Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. The measures in this bill continue the Abbott government's attack on young Australians by seeking to introduce a one-month wait period for Newstart allowance. This bill seeks to give young job seekers under 25 nothing to live on for a month. It represents, yet again, an abandonment of young Australians by this Liberal government, and it reflects the continued unfairness at the heart of this government. It makes clear that this budget is just as unfair as the last.

Labor will oppose this latest cut to young Australians, just as we opposed last year's attempt to leave young job seekers with nothing to live on for six months. Whether it is one month or six, Labor will not support a measure which pushes young people into poverty and hardship. Leaving young job seekers with nothing to live on for a month is cruel, unfair and unjustified. What does this government honestly expect these young people to live on for a month? How will they buy food to eat? How will they pay their rent? How will they pay their train fares?

All of our citizens should be afforded a basic standard of living, no matter how old they are. It is a fundamental pillar of the social contract in Australia. Australians do not want to live in a country that abandons young people who have fallen on hard times. Labor knows young people want to work. They want to be able to find work. They do not want to be on welfare. They want to take responsibility for their lives. Young people want to be independent. They want the self-respect that a job can give—to know that they are making a contribution to our society. If we cut this money from young job seekers, we rob them of the ability to look for work. We rob them of the opportunity for self-respect. Young job seekers will be too busy trying to work out how on earth they will live and how they will pay their rent and eat, not how they will look for work opportunities.

The Minister for Social Services cannot say how this cruel cut will help young people find a job. Over the last 12 months, the Abbott government have argued unsuccessfully that a six-month wait period for unemployment benefits is essential. That is what they told us last year. They had no evidence that this would help young people, whether it is one month or six months. What evidence do the government point to to put this proposal forward?

According to the former Minister for Social Services, New Zealand has a one-month wait period. The former minister basically argued for much of last year that if it was good for New Zealand then it must be good for Australia. Of course, we found out that it simply was not true. New Zealand does not have a mandatory one-month waiting period, and it never did. The former minister just made it up. He made it up because there is no evidence that making young people wait for Newstart will help them get work. It was nothing more than a cynical attempt by this government to try to con the Australian people into accepting its harsh plan to leave young job seekers with nothing to live on for six months.

And the current Minister for Social Services is no better. He prefers to demonise and belittle young Australians, to create the outrageous fiction that somehow welfare is a 'career choice', to use his words—as if young Australians desperate for work around the country would rather be on Newstart than have a job; as if the young Australians attending job interview after job interview, only to be told they are unsuccessful, need the added stigma of being labelled a dole bludger by this Minister for Social Services! The measures in this bill reek of the divisive politics that are the hallmark of this government, and Labor will not have a bar of it.

But it is not just Labor that thinks this measure is cruel and unfair. Most major welfare organisations across the country have condemned the policy. The National Welfare Rights Network said the one-month wait period:

… will place young people in severe financial hardship, leaving them without food, medicines, money for job search and rent. No income means no income — whether it's for six months or four weeks. There is no place in our social security system for such a harmful approach. The Parliament should reject this plan outright.

John Falzon, CEO of St Vincent de Paul, said:

This change is a clear admission of the cruelty of this measure without actually abandoning it.

ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, said:

The Government now proposes to reduce the six month wait for unemployment payments for young people to one month, yet neither policy has been justified, especially at a time when unemployment is rising.

This last point is particularly important. The government's own budget papers forecast unemployment to peak at 6½ per cent. This just shows how harsh and unfair this measure is and how bad it will be for the economy.

On top of that, we know youth unemployment is around double the national average—the highest in a decade. In some parts of Australia, one in five young people cannot find a job. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the number of young people facing long-term unemployment in Australia has tripled since the global financial crisis. In 2008 there were 19,500 long-term unemployed young people aged 15 to 24 in Australia, compared to 56,800 in 2014. Kate Carnell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:

… unless the youth unemployment issue is addressed—and it will need to be addressed quite aggressively … we will end up with a generation of young people on the fringes of the economy.

But this Liberal government has no plan for jobs and no plan to deal with the youth unemployment crisis. Its preferred approach is to demonise and belittle young job seekers who would love nothing more than to get a job and to get ahead in life.

This bill also seeks to change the eligibility age for Newstart, pushing job seekers who are between the ages of 22 and 24 onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut of around $48 a week—$48 a week this government wants to take off these young people, around $2,500 a year, a very significant amount of money for a young person. Labor will oppose this measure, as we have done for the last year, because it is wrong. We will oppose the pauses to indexation changes of income free areas. These changes too will hurt the most vulnerable people on income support payments, and over time these changes will only hurt these vulnerable people more. We will also oppose the measures in the bill that apply a one-week waiting period to all working age payments. This is nothing but a shameful cut by the government that will leave people on income support with nothing for a week.

