low-cost electricity prices, we have been able to afford to pay workers high wages. But policies such as the carbon tax and the renewable energy scheme—where we subsidise the building of inefficient windmills and inefficient forms of electricity generation, which feed through to higher prices for business—will destroy jobs. Such policies act as a reverse tariff to make industries in Australia less competitive—that is, they shift jobs offshore. This is exactly what we have seen. When we were in opposition, we warned that, if you bring in policies which raise electricity prices, jobs will be lost and jobs will go offshore. We warned about this time after time and that is exactly what we have seen happen. During this debate, it has been good to hear comments from many in the opposition about the importance of job creation. But if they were really and truly concerned about job creation in this nation, they could do one very simple thing—they could contact their friends over in the Senate and ask them to pass the bill to repeal the carbon tax.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank those members who have spoken on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014. It demonstrates the passion in this place for helping Australians, especially young Australians, to move from the world of welfare to the world of work. The bill delivers on two of the government's election commitments to promote workforce participation—namely, the job commitment bonus and relocation assistance to take up a job.

As members have noted, these two measures provide significant financial support to job seekers. Under the job commitment bonus, young, unemployed Australians who meet the eligibility criteria can receive $2,500 if they get a job, stay in work and off income support for 12 months. Then should they stay in continuous work for another 12 months, a further $4,000 is available to them, making it a total of $6,500 if they get a job, stay in work and off income support for a total period of 24 months. This is a new payment and the coalition makes no apology for targeting this bonus to young Australians. The coalition understands how important it is for young people to get a job and keep it. It is at the start of our working lives that we learn the skills, attitudes and behaviours that employers value the most. That is why we are keen to reward those young Australians who make the effort to move from welfare to work. Being in work and drawing a wage is always better than being on the dole—both financially and emotionally.

The government also understands the importance of encouraging a flexible and responsive labour market. The relocation assistance to take up a job measure provides targeted assistance to help people move to where the jobs are located. This measure will ensure that the costs of moving do not prevent a person from taking up a job in a different area, especially for those who are moving to a regional area and those with families.

The amount of financial assistance available is up to $3,000 for those moving to a metropolitan area, up to $6,000 for those moving to a regional area and up to an additional $3,000 for those with dependant children. I welcome the opposition's support for this legislation. This is a step in the right direction to help job seekers. I just wish that they would support more of the government's reforms which will generate jobs, such as the abolition of the job-destroying carbon and mining taxes, and the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. If Labor were serious about reducing unemployment in this country, this is where they should start.

I note the amendment proposed by the member for Franklin and would like to address the misconceptions raised by those members opposite. The shadow minister has been extremely quiet since the election and has barely said a word in this House or elsewhere on employment services and support for job seekers. So I welcome the opportunity to hear the member for Franklin's contribution to this debate, however, misguided it may be.

Let me speak about the two amendments proposed. Youth unemployment: firstly, it is claimed that the government is not serious about addressing the issue of youth unemployment. I would like to remind the House that it was under Labor's watch that youth unemployment rose from 9.9 per cent to 12.7 per cent. As a result of their economic mismanagement and policy failings, an additional 55,000 young Australians were left looking for work. But it was not just youth unemployment that increased. During Labor's time in office, the overall unemployment rate went from 4.4 per cent in November 2007 to 5.7 per cent in September 2013.

Indeed, it was the former Treasurer, the member for McMahon—and who can forget the member for McMahon?—who, in August last year, delivered Labor's final economic statement where it was revealed that unemployment was projected to head towards 6.25 per cent. Yet the members opposite did nothing practical. The member for Franklin reminded the House yesterday how Labor's election plan would have created more bureaucracies and red tape but no real jobs. I have heard from Job Services Australia providers that they spend up to 50 per cent of their time on administration and red tape—that is, time that should be spent assisting job seekers, especially young jobseekers, to get a job. This is Labor's legacy to young people—higher unemployment and employment service providers mired in red tape.

The job commitment bonus, on the other hand, is a tangible and significant investment by the coalition to help young, long-term unemployed Australians make a positive change in their lives. The job commitment bonus is a real incentive to young Australians to persist with work rather than welfare. The bonus is in addition to the support already available to young job seekers through Job Services Australia, Disability Employment Services and the Remote Jobs and Communities Program. The job commitment bonus is a great kick-start for a young person wanting to move off welfare and take the opportunity to build a more positive future for themselves. The bill is evidence of our commitment to young job seekers.

As to the opposition's request for a public review into the impact of the extension of the non-payment period under the relocation assistance measure, I would like to put some facts on the table. The bill will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so that the participants who leave employment without a reasonable excuse within six months of receiving a relocation payment will incur a 26-week non-payment period before becoming eligible to receive unemployment benefits again. The increase in the non-payment period reflects the level of assistance available under the relocation assistance measure. The coalition recognises the need for a safety net and so the reasonable excuse and hardship provisions will continue to apply. However, it is only fair that those people who take up the assistance and then throw in a job without a reasonable excuse should be prevented from returning to income support immediately. To keep this in perspective, I advise the House that of the 333 participants who took up assistance under the previous Move 2 Work program only four people were subject to a nonpayment period and, due to the hardship provisions, only two were ultimately required to serve a nonpayment period. Moving house is a big decision and most people can be relied on to do the right thing. However, the coalition believes it is important that a nonpayment period in keeping with the value of the benefit and that the community would expect should apply to those few job seekers who do not do the right thing.

As part of our election commitment, we promised to increase the nonpayment period to 26 weeks. This bill is consistent with our election commitment and there are no surprises here—we are doing what we said we would do. Last September, the Australian people voted for the coalition's plan to grow a strong economy that will create jobs and opportunities for all Australians. The measures in this bill will support the long-term unemployed, particularly unemployed young people, by providing incentives to stay in a job and helping to address some of the barriers they may face when trying to find work. The bill is further evidence of the coalition delivering on its election commitment to increase workforce participation and help people move from welfare to work. I welcome the support for this bill and the positive impact it will have on the lives of many young jobseekers.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.