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

I rise to continue my contribution on this particular bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Just to recap, I remind the Senate that the Greens are strongly opposed to this legislation. We think it demonises and seeks to punish young people who have been unable to find work, when we know that the youth unemployment rate is at its highest level it has been for a long period, probably around 13 years, and that young people do want to find work.

In fact, the government yesterday released outlines of their Transition to Work Program that seeks to help young people find work. At the same time as saying they want to put resources into helping people find work and actually try to address some of the damage that they did by getting rid of Youth Connections—they have not fully amended that damage but at least they are taking some steps in the right direction—they have this measure in place. It is counterproductive because poverty, having no income support, no means of visible support, means that young people are in fact going to face another barrier to finding work.

We know from the evidence that poverty is a barrier to finding work. Living on thin air for five weeks—because this four-week waiting period is on top of the current ordinary waiting period of one week—living on nothing will be another barrier to young people finding work.

There are also other measures in this bill that I will go to in a moment because, when I am talking about the ordinary waiting periods, the government is attempting to apply those in what are inappropriate places. We strongly disagree with this measure because there is no evidence from overseas— we found that during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and I went through this in my previous contribution—to show that this type of measure works. The Department of Social Services admitted that, in response to my questions during the committee inquiry. It does not work; there is no evidence. Therefore, you have to go to this ideological approach by the government, which is in line with the comments that the Prime Minister and other coalition members have made around young people being couch surfers, bludgers and some unwilling to work. That is certainly not my experience. My experience is that young people in fact do want to work. They need support and some training and assistance to find work. But when you have upwards of sometimes 1,000 young people applying for one job you know that there are issues here. This is an issue around trying to actually find jobs for young people.

I would like to go to some of the evidence that we received in the committee inquiry where Mission Australia described in detail the impacts that this proposal could have by making young people wait five weeks for income support. This is how Mission Australia described to the Senate committee some of the potential impacts:

Suppose that you are a young person and you have got work. You have felt reasonably confident, so you have got rental of some sort or you are sharing a house with someone; you are paying rent or you have your own tenancy. Then you lose your job. In that situation you are only one or two weeks pay away from disaster. And if you have to wait five weeks to get benefits then that is when there is a real risk of falling into homelessness if you do not have the back-up support of your family or somewhere else to go and stay. That is the same for the adult population but in this case we are talking about also reducing the Newstart Allowance down to the Youth Allowance (other) level—

and I will break out of the quote to say that of course that is less—

so they are already getting a reduction in payment. That is where the risk comes in.

Submitters to the inquiry also pointed out that by providing emergency relief funding to help those affected by this program the government is demonstrating quite clearly that it understands that the policy will lead to significant financial hardship. The government is so certain of this that it has signalled to service providers that around $8.1 million in additional funding will be available to emergency relief providers to provide assistance for those impacted by this measure. What the government is saying to young people is this: 'You're expected to live on nothing. We know we're going to hurt you. You go round to emergency relief providers and try to find some sort of relief or food or a little bit of financial support if you have to pay your rent.' We know that usually those providers cannot afford to do that; they usually provide emergency relief in the form of food relief. This is unbelievable; this is ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff thinking. Rather than helping people when they are still relatively hopeful and are still close to education or employment, this government is saying, 'No, we're going to abandon you for five weeks.'

The government is not correct in its claims that this measure is what is being used in New Zealand. The Department of Social Services do not have evidence from other countries, as I have just pointed out, despite the fact that they tried to quote, and the minister has made references to, what is happening in New Zealand. I have checked what happens in New Zealand, and I have confirmed that in fact 20 days is the exception. As I pointed out in my last contribution, even if you do end up serving the 20 days in New Zealand, you do get back pay, which the government is not proposing to do here. It is more likely that they will do five working days; that is the approach that they ordinarily take. That is what we do already. We already have the ordinary waiting period, and New Zealand does five days. My understanding of what they do in New Zealand is that they also apply the rules compassionately.

The government say they are going to do this compassionately, that it is only going to affect 70,000 to 80,000 people. They say, 'We've created all of these exemptions.' Seventy thousand to 80,000 young people is a large bulk of our youth. It is a large number of people that we are talking about. This sort of measure will have not only short-term impacts on their ability to gain work but it will also potentially have long-term impacts on their futures. The standard period in New Zealand, if I understand it correctly, can be one week and then up to two weeks, but as I understand it—and I have double-checked this—20 days in New Zealand is clearly the exception, so the government simply cannot use New Zealand as an example. If you are going to use New Zealand as an example, how about looking at the other forms of support that they have been addressing there? They also—get this—increased their income support payments, something that a number of us have been campaigning on in Australia for years! If this government are so intent on copying New Zealand, then how about, if they are serious about helping people, recognising the inadequacy of the Newstart payment and the youth allowance payment? Report after report has found that if people are on Newstart they are living in poverty, so why not also copy the income support payments measure? Notice they have not done that.

They also have not brought in their social investment framework, which is also what New Zealand has done. So New Zealand has brought in a comprehensive package. Our government have not done that; they have brought in a 'let's punish young people and make them live on thin air for five weeks at a time' package. It simply does not work. It is not going to work; it is going to punish people. That is really clear, and it is sending a really bad message to our future workforce. This is our future workforce we are talking about. It is our future workforce, and right from the beginning we are saying to them, 'We are going to take a punishing, demonising approach to you and provide another barrier for your finding work.'

Young Opportunities Australia told the committee:

Youth unemployment is at a 13-year high in Australia. Failure to acknowledge the complex and varied reasons for this fundamentally distorts the policy debate towards an individualised view of unemployment, rather than one that considers the broader social and structural reasons, such as job shortages, skills mismatch, over-qualification, increased levels of competition, geographic and socioeconomic inequity, employer prejudices and inexperience … Fifteen per cent of Australian graduates are working in jobs for which they are over-skilled within three years of graduating and 25 per cent are not using their university degrees in their employment at all, which represents 790 million hours or $15.6 billion in lost economic productivity to Australia. It is in this light that any policy addressing the youth unemployment problem must be viewed.

This policy is clearly counterproductive, as are the measures to change the age requirement for various Commonwealth payments. In fact, it will make young people exist on youth allowance for even longer, and youth allowance is even lower than the inadequate Newstart. We are also concerned about the removal of the low-income supplement, given that this is vital money that tops up people who are living in poverty.

While the government claim there will be a few exemptions to the income support waiting period, they are making women who may be subject to domestic violence wait longer for access to income support payments. They say, 'It's okay, there's four weeks if someone has been subject to domestic violence in the last four weeks.' We know from the evidence that sometimes it takes family members and women longer than four weeks to make the break, to find the necessary resources and take the necessary steps to make that break and to leave a situation where there is family violence. These are very complex issues that we are dealing with when we are talking about family and domestic violence, and to not acknowledge that in our approach to the way we provide income support is a massive failure and a flawed approach by this government. Then, of course, we have the government cutting indexation on payments that are already too low. What that means for people who are already living on substandard, inadequate payments that are forcing them to live below the poverty line—as the government does not index these payments—is that they fall even further behind. If the thresholds are not indexed, people slip further and further behind the cost of living and into poverty.