There is one measure in this bill that we will not oppose. We are prepared to make sensible decisions when they are not fundamentally unfair. In fact, following last year's budget, Labor agreed to around $20 billion in savings. In this year's budget, Labor so far has announced support for more than $2 billion in savings. This shows that we are prepared to be fiscally responsible while making sure that we support those who are most in need. We understand just how important it is to be both responsible and socially just. Labor will support the ceasing of the low income supplement in this bill. We call on the government to split the bill when it gets to the Senate, separating out the low-income supplement measure so this can be agreed. If the government is not willing to split the bill, Labor will oppose it in its entirety.

This Liberal government is knowingly pushing young people into poverty as a result of these measures. We will always do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable Australians. At a time when we see the US President, Barack Obama, talking about poverty and inequality being the 'core challenge of our time', this Australian Liberal government is attacking the most vulnerable people in this legislation, with cruel and unfair cuts that will diminish the living standards of young people, drive our young Australians into poverty and tear up the social contract that has served this country so well for so long. Labor will continue to oppose measures that push young people into poverty. We will stand up for these young people by opposing these cruel and unfair cuts, just as we did the six-month wait for Newstart.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015, as I am passionately and absolutely committed to ensuring that our young people have every opportunity to obtain work and invest in the future. The government wants people to have jobs. It is having a job and earning an income that provides young people with opportunities. It is about setting them up for a future where they have a strong foundation and where they can make choices. We believe in the young people of this nation, and we believe that they indeed are our future. With this year's budget, we have announced many measures that will assist businesses, the backbone of our economy. As businesses grow and flourish, in turn creating jobs and employment, opportunities will be created not only for our young people but for the broader community.

I have spoken several times in recent weeks in this House on some of the measures that this government has announced in the budget in order to perpetuate positive change. It is unfortunate that those opposite do not have youth unemployment high on their radar, as evidenced by the failure of the opposition leader, during his recent budget reply, to mention any strategies of any significance for 18- to 25-year-olds. In fact, Labor to date are only committing $21 million towards tackling this issue—startling news when you hear the opposition employment and workplace relations spokesman, Brendan O'Connor, criticising this government in relation to youth unemployment.

As a mother of two young adults, I understand and have observed the challenges that our young people face as they seek work. It is vital that young people are encouraged to make every effort to look for work and maximise their chances of finding a job. A job provides the foundation and security that facilitate a young person's capacity to plan for their future.

The purpose of unemployment benefits is to provide a safety net, so those who require the safety net are able to look for work. As of 1 July 2016 young people under the age of 25 who are the most job ready and who apply for Newstart, youth allowance or special benefit will serve a four-week waiting period before becoming eligible for payment—that is, those who live in an area with good employment opportunities, have reasonable language, literacy and numeracy skills and have recent work experience. This government has heard the concerns in the community and has now reduced the original recommended six-month waiting period to four weeks.

What is important about this measure is that we are saying that the first choice, the first opportunity, for a young person is to find work and an unemployment benefit is a safety net for those who may not be able to find work quickly and easily. 'Work is not a curse or labour a misfortune'—those are the words of Kahlil Gibran. The ability to work and earn an income is a foundation for future prosperity. This measure should not be seen as a negative or as some form of reprimand. Negativity is produced when people, or in this case young people, are not given the chance or the assistance that they require to seek opportunities. They will experience fulfilment by using their abilities, talents, aspirations, dreams and attributes to contribute to their community and this great nation whilst earning money that will give them so many choices. Our young people indeed have talents. They have abilities, skills and creativity that are potential assets to any employer.

During the first four weeks young job seekers will be meeting with the newly announced jobactive provider, agreeing to a job plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a job seeker profile on the job seeker website and providing evidence of satisfactory job searches with up to 20 job applications. Jobactive is the new employment service recently announced by this government. It will improve services for job seekers and employers focusing on results. These early measures will ensure young job seekers are provided with the skills and the assistance that they require to enable them to step into the job market.

This government recognises that there may be hardships, barriers and challenges so it has made available $8.1 million in emergency relief funding to provide assistance to job seekers affected by the measure who may be experiencing hardship. Other exemptions include students, in recognition of the importance that education and training play in assisting future employment. Young people who return to full-time study, whether it be vocational or university study, will be able to apply for more suitable assistance, such as youth allowance. Education and learning new skills or enhancing existing skills play an important role for job seekers in becoming more sought after by future employers. Ben Franklin stated that 'an investment in knowledge always pays the best interest'.

