Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Youth unemployment is a very big issue for Australia and for young Australians. I regret to say this is particularly the case for my home state of Tasmania. According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics our unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 17.4 per cent compared with a national average of 12.2 per cent. The situation is even worse when you get into the north-west of Tasmania where in some areas the unemployment rate is as high as 21 per cent. That is one young person out of a job for every five seeking to participate in the workforce. This is a serious challenge for government as we need to ensure that our young people have a stable future and that the next generation is job ready.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill is the government's attempt to put in place incentives to assist young job seekers. The bill establishes the Job Commitment Bonus. Young Australians aged from 18 to 30 who have been receiving Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance, other than as an apprentice or a full-time student, for a period of at least 12 months will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500 if they remain in gainful work and off income support for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Recipients will also qualify for a further tax-free bonus payment of $4,000 if they remain in continuous gainful work for an additional 12 months. That is a continuous period of 24 months in total.

The bill also establishes the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program. This program provides financial assistance to long-term unemployed job seekers with participation requirements who have been receiving Newstart Allowance, or Youth Allowance, other than as apprentices of full-time students, or parenting payment for at least the preceding 12 months to relocate for the purposes of commencing ongoing employment. The program is demand driven and will provide up to $6,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a regional area, either from a metropolitan or another regional area, or up to $3,000 to support eligible job seekers who relocate to a metropolitan area, either from a regional area, or, in certain circumstances, another metropolitan area. Families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000. The non-payment periods for participants who leave their employment without good reason within six months after receiving a relocation payment will be 26 weeks under this bill rather than the 12 weeks which currently applies to relocation payments made under Labor's Move 2 Work program.

I question the government's financial impact statement accompanying this bill. The government's figures assume that the relocation program will operate as a savings measure due to job seekers remaining in employment rather than receiving unemployment benefits. There are a couple of reasons why I believe this assumption is questionable. Firstly, relocating for work does not mean that long-term unemployed job seekers are more likely to remain in employment. Secondly, Labor's Move 2 Work program, while not as generous as the government's relocation program, was similarly intended to increase workforce participation but had a very low take-up rate. While Labor will not be opposing the bill, we do have a serious concern about one of the provisions. The non-payment period for participants who leave their employment without good reason is extended to 26 weeks, up from the 12 weeks which currently applies under Labor's Move 2 Work program. We believe that 26 weeks is unduly harsh. I understand that my colleague Senator Cameron has already tabled amendments to deal with this provision which will be considered in committee. I understand that the hardship provisions, which waive the non-payment period, continue to apply. But the hardship provisions are about access to the essentials of life such as health care, housing or sanitation. What we need to consider carefully is the impact of extending a non-payment period on a job seeker's ability to find work and to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Labor would like to see the government commit to reviewing the impact of this measure on job seekers because we do not accept that a person can be job ready while receiving no income for six months.

Perhaps we should be thankful that this is not the worst to come considering the announcement in the budget last night that people under the age of 30 applying for Newstart Allowance will have to wait six months before receiving a payment. The changes to Newstart announced in the budget seem to be at odds with the Treasurer's statement in his budget speech which said, 'As Australians, we must not leave our children worse off,'—but I digress.

As I said earlier, Labor will not be opposing this bill. After all, it has some provisions which have the potential to be useful. The measures in the bill are about providing young people with incentives to look for work and to remain in work. Incentives are important, but they will not work unless there are jobs to go to and job seekers have the right skills for those jobs. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of young people are willing to work but face a number of barriers that are beyond their control. The government needs to realise that a lot more is needed to tackle the pervasive problem of youth unemployment. There needs to be a job creation agenda.

The Prime Minister promised before the election that he would create one million jobs within five years and two million over the next decade. That is an average of 200,000 jobs a year so, by now, the government should have created more than 100,000 jobs. However, the pace of jobs growth has been well short of this target. In catching up to their aspiration, the government also need to make up for the announced 60,000-odd job losses in Holden, Toyota, car parts manufacturers, Qantas, Rio Tinto and Alcoa, not to mention the job losses in the public sector resulting from last night's budget and all the flow-on effects of those losses.