But the overwhelming measure here is this measure to force young people to live on nothing for five weeks. It is a flawed approach. It is counterproductive to the government's own initiative that they announced yesterday. We will be strongly opposing this measure. We will strongly oppose any measure the government bowl up that makes the lives of people trying to find work even harder. If they bring up another waiting period, we will again vote no to it. The government's punitive approach to those on income support is counterproductive and they need to rethink this approach.

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

Here we go again—groundhog day. It is another day of the Abbott government wanting to punish young job seekers because they need a scapegoat for their failure to create jobs. First it was the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill, then the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill; now it is the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill.

The Abbott government are very good at naming their bills in such a way as to shift the blame to young job seekers for their own situation. Implicit in all of these bills' titles is that Australia's young job seekers are entirely the masters of their own destiny—that if they cannot get a job then they are not trying hard enough. According to the government's rhetoric, what we need is stronger compliance and stronger penalties to make sure they try harder. But what the Abbott government fail to appreciate is that young people are trying hard. They are trying hard at a time when they have the odds stacked against them. What they need is opportunities for education and training, yet the government have made massive cuts to university funding and are pursuing a deregulation agenda that will put a university degree out of reach of the average family, let alone the thousands of apprenticeships and traineeships that they have cut. The Abbott government have also cut $1 billion from apprenticeships and traineeships.

What young job seekers also need—and I guess it will be no surprise for those opposite to hear this—is jobs. Yet, under this government's watch, the number of unemployed in Australia has jumped above 800,000 for the first time in 22 years. That is more than 800,000 unemployed job seekers looking for what I understand at any given time is around 150,000 vacancies. This is particularly concerning to me, as a senator from the state with some of the areas of the highest youth unemployment in the country. But it is in response to this fact that we get nonsensical statements from the Minister for Employment, who once said, 'When jobs are sparse, it means that you've got to apply for more jobs to get a job.' Thank you for that insight from Senator Abetz! Perhaps they should just follow the Treasurer's advice and 'get a good job that pays good money'. It is statements like these that highlight how out of touch this government is when it comes to understanding the challenges that face the unemployed, particularly those young job seekers.

This government, which promised to create one million jobs within five years of coming to power, does not have a plan for jobs after two years in power. So, faced with no plan and an embarrassing track record on jobs, the government resorts to its old style—that of blaming other people. After all, it has been in power for two years, so it is a bit late to keep blaming those of us on this side. The only means left to deflect the blame from itself is to point the finger at job seekers for their failure to get a job. It does not matter that there are not enough jobs out there. Never mind the fact that Australia's Treasurer practically dared the automotive industry to leave Australia. Never mind that this government put thousands of renewable energy jobs at risk through its attacks on the renewable energy target that saw investment fall by almost 90 per cent. Never mind that the Abbott government broke its promise to have our Navy's submarine fleet built by Australians in Australia. Never mind that the government has cut billions from education and training, one of the key supports for job seekers to gain the skills they need to get a secure job. Never mind that it has taken two years for the government to belatedly explain the fate of the $16 million grant originally promised to create jobs in Cadburys in Hobart. We will still wait to see when the money actually comes through—even though it has been repromised for other things.

This government would have you believe that the failure of unemployed young people to secure a job is all the fault of those job seekers. If the government wants to deny that this is its motive, it only need to look at the submission of the Australian Council of Social Service, in a recent Senate inquiry, who said of the four-week waiting period for income support:

This proposal shifts the risk of financial hardship arising from unemployment from government to the individuals affected, implying that they are personally at fault for an economic policy problem governments have struggled to fix.

What a damning indictment of the motives of this government, from an organisation which represents the entire welfare sector throughout Australia.

The whole idea of this bill, and a number of other punitive bills the government has introduced into this place, is based on the false premise that somehow job seekers need more incentive and more motivation to seek work. I have some news for those opposite. The vast majority of young people are motivated. They want to work and they are trying hard to seek work. They need more support, more opportunities for training and education and, basically, more opportunities for employment. What they do not need is punitive measures that push them into poverty and hardship. As ACOSS said in their submission:

The unspoken assumption behind this policy, that youth unemployment is mainly caused by a lack of willingness to seek employment, is flawed and unproven. As Professor Jeff Borland argues following a careful examination of the unemployment statistics, the current rate of youth unemployment can be fully explained by inadequate demand for labour since the Global Financial Crisis.

There are measures in this bill that provide total savings of around $1 billion, but most of these measures are unnecessarily cruel and punitive and the government has given no consideration to the economic or social costs that will arise from these measures. The measures that Labor will not support in this bill are: applying a one-week waiting period to all working-age payments; requiring young people under the age of 25 to wait four weeks before receiving income support; extending Youth Allowance to people aged 22 to 24; and freezing the indexation of income free areas for working-age payments and student payments for three years. The extension of youth allowance to young people aged under 25 in lieu of Newstart and sickness allowances represents a cut of $48 a week or $2,500 a year to many young Australians.

We know that Newstart is a payment of $260 a week and it is pretty difficult to get by on it. Compare that to $391 a week for the aged pension or $641 a week on the minimum wage. These incomes are difficult to get by on and so how can anyone be expected to live on just $213 a week? Yet this is what the Abbott government is expecting young jobseekers to do right up until the age of 25. Commenting briefly on the measures in the Brotherhood of St Lawrence's submission to this Senate inquiry into this bill, Executive Director Tony Nicholson said:

The extension of the age for Youth Allowance (Other) also risks potential adverse consequences for disadvantaged young people's capacity to transition into adulthood.

Particularly, our concern is how it will affect the ability of those young jobseekers who lack family financial support as they struggle into self-reliance.

We have announced our position on the one-week waiting period and the indexation changes following the 2014-15 budget and we will continue to oppose these measures.

The measure in this bill that Labor is most concerned about is the four-week waiting period for income support for young jobseekers under the age of 25. I have spoken previously in this place on another government bill through which those opposite were proposing to introduce a six-month non-payment period. This month-long waiting period is still unnecessarily punitive. In fact, it is more than that—it is downright cruel. There are two questions that I would really like to hear those on the other side try to answer about this measure, though I do not expect to hear any coherent answers on this because the measure simply does not make sense.

But I ask these two questions all the same, because maybe it will prompt those on the other side to contemplate how monumentally ridiculous, cruel and unfair this measure is. Firstly, what are young jobseekers expected to live on for the month that they are denied any form of income support? Are they expected to take out a private loan with their future income support payments as collateral? Are they expected to beg and borrow from friends and family? What if their friends and family are not in a position to support them financially? Do they knock on the doors of already overstretched welfare agencies? Do they go begging in the streets? Do they engage in theft and other criminal behaviour to maintain themselves? Or is the government simply expecting them to not eat or pay for rent or electricity for four weeks? On this point, we heard on the ABC's AM program last month the story of 'Sally'—not her real name—a 19-year-old woman who has been homeless and has relied on social security since the age of 13. Sally is convinced that, when subjected to non-payment periods, young people will turn to crime to support their income. To quote Sally:

Well, if that's the only way that people are going to get money, then they're going to do it, you know?

Logic is, okay, so I can be homeless or maybe I can try and get something illegally, and then if I do get caught, well then at least I'll still have a roof over my head and getting fed in jail.