Additionally, this government understands that there are young job seekers who have been assessed as having significant barriers to finding a job. They will, therefore, not be required to serve the four-week waiting period. This will include stream B and C jobactive clients. A barrier could be, for example, an undiagnosed or unmanaged illness. Another important exemption to the four-week waiting period will also occur if someone has served a four-week waiting period in the recent six months. Exemptions will also be available for those with a disability or an activity test exemption. These exemptions ensure that, while job seekers are given opportunities and encouraged to work when they can, those who face challenges will be supported. There is also ministerial discretion to draft new exemptions as may be required.

This government will not abandon our young job seekers. In contrast to Labor's paltry $21 million commitment, we aim to assist youth through the government's $331 million employment strategy by providing $18.3 million for additional work experience places to provide job places. Most young people will say to you when asked about finding a job that they are continually asked about their experience, but they have no experience and they need experience. A young constituent in the electorate of Macquarie, who resigned from her position on the Monday, told me that she handed out her resume locally on the Tuesday and Wednesday, received six interviews on the Thursday and Friday and started in a new position the following Saturday. She explained that that was purely because she had five years industry experience in hospitality. Of course this will not be the case for many, but providing valuable work experience for up to 25 hours per week for four weeks will provide young job seekers the advantage they need to at least get a foot in the door and connect with an employer.

One hundred and six million for new pilot programs to test innovative approaches is also part of the government's package, with $55.2 million to run intensive support trials for vulnerable job seekers and $19.4 million to provide support for youth with mental health conditions. According to Beyond Blue, sadly, currently 26.4 per cent of Australians between the ages for 16 and 24 have experienced a mental health disorder in the last 12 months. There will also be $22.1 million available for vulnerable young migrants and refugees, and $8.9 million to continue to support parents for employment. These trials will focus on the most disadvantaged and help them to prepare for work, to stay in work when they find it and also to experience opportunities. A new $212 million Youth Transition to Work program will assist young people who have disengaged from work and study and are at risk of long-term welfare dependency by providing services such as mentoring, coaching, communication skills and teamwork skills. Additionally there will be $14 million for early school leavers, which will help them to improve educational outcomes by ensuring they are either working or studying. Only the coalition government has a fully funded plan to help grow the economy and create more jobs, and only a coalition government will commit to and invest in our future generations by investing in our young job seekers, giving them the opportunity to find and keep a job and opening the door to future possibilities.

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

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the member for Gorton's contribution, I have no doubt at all that he is as passionate as any other person in this place about seeing the unacceptable level of 13 per cent youth unemployment end in this country. Indeed it is not easy, and in the six years of the previous government the challenges were there as well, and this government is trying a range of measures.

It was interesting, when I elected to speak on this bill, to start looking through the safety nets to see all the considerations and all the exemptions to the four-week waiting period before there is eligibility for Newstart for those people under the age of 25. When you take into account all of those exemptions, the areas of disadvantage and the preconditions for being required to wait that month, really there are so many exemptions that it means the number of people who will be subject to this measure will be a modest number. Even if you look at the broad number of 13 per cent across the country, it does imply that the majority of people are getting on with their life like young people all around the country are getting on.

I think we are actually doing a disservice as much as anything else to the young people of our country, who in the main get on with life—whether they take up study or take up the sometimes difficult search for employment for the first time. But part of the reason why this four-week period is considered important is that it does provide an incentive, and it is a clear message.

The member for Gorton spoke at length about the concept of mutual obligation, and I think we all understand and appreciate that there is fundamentally in our welfare system a mutual obligation piece. But we must also provide the incentive for young people to see that it is just simply unacceptable to finish school and go straight onto Newstart, and get them to see there is a range of things that they might consider. For example, some of the exemptions include their access to Youth Allowance if they are going to take up study. The vast majority of young people do get on, and whilst 13 per cent is absolutely unacceptable, the vast majority of young people that get on with doing what they do.

There is a range of commitments that the government has made in terms of investments. One that I am particularly interested in work experience provision, where $18.3 million has been invested by the government to encourage young people to take up opportunities that already exist under the law as they stand today. In fact, there is potential there for three 28-day placements under work experience. I do not like the analogy of 'try before you buy', but it is a reality, particularly for small businesses. It is an absolute reality that putting on that first employee, and even to put on a second or a third, is a hurdle for a small business. To get somebody right for the job is critically important to employers, and, at the end of the day, it is to the benefit of the employees as well.