Labor in government created 950,000 jobs, while 28 million jobs were lost around the world during the same period. In addition to this we saved another 200,000 jobs through our decisive action during the global financial crisis. We also put in place a $1 billion plan to support exports, grow small business and help local manufacturers win local contracts, and we investigated future export opportunities through the Asian Century white paper. By contrast, we have yet to see a plan from this government for job creation. Australians who are currently out there looking for work are rightly asking where the government's plan is.

Another element that is needed to get young people into work is education and training so that they have the skills to match the jobs available. In government, Labor focused on supporting young people to finish school and to get the training and higher education they need for well-paying jobs. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor invested over $19 billion in skills funding—a 77 per cent increase on the previous government's investment. Since 2009, the federal Labor government provided funding of $6 billion to support state and territory skills and workforce development under the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development. We also announced that all Australians would have access of up to $90,000 assistance though VET FEE-HELP and access to courses up to certificate Ill level though the National Training Entitlement. So, Labor has a proud record of investing in skills and training.

Getting young people into jobs also requires comprehensive support services, and this is an area where Labor also has a proud track record. We introduced a system which matched services to individual job seekers and prioritised resources to go to the job seekers with the greatest need. This resulted in outcomes for job seekers improving by 90 per cent. Labor initiated a further review of employment services in 2012. There was strong interest in the review with over 180 written submissions received, and 440 people from 300 organisations attended face-to-face consultations.

We announced, prior to the last election, that Labor would establish a new system, Jobs and Training Australia, which would integrate employment services and training systems for the first time and place job seekers, workers and employers at the heart of the system. The system was to be founded on seven key principles: (1) training and employment services will be integrated through a place based and demand-led model; (2) Jobs and training boards

will be established in around 42 regions across Australia to formally link employers, employment and training services, and health and community services. The boards will also ensure that services meet local needs and replace the artificial boundaries of the current employment service areas. (3) The up-front assessment of job seeker needs and employment barriers will be improved; (4) the jobs, training and apprenticeship guarantee will ensure that every job seeker gets the help they need to get back to work and that no one slips through the cracks regardless of whether they have low or high needs, or how long they have been unemployed; (5) there will be an increased focus on addressing long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, and on closing the gap in Indigenous employment; (6) incentive structures for providers will be changed to encourage sustained employment outcomes and reward investment in improving the capacity of job seekers to secure work; (7) an independent employment services regulator will manage job seeker complaints and service quality, oversee provider compliance and be responsible for reducing red tape. We are yet to see what the new government's plan is for Job Services Australia. If they are serious about tackling youth unemployment, I would strongly encourage them to take up the principles enshrined in Labor's pre-election policy.

Labor also wanted to provide a jobs, training and apprenticeship guarantee, which would ensure access to telephone and online career advice, skills appraisals, assistance with resume writing. It would be engaged with an employment service provider and start work on a return-to-work plan within two days.

So, to sum up, we are satisfied with the incentives provided in this bill, but we believe there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to tackling youth unemployment. This approach needs job creation, investment in skills and training, and investment in employment services which meet the needs of job seekers.

On that note, I commend the bill to the Senate, while highlighting the opposition's concerns about the doubling of the non-payment period.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my mother used to say, this bill is a bit like Curate's egg—in other words, there are bits that are good and bits that are bad. There are elements of this bill we support and agree with because we do think it is important to provide incentives, in particular for young job seekers. I was in here not long ago talking about how some of the budget measures the government is intending to bring in will significantly impact on young job seekers and young unemployed people. I am glad the government is recognising that we do need to be providing support to young job seekers and this is a much better way of doing it.

This bill seeks to amend two parts of social security legislation. First, it provides that job seekers aged from 18 to 30 years who have been receiving Newstart or youth allowance for at least 12 months will be eligible to receive a tax-free payment of $2,500. If they remain in employment and off income support for a continuous period of 12 months, they will receive an additional payment. That is really good and we can support that part of the legislation. Second, it provides relocation assistance for people to take up a job.