According to the AM story, Sally is now studying to be a youth worker. She will have a rewarding career helping people like herself, but where would Sally be now if she was subject to a non-payment period? It is really worth contemplating.

The second question I have is: what practical purpose does this measure serve? How does cutting off a jobseeker's income support for four weeks, regardless of their willingness to comply with their obligations, help that person to find a job? I can answer that question quite easily: it serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact, in terms of helping young jobseekers gain employment, it is highly counterproductive. If a jobseeker cannot afford to eat, or maintain a roof over their head, how do we expect them to travel or to undertake any of the job-seeking activities they are required to do? How do they get to appointments with their employment service provider? How do they apply for jobs online if they cannot afford internet access? How do they travel to job interviews? How do they buy the clothes and other accessories they need to make themselves presentable for a job interview? How do they enrol in, or even attend, education or training? Where is the motivation to go out and look for a job when they do not even have the means to do so?

This measure simply kicks young job seekers when they are down. It absolutely cripples any job seeking ability they may have had. I do not know how any of those opposite can possibly think that this is a good idea. All this policy achieves is cruelty, heartlessness and brutality—and a relatively small budget saving. But is that saving worth the collateral damage that it will deliver to young jobseekers who will be pushed into poverty and hardship? Perhaps it is to a government which sinks to the cruel and heartless depths that this one has.

But what the government has not factored into this bill is the cost of this measure. We have seen the savings—some $170 million for this particular measure. But who pays to support these people financially? Who provides their food, heating and accommodation? And if the government has no plan to provide for this, who pays for the social and economic costs of pushing thousands of young Australians into poverty and hardship? And if this government needs any more convincing of the folly of this measure, it should take a look at the submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill, particularly those from the welfare sector. I have already mentioned the comments of the Australian Council of Social Service earlier in this speech, but I will quote from a few of the other submissions, starting with the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Its Executive Director, Tony Nicholson, said:

... a period of four weeks without income support continues to have potential for harsh unintended consequences that will be borne hardest by those young jobseekers who do not have financial support of their families.

The National Welfare Rights Network, who had previously conducted research into the impact of people not being able to secure adequate income support from Centrelink, outlined some of the harms that this measure would unleash on people from disadvantaged backgrounds. They predicted:

… increase in family tensions, family breakdown, increased isolation, deterioration in physical and mental wellbeing, homelessness and/or housing insecurity, increased barriers to looking for work and social and economic participation.

The National Welfare Rights Network noted that in New South Wales, a property owner may commence eviction proceedings against a person who falls just two weeks behind in their rent. The committee conducting the Senate inquiry also received these comments from Lin Hatfield Dodds, National Director of UnitingCare Australia:

We recommend that the committee seek documented evidence from the government that demonstrates why it believes there will be benefits from the tightening of exceptions for people to serve waiting periods, and demonstrates how this measure will result in more positive outcomes for individuals facing hardship. UnitingCare is not aware of any evidence that these measures will do anything other than lower the living standards, and increase the risk of harm, for an already vulnerable group of people.

The National Youth Mental Health Foundation, or headspace, made the following comments in their submission:

The impact of such a change has the potential to leave young people without the ability to meet their basic needs at a time when they should be focused on finding and securing employment, and to increase their risk of experiencing homelessness and mental health difficulties. Such changes would also impact disproportionately on those most vulnerable young people, who are unable to rely on family or other social connections for financial or housing support in times of crisis.

To summarise what the submitters to this inquiry, particularly those from the welfare sector, were saying: the four-week waiting period has the potential to drive many young people into poverty and hardship and potentially worse problems such as homelessness; the waiting period will also make it more difficult for young people to actively participate in activities to help them find work, and there is absolutely no evidence that this measure will provide any benefits for young job seekers.

Despite all the evidence weighed against this ludicrous proposal, it is exactly the kind of thing we have come to expect from a government which is increasingly out of touch. It is a government whose Treasurer tells us that poor people do not drive cars and that the best way to afford a house in Sydney is to go out and get a well-paying job—how insulting. It is a government whose employment minister seems to believe that the best way for young people to get a job in a market where jobs are sparse is to apply for more jobs. It is a government that does not understand the real barriers to employment for young people, in particular the fact that there just are not enough jobs around to apply for. And, it is a government that has no plan to create jobs.

It is a government that is now overseeing a situation where we have the highest number of unemployed Australians since 1994 and yet they are still trumpeting their target of one million jobs in five years. A plan to create jobs is what Australia's young job seekers need now. They also need education and training so they can gain the skills to fill those jobs. What they do not need is punitive measures which push them into poverty and hardship.

In regard to the Senate inquiry report recently released, the government senators actually admitted that the four-week waiting period will disproportionately impact on vulnerable young people, including those with mental health issues—I was pleased to see them come to that line. But the Abbott government is still knowingly pushing young people into poverty and into hardship. If Mr Abbott gets his way, young job seekers under 25 will be pushed further and further into that hardship with nothing to live on for one month. I would like to suggest to those on the other side that they try to live on no income for one month—not in their maybe quite fancy houses but out there like young people maybe in shared accommodation—and see how they go. How would they go trying to buy food, trying to pay for your electricity, trying to apply for jobs and trying to afford the clothing to turn up to an interview looking decent.

I cannot believe the mentality of those opposite to always blame and blame and blame others, whether it is in their speeches when they are blaming the Labor Party for things that have happened in the past or whether they are blaming young people. Two years they have been in government, two birthday candles on the cake and all we have seen, as I said yesterday in another speech—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two-year-old behaviour.

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

Thank you, Senator Collins, indeed it is two-year-old behaviour of tantrums, of dysfunction and of chaos. They have no idea what they are doing, so what do they do? They make the young people pay for it. It is always someone else's fault, everybody else is to blame. Until those on the other side actually get real about life, nothing will change unfortunately. I cannot believe that anybody would think that people can live on nothing for a month—absolutely atrocious. I call on any of those opposite to take that challenge, to live on no income for a month, to not be able to access their bank account and their credit card and everything else, but still have to pay their bills and still try to eat. If they come from a family that cannot support them, think about how hard that is for those people.

Not everybody, like a number of those on that side, was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. That is the problem—too many silver spoons into the mouths when you were born. You have no concept of reality about how the real people live in this world and it will be the failure of your government. You will lose the election because you have no concept of how real people live and about how those who are suffering hardship live. You know what? I will be the first one to cheer when you lose government because I think this is absolutely atrocious. I cannot believe that those opposite constantly say that it is the fault of other people that they cannot get jobs when your government has done nothing to create those one million jobs that you were going to create in five years. You talk about how there are more jobs, but the trouble is the jobs you have created are all part-time or casual. I have a 30-year-old and a 29-year-old. My daughter is in work, and my son has just come back from overseas and is looking to work. He has us to fall back on but he is finding it hard, so I do not know how you think other people are going to live. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really pleased to follow the particularly ridiculous rant that we just heard from Senator Bilyk. I am pleased to speak as someone who did not grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth. My father and his family came from the former Yugoslavia. On a very modest income my dad raised six of us. He took cleaning jobs, as we all did, in order to make sure we got by. I am not going to be lectured to by Senator Bilyk about silver spoons. What a ridiculous statement.