I am particularly interested in this area and I think it is something that we perhaps overlook sometimes. There is opportunity for young people if they have got a particular interest, whether it be in a mechanical trade, a printing area or working as a lawyer's clerk, or whatever it might be. If we are able to get young people who are looking for work into those placements, give them the opportunity to show what they are capable of and to show the employer that they are worthwhile and worth a job offer, the likelihood will be that there will be a higher proportion of employers that will give them that opportunity—and goodness knows, that is what we want to see.

There are challenges of course for young people at the moment, and particularly I think of areas in my electorate in the south-east, in and around Sorell and the Tasman Peninsula. There, that 13.1 per cent youth unemployment figure is actually a dream. I know in other parts of my electorate, on the north-west coast—and the member for Braddon would agree—there are enormous challenges, where the youth unemployment rate is well above the figure that is quoted there as an average, and it does not always give a clear indication of the difficulties that young people have in finding opportunities. But I think using that work experience model gives employers the chance to show those young people who show some initiative, who want to get into that work experience position in an area where they have interests and some passion, what they can do. It is something that we often underestimate.

There are safety nets, as I mentioned, in this bill. This measure will only apply to people that are job ready. Effectively, that means somebody who lives in an area with good employment opportunities, has reasonable language, literacy and numeracy skills and has had recent work experience. With the whole range of safety nets in place, the obligations that we expect those young people to meet during the first four weeks are: meeting with a Job Active provider, agreeing to a job plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a job seeker profile on the Jobsearch website and providing evidence of satisfactory job searches with up to 20 job applications during the four-week period. I am not a hard person, but I do not think they are unreasonable expectations of young people. As I say, we have safety nets and many people are not obliged to participate in that four weeks, such as all those people who will be taking on study, so I do not think they are unreasonable expectations to have of anybody. Also, 6.5 million young people under the age of 25 live at home with either one or both parents, so there is that support network. I do not have any big cities in my patch, but the cost of living for some of these people in these big cities can be a factor. It is a conversation as a nation that we are having at the moment, about the cost of living particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. But the family network is there as a support mechanism for, as I say, 6.5 million young people under the age of 25.

Further, as part of these measures we have made $8.1 million available in emergency relief funding to provide assistance to job seekers affected by the measure and for those who may be experiencing hardship. This funding will be available through emergency relief providers. The measure encourages young people to make every effort to look for work and maximise their chance of finding a job. That is all we are asking here—and, with the criteria I mentioned before and the exemptions, this is not unreasonable. Students will not be subject to the four-week waiting period. Further, in recognition of the importance of education and training in preventing future unemployment, young people who return to school or take up full-time vocational education or university study will be able to seek more suitable payments for their circumstances such as Youth Allowance for students and therefore would not be subject to the four-week waiting period.

On Friday last week I had the pleasure in Bridgewater, in the south of my electorate, of going along to meet with Adam Bone, who owns a business called the Tasmanian Cask Company. They import wine casks, sherry casks and port casks from all around the world. They come in deconstructed, and they are cleaned and used for the growing number of whisky distillers that populate the state of Tasmania. It was a real pleasure to meet Adam on Friday. The highlight for me was Trevor Percy, who had attracted one of the Tasmanian Jobs Program incentive payments to Adam, his employer. To be brutally honest, Trevor was the right man for the job. Adam would not have hesitated, I do not think, with or without the job incentive payment. I do not think Adam would have gone past Trevor because he clearly was the right man for the job. It was fantastic. I also met with Pat Kluver from Workskills in Bridgewater. As it happens, the Workskills office is right next door to the Tasmanian Cask Company in Hurst Street, Bridgewater. It was a particular pleasure to speak to four or five people employed in Adam's business, and particularly to speak to Trevor. He lost his job about 12 months ago, and during that time he had a marriage break-up. He has children, but he is a man who knows the value of work. He has worked all his life and he has had a tough trot in the last 12 months. It was fantastic to listen to him and to hear how pleased he was to again be back in the workforce.

This will be a fantastic opportunity—it is a great business; it will be a growing business. Adam is doing a fantastic job. There are other young people there—I met Jarrod, as well. It is a fantastic place to work, and I do not think they are going to be able to keep up with the demand that is growing around the Tasmanian whisky industry. The member for Gorton also talked a little bit about not just those people in the youth area but also those more mature job seekers. Trevor was one such more mature job seeker. Had he been 50 years of age—he was not—and unemployed for 12 months he would have been able to access the Restart program, which is part of this government's substantial investment in the Jobs and Small Business package, which has been so broadly welcomed right across the country, particularly with the focus the budget has had on small business. The Restart program of course, combined with the Tasmanian Jobs Program, would allow an employer to access up to $16½ thousand to employ somebody over the age of 50 who had been unemployed for 12 months.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, members interjecting across the table!