But what we have concerns about is this bill changes the non-payment period or, in effect, the punishment period if you leave employment without a reasonable excuse. In fact, there will now be a 26-week non-payment period before a person can become eligible to receive unemployment benefits. This is the same issue I was talking about in the chamber earlier today. Young job seekers who are unemployed will have to wait six months—well, six months and six weeks so, in fact, seven months and two weeks—before they are given an initial payment. They then have to work for the dole and after six months they will then receive no payments for six months. It is the same argument: how do you expect people to live for that period of time? It also depends very much on what your definition of a reasonable excuse is, and I have had several run-ins with the department in the past about what are reasonable excuses.

When young people move and take up relocation assistance, they quite often move to an area where they do not have family support or the usual supports. They can be quite disconnected from the community and that plays out quite significantly on how they adapt to their work environment. The concerns here are that on one hand we have a positive measure, on the other hand we have one that we think is over the top. ACOSS has raised concerns about the changes of definition around some of the requirements in the bill and we share their concerns. So while the ALP has moved to amend, as I understand it, the exclusion from payments provision which would then revert back to the normal 12 weeks, we would like to knock out the whole of schedule 2 because the whole of the schedule deals with both the exclusion from eligibility for unemployment benefits and extending that to the 26-week period and also some of the definitional aspects of the legislation and we have some concerns about that. It changes the emphasis around how you get penalised and we believe that is a retrograde step in this legislation. We would prefer to see those not changed.

We have circulated in the last sitting amendments to the legislation which would in fact exclude or oppose schedule 2 while supporting schedule 1, which has the sorts of supports we need for young people. We need a much more supportive approach rather than a punitive approach. A punitive approach demonises people and assumes people do not want to work. As I said earlier, classing most of them as sitting around on the couch getting easy welfare is not the way you want to encourage people into work. The way to encourage them is, firstly, to have an incentive approach. The big stick does not work when people are living in poverty; poverty becomes yet another barrier to work. There is evidence to show that but there is not evidence to show that dropping people into poverty provides an extra incentive to work. It does not; it in fact becomes another barrier. So instead of penalising people we need to take a more positive approach, which this one does. It will be interesting to see how this now lines up with some of the other mechanisms that the government is bringing in and the impact the other approach the government is bringing through the budget will have on young people and how it encourages people into work versus a much more supportive approach which helps incentivise people and does not penalise people. It is an approach that works with young people to address their training needs and addresses any other barriers they have to employment. We know that that more individualised approach does help people into employment whereas a much more draconian penalising approach does not.

But the government could not help themselves with this. They brought in a positive but the sting in the tail was schedule 2, where people are penalised for such a long period of time. We believe it is much better to leave it at the current rate. If you are living on nothing, it really is a punishment for 12 weeks rather than 26 weeks; it really is. It is extremely hard for people to manage. I know that because I have had feedback from people who have already experienced, for example, the eight-week non-eligibility period when people were penalised for no-show, for example, through the current process. Eight weeks is a long time not to get any payment, so is 12 weeks, and 26 weeks is just too much. It is six months, half a year, which in fact is what the government is doing with its new approach announced last night in the budget.

So the Greens support the first part of this bill but we do not support the second part, schedule 2. Given that the ALP is, as I understand, still moving amendments, we support their amendments but they are not as extensive as ours, so I indicate our support for the ALP half-step that we have taken but we would prefer that we strike out the whole of schedule 2 because we believe that the amendments that this schedule seeks to make are not positive amendments but take us a step backwards in terms of the definitional aspects of the bill. However, we support schedule 1.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition is proud to support policies that encourage job seekers into jobs and encourage job seekers to stay in those jobs. This bill enables two such policies: the Job Commitment Bonus and the relocation assistance to take up a job program. These policies are major initiatives of the government's broader policy commitment to encourage an increased workforce participation. We took these policies to the election and this bill will deliver on these election commitments.