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

Touchy!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know what it is to work, as do my family, as do those on this side. You sit there after this ridiculous rant, this ridiculous piece of class warfare. Some of the statements in Senator Bilyk's contribution are beneath even Senator Bilyk, like saying that you should not be saying to people, 'If you want to buy a house, you should try and get a good job.' What is the alternative?

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

That's not the context it was said in, is it?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the alternative? What advice do you give your kids? Do you say, 'Kids, if you want to get ahead in life, if you want to buy a house, the best thing is to be on welfare'? Is that what you are saying? Or that the best thing is to get the lowest paying job you can possibly find? What a ridiculous comment.

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

Take it all out of context, as you always do.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is what you are bringing the level of debate to. Some of us, on this side, know what it is to work for a living.

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

Can you name them?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know what it is to do it tough and to work our way through life.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, Zed. How do you justify these measures?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Taking a cleaning job, as I did, when I was in high school and when I was at university—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the Senate that previous contributions were heard in silence, and I believe that this one should be heard in silence as well.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President Dastyari. Jobs like cleaning, which I took on and my family took on, are not nice jobs. Most people do not aspire to be cleaners, but cleaning needs to be done, it is important work and many of us will take the jobs that are on offer. Senator Bilyk, I am certainly not going to be lectured by you. I am not going to be lectured by you on this or any other issue. It was a ridiculous contribution, and I think anyone who witnessed it would have seen what a ridiculous contribution it was.

Senator Bilyk talked about jobs and said, 'You haven't created any of the jobs.' We have created 330,000. That is how many have been created in the two years since we came to office. That is a good start. We have a long way to go, but that is a good start. That is only through determined policy, most of which is opposed by those on the other side, and by supporting business to employ people, having free trade agreements, not allowing corrupt unions to shut down workplaces, cutting red tape for business and instant asset write-offs—all of these things come together. All of these things are about growing the economy and growing jobs. Instead of Senator Bilyk's view of how to get ahead in the world, we say: 'You can aspire to have a job. We want you to have a job. We want to create more jobs. We want to create better jobs.' That is what we are about, not this idea that you go straight out of school and onto welfare.

That is fundamentally what this bill is about. It is about saying to young people, 'We don't want you going straight from school to Centrelink. What we want you to do is go from school to further training, through TAFE or university, or get into a job, a good job, as good a job as you can get—sometimes starting at the bottom and working your way up, other times moving into already reasonably paid jobs and then looking to make your way in the world.' That is what this bill is about. It is about not selling our young people the vision that the best thing to do is to go straight from school to Centrelink. We have a different view of the world from those on the other side.

Let us talk about jobs. There have been 330,000 new jobs since we were elected, an average of 23,000 new jobs per month. What was Labor's record? When they left office, the average was 3,600 jobs per month. Which would you rather see? Would you rather the coalition's record of creating 23,000 jobs a month, on average, or would you rather what happened under Labor, in better world economic conditions, when 3,600 jobs were created per month?

That is what we are about and that is why we continue to make decisions that are about growing our economy and providing opportunities for our young people so that they can have the best possible jobs. It is so that those who want to work, those who are willing to do the hard work, whether it is by getting a good education and training or simply by getting out there into the workforce, having a go and working hard—sometimes doing the jobs that other people do not want to do so that you can get ahead—can. We want to give people opportunities across the board.

This bill is just a part of that. There is the $5½ million Jobs and Small Business package; it is all about providing jobs and opportunities. To get people into jobs, we have also invested $18.3 million in additional work experience places which give on-the-job experience and connection to an employer. We are running intensive support trials for vulnerable job seekers, to the value of $55.2 million. We are providing $19.4 million worth of support for youth with mental health conditions and $22.1 million worth of help to vulnerable young migrants and refugees. We are helping parents prepare for employment, through $18.9 million of funding. These trials are all focused on those most in need. It is about helping them prepare for work, find work and stay in work, because that is what we are about. I encourage those in this place today to not get caught up in the scare campaigns from the Labor Party but actually look at the facts and look at this bill in that context.

There are five elements to this bill before us today. The first amends ordinary waiting periods. This bill will exclude widow allowance claims from the one-week ordinary waiting period for working-age payments, to be implemented from 1 July 2015—that is, this bill will reintroduce schedule 3 of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 4) Bill 2014, excluding widow allowance claimants. In regards to age requirements for various Commonwealth payments, this bill will delay till 1 July 2016 the start date for the measure increasing the age of eligibility for Newstart sickness allowance—that is, reintroduce schedule 6 of budget measures No. 4 bill's Newstart date. With regard to income support waiting periods, this bill will introduce a revised, four-week waiting period for youth income support from 1 July 2016—that is, introduce a replacement for the measure provided by schedule 7, which required young people with full capacity to serve a six-month waiting period. It amends the low-income supplement so that it will cease from 1 July 2017.

Finally, in regards to indexation, this bill will reintroduce the following changes to Australian government payments provided by schedule 1 of budget measures No. 4 bill: it will maintain at level for three years the income-free areas for all working-age allowances, other than student payments, and for parenting payment single from the existing start date of 1 July 2015; and it will maintain at level for three years the income-free areas and other means-tested thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits, with a Newstart date of 1 January 2016.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, held an inquiry into this bill. It was clear that of the five measures contained in the bill the income support waiting period was the one which obviously had the most commentary, so that is the element which I will be focusing on today. In this measure, from 1 July 2016, young people under the age of 25 who are the most job ready and who apply for youth allowance or special benefit will need to serve a four-week waiting period before becoming eligible for one of those payments.

It is important from the outset to be clear about who this legislation affects. We are talking about those young people who are job ready, and to be job ready is to be classified as such by the Job Seeker Classification Instrument. It means people who live in areas with good employment opportunities, it means young people who have reasonable language, literacy and numeracy skills and it means people who have some recent work experience. If a young person does not fit into one of these categories, it means they are not captured by this legislation. So, again, let's be clear: we are talking about young people under 25 who are job ready. Remember that when we hear the rantings of some of those opposite, particularly Senator Bilyk. If you are unable to work, if you are studying, if you have carer or parenting responsibilities, if you are homeless, if you have mental health issues—the list goes and on and on—you are excluded from this measure by virtue of your vulnerability.

This measure will save $200 million by introducing the four-week waiting period, but we will see additional support services for young people looking for work—something like $375 million. It is primarily not about saving money. It is about saying that, if you are job ready, the best thing to do when you get out of school is not to go straight down to Centrelink. I would have thought that was a reasonable thing to say. I would have thought most parents would want to see that for their kids: that their kids do not just get out of school and go straight onto Centrelink. We want them to go out and do further study or further training or get a job. Surely, that should be what we are aiming for. From the contribution of Senator Bilyk as expressed in some of her language, she seems to be equating for young people that it is no different if you get a job or if you are on welfare. Apparently, that is just as good a path to prosperity, that is just as good a path to purchasing your own home and getting some financial security. Of course it is not. We want to see people getting jobs. We want to see people having the dignity of work. We want to see people having the opportunity to contribute through work to the broader society, through our economy, and to their own financial stability and all of the value which goes with that. Those on the other side would denigrate that and would consign people to systemic welfare. We do not want to see that.