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I do appreciate that.

It is a generous incentive. One of the roles I think we have as parliamentarians is to make employers, as much as employees, aware of these programs. As I say, if the right person walks through the door, it is not going to be that job incentive money that is going to make the decision, and no employer in his right mind would choose the fellow that was not right for the job with the job incentive over somebody who was right for the job without the job incentive; nevertheless, it is a substantial incentive for employers to contemplate—the $16½ thousand for a Restart person over the age of 50.

As I say, this is a balanced measure. We listened, and we have made changes.

I think most Australians would understand that, particularly for young people, this is a critical area. We do want to see more young people in the workforce. They are our future. And this government is absolutely committed to supporting young people to either get into study or do the very best that they can, within the context of mutual obligation, to find work. At the same time, with the incentives that we have put in there for small businesses, and with other measures within the budget this year, there is the support there for employers to look again and consider putting on another employee, and that is what we want to see.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to bring the House to outrage at five to nine at night, but this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015, really does continue in the long list of acts of policy bastardry that I have seen in this place towards young people by this government. Where they started from was: cutting young people off unemployment benefits for six months—six months! They made that outrageous bit of policy—that outrageous bit of policy bastardry—and now they wheel in here and they say, 'Oh, we listened and we learned, and now it is just down to a month.'

Like everybody, I can cast my mind back to 1989 when I left school, when I was a young person, and I went out there to the job market. I was thinking about this as I sat there and listened to those opposite, and I thought about just how tough it was to leave school at that time in South Australia. It was a very tough labour market.

If you look at the Brotherhood of St Laurence's youth unemployment snapshot of 2014, they go back that far—they have got all the figures from that point. And they are not that different from today, particularly in northern Adelaide, and particularly in places like where I grew up at Kapunda.

I worked at a heap of jobs. I worked at the Gawler racecourse. I worked at the Kapunda trotting track. I picked fruit—grapes, apricots and peaches—up in the Riverland. The member for Riverina, who is at the table, would like that. I worked on farms. I was a cleaner. I was a trolley collector. I was the world's worst industrial hose salesman. I did all these jobs. I was in and out of work the whole time. And I just remember how precarious it actually was. It was really precarious. And I am grateful that I never had to go on unemployment benefits in that whole time, but it was nice knowing it was there and I had many friends who did have to rely on it. So when I think back to those times, I think about just how tough it was.

Unemployment, particularly high youth unemployment, does not just affect the individual. It affects their friends and their families. It affects other workers. When I was a union official in the early nineties in South Australia, I saw workers who would put up with all sorts of abuses from their employers—sometimes just their line managers—in supermarkets and retail stores because they were so scared about being made unemployed. When I later went and worked in Darwin it was completely different because unemployment up there was so low that workers had a particularly different attitude. So high unemployment is a bitter thing to inflict on a community. And it affects everybody—particularly working class communities.

Now the government rolls in here and starts talking about young people and about getting the balance right, when they are not going to give young people any income for four weeks. So, as you can imagine, if you are in and out of precarious employment—and employment has only got more precarious in the last 25 years—and then they talk about extending the youth allowance from 22 to 24, saving them some money but hacking 2½ grand a year out of a young person's income, potentially—$48 a week—this makes all the difference. These are acts of absolute policy bastardry.

If you look at the statistics from my area, in Adelaide's north, from the Skills for All website, and you look at the 2015 figures, they are 8.3 per cent for total unemployment and 17.9 per cent for youth unemployment in Adelaide's north, and of course in the Barossa-Yorke-Mid North area they are 6.8 per cent and 15.8 per cent. So these figures are still very high. We know that that is so, no matter how hard many young people look for work. And the experience of many is to just send out their resume over and over again. With many employers, you cannot just rock up at the door and impress someone because what they will tell you is to go and apply through the internet, because everything is put through HR systems, or to go to the local employment agency. So, as to the days when you might have been able to rock up and hawk your resume around and impress someone by knocking on doors, that avenue is being closed to young people.

What we have here is a system where a lot of the jobs are being removed from the system—a lot of the entry-level jobs are being removed. A lot of the demands for people to be trained and work-ready are going up, not down—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker! I thought the member for Solomon was going to make a speech when she stood up just then!

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have a few seconds left to finish yours!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few seconds to go—I was holding the House in suspense! It is very difficult—

Debate interrupted.