I will briefly outline the Job Commitment Bonus. It is a new incentive specifically targeted to young Australians. The coalition understands the importance of getting young people into work. Getting young people into work and keeping them in work is crucial to avoiding the damage long-term unemployment can do. All the evidence shows that having a job improves not only your financial health but your emotional, physical and mental health. The Job Commitment Bonus is an incentive that encourages young people to stay in a job and keeps them away from the tragic cycle of long-term unemployment.

The Job Commitment Bonus is a new payment. There was no equivalent payment under the former Labor government. This is an innovative policy to address a very serious problem of youth unemployment. I know that in the regional electorate of Indi youth unemployment at the moment is at 17.5 per cent, so it is indeed a concern for all of us, regional and urban Australians like. This bonus rewards young Australians aged from 18 to 30 who get and keep a job and remain off welfare. Eligible young job seekers will receive $2,500 after 12 months in continuous employment and off welfare and a further $4,000 if they remain in continuous employment and off welfare for another 12 months. That is 24 months in total with a total bonus of $6,500. This is a significant investment by government to help young long-term unemployed Australians to make a positive change in their life, specifically moving away from welfare dependency to finding and keeping a job. To qualify for the bonus payment job seekers will have to meet the following criteria. Firstly, they will have to be aged 18 to 30 and have been on income support, Newstart allowance or Youth Allowance for at least the preceding 12 months. Secondly, they need to get a job and remain continuously employed for 12 months and off welfare to attract the first bonus payment of $2½ thousand and then remain continuously employed for a further 12 months whilst remaining off welfare to attract the second bonus payment of $4,000. This will be a significant incentive for young people to get off welfare and keep a job.

The relocation assistance to take up a job program is a targeted measure designed to promote workforce participation by encouraging jobseekers to move to areas where jobs are available. Many jobseekers find themselves living in areas with high levels of unemployment and far away from job opportunities. This, combined with high moving costs, causes many jobseekers to give up on taking up a job that they could ordinarily take because they are simply too far away. This program will help long-term unemployed people and assist with the costs of relocation, so that they can actually move to where the jobs are. The program will provide significant financial assistance of up to $3,000 for jobseekers to move to a metropolitan area, up to $6,000 to move to a regional area and up to an additional $3,000 for jobseekers with dependent children. It is important to note that this program will reimburse actual moving costs up to the applicable maximum amount, including some rent in advance if necessary.

Both measures contained in this bill will address long-term unemployment and demonstrate the coalition's broader agenda of increasing employment participation across the economy. The coalition firmly believes that all Australians capable of work should be working. The Job Commitment Bonus and the relocation assistance program will both encourage and reward long-term unemployed to find and keep a job. These measures form part of the coalition's plan to create a stronger economy and create two million jobs over the next decade and will particularly help young Australians and the long-term unemployed move from welfare to work.

Why are we choosing to introduce these measures? The Job Commitment Bonus addresses the problem of youth unemployment. We understand, as I said earlier, the importance of getting young people into work. It is a targeted measure designed to promote workforce participation. As we have seen in the economy in recent years, particularly when we look at regional areas, there have been significant job opportunities created, particularly in Western Australia and areas of western New South Wales and Queensland, particularly in the mining industry. Many young people have taken advantage of those opportunities and have taken the skills that they have learnt at TAFE or, indeed, on the farm—particularly around mechanical skills—to these regional areas and participated in very lucrative job opportunities in working within the mining and construction industry. So it is possible to move from family and friends. Whilst it is heart wrenching and hard to move away from your community, to ensure your own financial stability and future and the economic sustainability of family if you have dependants these are the decisions that you may have to make.

When we look at high-income earners, we see that they tend to be a lot more mobile as a workforce and are quite willing, able and ready to move to where the next best job opportunity is for them in their particular career area. This is not the case for those who have been on welfare or are from low-income families. This type of targeted measure is one way the coalition government is seeking to provide additional assistance to those most vulnerable in our communities to ensure that they can have additional assistance to make those difficult decisions to move from friends and family and from their communities to where potential job opportunities may be available elsewhere in our national economy and, by doing so, provide financial stability for themselves going forward. I know that those opposite may struggle to accept that it is an acceptable measure for young people to actually incentivise them moving away from home.

Debate interrupted.