But let's be clear: the four-week waiting period is not just arbitrary or free time for a job ready young person. During these four weeks, young job seekers will be meeting with a jobactive provider. They will be agreeing to a job plan. They will need to develop an up-to-date resume. They will be creating a job seeker profile on the JobSearch website. And they must provide satisfactory evidence of looking for work with up to 20 job applications. This is because we want young people in work. It is not just good for the economy; it is good for them; it is good for their families; it is good for their future prosperity. It is good for all of their outcomes in the future if they get a stable job, if they get a good job, if they are able to over time earn more money and if they are able to get a better job—one that pays them not just for their basic needs but for some of the luxuries in life as well. We all want that for our kids. We want that for all Australians, if they are prepared to work, if they are prepared to do what it takes.

I said earlier that many of us have taken jobs that were not ideal, that were not our favourite job. That is where most people start. They start at the local fast food store, they start with cleaning, they start at the local newsagency or they start doing the paper run—whatever that work might be. It teaches them about work ethic, it teaches them about the value of money; it teaches them all sorts of skills that they cannot get in other places. It is a fantastic thing. That is at the heart of what the coalition would like to see for all Australians, particularly for all of our young people as they make their way through the world.

I do note the safeguards and I will go through some of them. Our welfare system is in place for those who need it, and there are sometimes circumstances where young people have particular hardships and need a bit of extra help. I have talked about all the exemptions. We heard in the committee that this measure—when we take into account all of the exemptions for vulnerable job seekers, for people experiencing mental health, for people experiencing homelessness and for all sorts of other issues—actually applies to less than half of the job seekers in this cohort. That is why I found it interesting that we heard from a number of witnesses who would say, 'We're concerned about this vulnerable group or that vulnerable group.' This measure will not apply to those vulnerable groups. That is the good news. It is applying to those who are job ready. We are saying to you: 'If you are job ready and if you are not studying or if you are not doing further training, what you should be doing is doing all you can to get out there and try to get a job.'

We also heard interesting evidence from the department about the number of jobs that are available and the kinds of surveys they did of employers. They did a number of surveys of employers to seek their views on how they go with trying to recruit. This is a quote from the committee hearing:

When we talk to employers about trying to recruit for lower skilled vacancies—

It is based on a survey—

28 per cent of them say they have trouble filling those vacancies. These are jobs such as labourers, sales assistants and waiters. Employers are struggling to get suitable candidates presenting for those jobs and those who do present are not suitable. Those are some of the indicators that suggest to us that we need to work with the group of more job ready job seekers in employment services to act as quickly as possible to get them into work.

There we have further evidence presented to the committee—ignored by the Labor Party and ignored by the Greens—that in lower skilled jobs we have many employers, and that a significant proportion of those employers surveyed said: 'We simply can't find people to fill these positions. We simply can't find them.'

We know there are pockets where it is very difficult to get a job. We know there are some regional areas where it is particularly difficult to get a job. Those places are where the government have been rolling out more programs. We have relocation allowances for those who have to go more than 90 minutes away. It is difficult in some areas to find a job. There is no doubt about that. That is why the government have said, 'We want to grow the economy and make job opportunities in those areas better.' We know there are pockets, particularly in some regional areas and parts of our cities, where it is difficult and so we have said, 'If you have to go further or even relocate for a job'—as many Australians do—'we will provide you with financial assistance to get that done.'

I have listed several initiatives of the government. On the one hand, we are saying, 'If you are struggling, we will do all we can to help. If you are genuinely struggling because of issues outside your control such as being in a particularly high unemployment area, we will give you a relocation allowance. If it is about training, we will give you support. If it is about mental health issues, we will give you support. If it is about homelessness or other vulnerabilities, we will give you support.' We also say, 'For those people who are particularly vulnerable, this measure will not apply to you.' I think that is fair.

For those who are job ready, we say, 'You should be out there looking for a job.' We say, 'Your first port of call after school should not be going down to Centrelink.' I think most Australians would accept that as reasonable. They would accept as reasonable that we do what we can to look after those who are most vulnerable and that we say to those who can look after themselves, 'You need to get out there and make a fist of it.' There is a brief waiting period and then people who cannot find a job after that time will have access to these kinds of payments, even if they are job ready.

We have heard from employers, and they say they are struggling to find people to fill some jobs in lower skilled areas. For many of these jobs you do not need qualifications. You just need to be ready to go out there and have a go. You need to be ready to go and do your best and work hard. Some of them are not the most glamorous jobs. They are not. Let's be clear about that. But hundreds of thousands or even millions of Australians started out in jobs they did not necessarily like and were not necessarily the jobs they always dreamed of. But they were a start. They earned an income and had an opportunity. People take those opportunities and make the best of them. They gain skills, they gain experience over time and then they get jobs which are more suitable, which they prefer, which pay them better and which give them more opportunities.

I think that some of the nonsense we have heard from the other side, as I said earlier, reflects poorly on those individual senators. We should do all we can to help vulnerable job seekers. We have. More than half of job seekers are exempt from this measure. That shows how far we are going to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are not touched by this measure. We are talking about those who are job ready. We are talking about those who can go out there and get a job. Our simple message to those who are job ready and do not have the kind of vulnerabilities that get raised by various groups is: 'Don't just go straight down to the Centrelink office after school. That is not the right pathway. Go and find a job. Go and get further training. It will be better for you, our society and our economy if you take up those opportunities and contribute.' I commend this bill to the Senate.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Indeed, this is a very important piece of legislation because it is a stark reminder of the difference between the coalition, who have continually attacked vulnerable people, and the Labor Party, who have always stood up to support and protect vulnerable people. Senator Seselja comes in here and talks about young people just going down to Centrelink. That is not what young people want. They would like to get a job. To suggest that because there is opposition to this legislation somehow we support that as well is really reaching.

Senator Seselja's contribution mentioned a number of measures that he says the government have put in place. What we on this side of the chamber have seen is the fact that when the government first came in they started cutting training programs. They ripped out $50 billion from education. They cut $270 million from the grants program in the Department of Social Services.

Let's not forget that this bill is the second iteration of the government's attacks on young job seekers. The measures in this bill have been rehashed and revised from the Abbott government's first budget. We all know what the first bill sought to do, and that was to cut payments for particular job seekers for up to six months. That was seen, quite rightly, by the community as unfair and harsh. It was rejected.

So those opposite have come in here today having reduced the period without income down to one month and have tried to suggest that this is some way of assisting young job seekers into jobs. Young people are not going to be able to get jobs without any income support. To think otherwise beggars belief. We know that young job seekers need support to be able to go to job interviews, to access transport to get to those interviews, to be dressed for those interviews and to be able to live as well. But the coalition on that side have, from the very first day, throughout their push to strip away income support from job seekers, decided to attack the most vulnerable. They did it in their first budget, not only in this area but all through their first budget. Thankfully, most of that was rejected in the Senate.

The measures contained in this bill are harsh and unfair. They are not much different from those that were proposed and rejected last year. These measures aim to withdraw the social security safety net from a group of young Australians who are highly vulnerable to disadvantage. These measures attack the very heart of our social security system, which is built on the principle that people have the right to adequate income support. The impact of this piece of legislation is clear. The impact of abandoning young job seekers is plainly clear to see for all, except for those opposite. These measures will not help young people into employment. They will not aid young Australians' ability to seek and sustain employment.

The dissenting report from Labor senators quoted from the submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which said:

The measures contained in this Bill are harsh, draconian and unfair, and very little different to those proposed (and rejected by the Senate) last year.

It is very important to remember that these measures will not provide an incentive for job seekers to become self-sufficient. I believe that those opposite know that because this is not about providing incentives; this is about attacking young job seekers and those most vulnerable. This is about their budget bottom line.

This bill will drive young people into financial hardship and poverty. It will make it harder for job seekers to focus their energies on finding employment. Pushing people into poverty only makes it harder for them to search for work and get a job. The Australian Association of Social Workers outlined the following in their submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee which, again, was quoted in the dissenting report from Labor senators:

Factors leading to poverty such as lack of money for accommodation, subsistence food, clothing suitable to attend job interviews or insufficient funds for transport all interfere with people’s ability to actually look for work.

These measures are completely counterproductive. The outcomes will be at odds with the government's stated intention. This is the very definition of poor public policy. As Mission Australia's David Pigott told the Community Affairs Legislation Committee:

We … think that the current measures before the committee are a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut …

This government clearly believes that the solution to a 13.8 per cent youth unemployment rate is to take a punitive approach to young job seekers, to take the big stick approach. There is no consideration of actually addressing the systemic labour market issues and other barriers, which are the issues which impede young Australians' ability to support themselves through to employment. In his evidence to the Senate committee Mr Pigott stated:

We are concerned, however, that the current budget measures before us risk taking a punitive approach to young people in the current labour market, where there is only one job available for every six job seekers. Youth unemployment has remained stubbornly high since the global financial crisis, and in some areas where we work it is as high as 30 per cent.

Youth unemployment is at very worrying levels all across the country. In regions, in my home state of Tasmania, the youth unemployment rate is over 20 per cent, particularly on the north-west coast of Tasmania, whose representative is Liberal MP Mr Brett Whiteley, who supports this piece of legislation to strip young job seekers of income support. He should be ashamed.

Apparently those opposite believe that this is the fault of young people. We have over 20 per cent youth unemployment in some regions in Tasmania, and yet those opposite believe that this is the fault of young people. They believe young people are simply not trying hard enough to get jobs. They believe young people will find work if they are forced into destitution. The reason the government are taking this approach is not, as I have said, because of overwhelming evidence to support their view—that evidence is not there—or evidence of the effectiveness of cutting payments for jobs. Again, that evidence is not there. The reason they have taken this view is that it is easy. It is easy to demonise young job seekers, and they have done that since they first got elected. It is easy for the coalition to find budgetary savings by cutting support for the most vulnerable people, people whose voices they do not think will be heard. Let me tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, these people's voices will be heard, because Labor will speak up for them and will continue to fight the government's harsh budget measures.

Those opposite will argue that the most disadvantaged will be exempt. We have heard that in the contributions so far today. They will argue that the most disadvantaged will be exempt from the measures and those who do experience financial hardship will be able to access emergency relief. This is nothing more than an implicit admission that this policy will push people into poverty.

The government know that this measure will push some young people into homelessness. They know that this measure will leave people without food and that it will leave them without money for transport or their bills. Ms Kate Beaumont, President of the National Welfare Rights Network, highlighted in her evidence to the Senate committee:

This is clearly is not a path to self-sufficiency; it is a one-way street to poverty, an impact on long-term unemployment, poor health, depression and homelessness. This is borne out by the government allocating $8.1 million to help pay the people made destitute by this very policy. The simple reclassification of people and grant them interventions, if their situation deteriorates during the four-week waiting period, should be enough to be convince the public that this is a bad idea, poor social policy and should be rejected.

The emergency relief system, like many community support services, is already stretched to the limit, particularly following the government's previous decision to cut $270 million from Department of Social Services grants. So the $8.1 million will do little to stem the appalling impact of this bill.

The most outrageous of all the measures in this bill is the proposal to establish a four-week income support waiting period for young job seekers. This would see young people under 25 have to wait four weeks prior to receiving income support, in addition to the one-week ordinary waiting period and any other waiting periods that might already apply. On the government's own estimates, this measure will affect 75,000 young people per year. A number of these job seekers will be subject to multiple four-week waiting periods in 12 months. This is nothing but a grab for cash at the expense of these young jobseekers.

The government claim that this measure will save $173.3 million over the forward estimates—but at what cost to the lives of young job seekers and their families, many of whom will be financially crippled by this measure? It is just a watered-down version of the government's initial plan in the 2014-15 budget, which sought to require young people under 30 to actively seek work for six months prior to receiving income support payments. Make no mistake, whether it is six months without any income support or one month, this measure will push young people into poverty and hardship.

The reality of this measure is far from the idyllic existence that those opposite will have you believe. It is not as simple as being supported by your parents for four weeks. For some families, providing for young job seekers for at least five weeks will mean not only that young job seekers will be pushed into poverty but that their families will be placed under financial strain. Then there are those young job seekers who cannot rely on their families for financial support. Maybe these families simply cannot afford it or maybe there is a strained relationship. It is these young job seekers, who do not have the financial support of their families, who will be hardest hit by this measure.

Aside from the obvious financial impacts, experts have also raised real and serious concerns about the impact of this measure on the health and wellbeing of young job seekers. Mental health support and advocacy organisations have voiced their concerns that this measure and the resulting financial hardship will exacerbate or trigger mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. The National Youth Mental Health Foundation, headspace, raised this concern:

… we believe these changes are unlikely to encourage greater workforce and education participation, but rather have the potential to impact negatively on the mental health and wellbeing of all young Australians and disproportionately on those already disadvantaged due to factors such as mental health difficulties, poverty, social isolation or disengagement from family.

Whilst there is significant evidence showing that this measure will push young people into financial hardship and poverty and will have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing—that is quite clear for those who want to listen—there is no evidence to show that it will help young people into work. This was an issue that Labor senators took up throughout the Senate committee inquiry. Participants to the inquiry were unable to identify any evidence to support the rationale for the measure. Even the minister's own department, the Department of Social Services, conceded that there was no evidence that the measure would help young people find work. Departmental officials also specifically refuted the government's claim that the measure was comparable to the New Zealand model of support for young job seekers. Put simply, this measure is based on flawed assumptions about the causes of youth unemployment. Instead of assisting young people to tackle barriers to employment, this measure will punish them.

I turn to the age for eligibility for Newstart. The pain in this bill does not stop after the four-week period without income support. Another measure in the bill seeks to cut payments to young people by extending youth allowance (other) for 22- to 24-year-olds in lieu of Newstart and sickness allowance. This would result in a cut of at least $48 a week for young job seekers between the ages of 22 and 24. That would be almost $2,500 a year. Those opposite have said that this measure is to 'provide incentives to young unemployed people to obtain the relevant education and training to increase employability'. Yet, at the same time, they have cut funding for education, they have plans to cut funding for vocational education and training opportunities, they have cut $1 billion from apprenticeship programs in the 2014-15 budget, they have replaced apprentice support with apprentice debt and they have sought to introduce $100,000 university degrees.

If the government are serious about assisting young people to gain the skills and education they need to find work, perhaps they should start by looking at their own record rather than seeking to punish the very same young people that are the victims of their vicious attacks on education and training. This measure will simply exacerbate the disadvantage that some young people face in the job market while doing nothing to address the structural problems faced by young job seekers.

The bill also seeks to apply a one-week waiting period to all working-age payments. This is just another rejected and rehashed policy from the government's failed first budget. As well as extending the ordinary waiting period to new payments, this measure seeks to further restrict the current exemption on the basis of severe financial hardship. It is proposed that the exemption should only apply if a person is also experiencing a 'personal financial crisis'. The very idea that our national safety net would only be available to people once they are at the point of crisis strikes at the heart of our system. The administrative and documentary requirements that are associated with this exemption are also very burdensome and would mean that many people who should have the waiting period waived would nonetheless be forced to serve the period.

The other element of the exemption is if the severe financial hardship relates to domestic violence which has taken place in the previous four weeks. The lack of understanding about the ongoing impact and support needs of women and children seeking to escape domestic violence is absolutely sickening. That this government believe that the financial impact of domestic violence only lasts for four weeks is beyond belief. It makes me question the sincerity of its commitment to addressing the issue. Again, the impact will be that people who should be exempt from this waiting period will be forced to wait an additional week before they receive any support.

There are other measures in this bill that seek to undermine the income support system. But, in the short time I have left, I can only say: we should be working to invest in education and training. I urge the Senate to oppose these measures.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The background to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is the government's first budget in 2014. One of the most contentious social security measures in recent memory was announced by the Treasurer in May 2014—a six-month suspension of Newstart allowance for young adults. That, justifiably, created a lot of controversy. Senator Brown outlined some of the very broad community concerns in relation to that. The government could not get their social security changes through the Senate. I believe they would have led to spiralling poverty in many parts of Australia at a time of rising unemployment.

The key to this is to create an environment for jobs, encourage training and ensure that we do all those things to build the job market in this country. That is why we are facing a very real crisis with the demise of the automotive sector in this country. According to the Bracks review, a very sensible review of the automotive sector, we are looking at upwards of 200,000 jobs being lost in this country, in South Australia and Victoria in particular, with several thousand jobs also at stake in New South Wales and other parts of the country. It is a time when unemployment in this country could skyrocket if we do not get the policy framework right and encourage jobs and local manufacturing, particularly now that our dollar is hovering below US70c. The low dollar is very welcome. I hope that Senator Canavan and others welcome that low dollar, which is good for our farmers and our manufacturers.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't do anything about it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot do anything about the dollar? You can do this, Senator Canavan—who I have a lot of respect for—

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

Don’t talk about it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know what Senator McKenzie means when she says, 'Don't talk about it.' We need to talk about jobs. We need to talk about the need to encourage manufacturing. We need to talk about the fact that there are 3½ thousand jobs at stake at the Port Kembla steelworks and something like 10,000 additional jobs reliant on it.

We need to have tough antidumping laws in this country. I only want us to be as tough as the Americans and the Europeans are in defending their local industries against illegal, unfair dumping practices. We do not have the right regime in place right now in terms of dealing with antidumping. That is the background to this. We are facing massive job losses in this country. Unless we consider that in the context of this bill then we are missing the point. South Australia has been hit hardest in terms of unemployment figures. It topped the nation, sadly, tragically, at over eight per cent a couple of months ago. It is the highest unemployment rate in 15 years across the nation.

Here we are considering again the government's measures to impose what it calls 'disincentives' for young jobless people to draw on government benefits. Obviously we need to have clear and firm rules in place so that people who are getting benefits are doing all they reasonably can to get employment in the workplace.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator McKenzie agrees with that. I think we all agree with that. You cannot have people using this as some sort of measure where there is no reciprocal arrangement or mutuality to do your best to get a job. But the fact is that jobs are not out there. Youth unemployment in the northern suburbs of Adelaide was 16.9 per cent in the year to July 2015. In the southern suburbs of Adelaide it was 15.4 per cent. But you need to take into account this important point: we have changed the basis upon which we determine unemployment figures in this country from what it was many years ago. It used to be that, if you worked more than 15 hours a week, you were not deemed to be unemployed. Now the figure is, as I understand it, one hour a week. That is not realistic. We are grossly understating the level of underemployment in this country because of the statistical basis upon which we determine what it is to be an unemployed person. The levels of underemployment and unemployment are very significant in this country. There are many people who cannot afford to buy a house or a car or plan for their family's future because they are really scraping by with the hours that they are working. They are grossly underemployed.

Having a one-month waiting period for the newly unemployed under the age of 25 could make a big difference to whether somebody loses their ability to pay rent, loses their home, couch-surfs, or slides into homelessness. The test ought to be whether that person is making a fair dinkum effort to find work. That should be the test, not this arbitrary threshold of saying, 'If you happen to be young, we're going to throw you off benefits.' I know the government, through Minister Morrison, has a number of programs in place to encourage people to participate in the workforce, which I welcome, but this stick, which is what this measure is, would be a completely retrograde step.

Additional job-seeking activities—in addition to those already in place for Newstart allowance—will be imposed during that period. A new one-week waiting period is also being extended from Newstart allowance to other payments including parenting payment and youth allowance. And the government still wants to keep young people on the lower youth allowance for longer. Under the bill a young person will not receive Newstart allowance unless they are aged 25 or above, up from 22 or above. Newstart cannot on any measure be determined to be generous. I have deep concerns about the practical impact of these changes at a time when unemployment is rising and some are even predicting Australia is heading for a contraction in our economy. I think the figures from last month indicate that per capita there has been a contraction, which of course is a matter of very serious concern.

The budget papers for this bill say the new four-week waiting period 'will set the clear expectation that young people must make every effort to maximise their chances of successfully obtaining work.' There seems to be implicit in that part of the budget papers an assumption that young people are not already doing all they can to get off government payments. This is not a generous benefit—it is way below the poverty line. I want to introduce a concept that I hope you, Mr Deputy President, and others may want to take up outside the forum of debate on this bill. The poverty line, according to the Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, for the March quarter of 2015 is in the order of $510.16 a week for a single person and $682.45 a week for a couple. My argument is that Newstart is in the order of $250 a week, and at the moment if you earn more than $102 per fortnight you lose 50c in the dollar of that until your benefit is extinguished, so if we accept that the poverty line is a reasonable basis for determining the bare bones upon which a person can subsist then why do we punish people who earn more than $50 a week with a severe 50c basically tax? Surely we should be encouraging people to at least give it a go, to get in the workforce, to try work with small businesses particularly, even a few hours a week, and not penalising them at least until they get up to the poverty level. That is something that we need to consider and have a sensible national conversation on, because there is an anomaly here: if we accept that the poverty line is a robust measure of what is needed in terms of a subsistence existence in this country then why are we penalising people way below the poverty line, where they are effectively being taxed 50c in the dollar for anything they earn over $51 a week? Many young people would like to give it a go—even a part-time job with a small business—but they risk having to do all the paperwork and being done for Centrelink fraud. There are disincentives, and we need to have a sensible look at that.

The government does not appear to have produced any evidence to support its assumption in the budget papers about what this waiting period is about. While the measures in this bill are a pale imitation of the changes first raised in the 2014 budget, the rationale is still there—and that rationale is fundamentally flawed. By all means encourage people to look for work and have strict tests to make sure that they are doing all they can to find work. I think this bill is fundamentally flawed in respect of this, and I think Senator Carol Brown in her contribution raised the issue of domestic violence. It is good to acknowledge the impact of domestic violence but I think the bill has got it around the wrong way. What the bill is proposing to provide as an exemption does not take into account the magnitude of the problem. I want to acknowledge that the federal government has done much good work in relation to this. Their advocacy of and their support for the campaign of Rosie Batty, the Australian of the Year, and others ought to be commended but respectfully I say that this provision in this bill does not address the issue as well as it could. I do not ascribe any improper motive on the part of the government in relation to that, I just say that they have missed the point .

Going back to the provisions of this bill, Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute has said, citing surveys by Mission Australia and others, that young people in fact want to work and want to work more hours, but they face a number of barriers from doing so. I note that social service providers do not support the waiting periods and the change in the age cut-offs for government payments. The Senate has received submissions that nowhere else in the world has a government imposed a waiting period for payments for young people without any other means of support. The Australian Council of Social Service has also commented on this. Cassandra Goldie did some terrific work with Minister Morrison in reaching what I thought was a sensible and fair compromise on means testing and taper rates for pensions, which I agreed with and the Australian Greens supported. It was a positive contribution by a ACOSS, as is often the case, to improve our welfare system and to make it sustainable in the longer term. ACOSS has said that it was regrettable that the income support waiting period measure for young people had only been modified, rather than reversed, and that there 'was no justification for this measure.'

Other community sector and welfare groups have restated their opposition to extended waiting periods for young people to access income support, including the National Welfare Rights Network, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and Mission Australia. These are the groups that know; these are the groups that have to pick up the pieces when someone's life falls apart because they cannot find work. I am concerned, like others who have looked at this bill, by the unintended consequences of the waiting period. Do we really expect young people to be in a position to find work—or meet the additional job-seeking requirements imposed by this bill—if they have no means of financial support?

I would think their primary concern is putting food on the table and avoiding being evicted from their accommodation.

I cannot support the bill. There is a better way of tackling this issue and that is to do all we can to create jobs and opportunities for Australians. That involves looking at issues of productivity, ensuring that our antidumping laws are stronger against jobs being lost to unauthorised illegal dumping from other countries, and supporting our manufacturing sector, particularly with the crisis facing South Australia and Victoria in the automotive sector. Of course, it would be remiss of me if I did not say that it would also make a big difference in terms of confidence to Australia and in particular to South Australia if the Commonwealth government, as a matter of urgency, announced that the future submarine project be built in South Australia, as promised, with benefits flowing to all states in the Commonwealth.

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

I too rise to speak to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. All of us come here to build a better future for our nation, for our families and our communities. Addressing the scourge of youth unemployment has to be key to the work that we do here because it represents our future. All of us know the issues with intergenerational poverty, brought on as a result of unemployment through generation, through generation, and the implication that has not only for that family's welfare but also for the community, the education systems that those children go through and indeed, as evidence would suggest, the corrections facilities. We all have to be working very hard to address this issue, to ensure that young people right across Australia have the chance to get a job, participate in the workforce and contribute not only to their community and the national economy but indeed to the financial security of their families. This means that we need a system and a society that ensures they are adequately educated and skilled for that work.

The bill currently before us does not stand alone. If we look at what will provide local employment opportunities for young people, we see that it is about having adequate education and training services. It is also about having a robust economy. That is something that we as a government have absolutely been focused on, ensuring that the levers that we can control are all set in a direction that will actually drive productivity and economic growth not only in the present but well into the future. That is what we know will actually provide job security for young people in the longer term.

When we look at this bill and the amendments brought forward, which simply reduce the waiting period from six months to four weeks, we have to see this not as a stand-alone piece of legislation. This in fact is one aspect of our government's absolute and total commitment to ensuring jobs right across the economy and, in particular, jobs for young people. In the 2015-16 budget we announced the Growing Jobs and Small Business package, which increases support services to those impacted by changes in the bill. We have invested $18.3 million in additional work experience places, providing job experience and connection to employer, because we know that that is half the battle. You might have the bit of paper that says you have got the skills, you might have the personality and you might have the determination and drive, but you lack work experience. If I am a small business owner and I have got a position open, I need to be assured that the person I am hiring—I want to hire a young person, I want to give them a chance and a start in life, like somebody did for me many, many years ago—actually has the experience to work and be job ready. So this particular measure addresses one of the key barriers for young people getting employment.

We are also running intensive support trials for vulnerable job seekers, at a cost of $55.2 million. I note the comments by senators opposite about our government's harsh, targeted attack on vulnerable job seekers. It flies in the face of the actual facts. Do not let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign—that is the Labor Party's local mantra. The sum of $55 million is actually being targeted at the very job seekers who you say need support. We are absolutely doing it. And I will go into greater detail later on.

Senator Brown made comments about the punitive nature of our government but, when I go through the actual measures, I see that our government are putting in place well-researched, evidence-based practical solutions and programs that assist young people into real jobs. Senators opposite argue about the right for income support. I think young people have a right to a job, because then they can be self-determining about where they go, what they do and how they are empowered. That is the first step of going forward to being a contributing member of society. We are prepared to put our money where our ideology is, where our belief system is and that is in supporting and addressing some of those key barriers, particularly for vulnerable young people.

There is $19.4 million for youth with mental health conditions; $22.1 million for vulnerable young migrants and refugees; and continuing support for parents to prepare for employment. We know that that is the greatest indicator of whether, as a young person, you will actually go on and get the job of your choice or indeed any job. If you are actually going to be involved in the workforce, having parents who are role models for children and young people with respect to what you have to do to get a job—how you have to get up, get ready, rock up on time, be responsible et cetera—is incredibly important if they are actually going to go on to get a job.

We are actually trialling that to see what works so that we can ensure the money from Australian taxpayers—which everyone pays, because we want to have a social security system that is supportive of those in need in our community—is actually targeted at where it will deliver the best results, getting young people into jobs. We want to ensure that those most disadvantaged in our society are prepared for work and know what is involved, particularly those young people from families of intergenerational poverty. And those senators from Tasmania absolutely know firsthand what a scourge intergenerational poverty and unemployment can be for not only those families but communities more generally. We want them to be prepared for work. We want them to find a job, we want to help them find a job and, most importantly, we do not want them to churn through jobs. We want them to stay in the job and gain those very valuable skills. We want them to have that sense of confidence and empowerment that comes from working hard for the day, contributing and seeing a return for their efforts. Obviously, getting some pay in your bank account after a couple of weeks does not hurt either.

We have heard lots of claims from lots of senators about a variety of issues, but the debate today should really only focus on the income support waiting period because we have previously spent oodles of hours in this place debating the other measures contained within this bill. When we think about being job ready, what does that actually look like? It means you have to live in an area of good employment opportunities, you need to have reasonable literacy and numeracy skills, you need to have had recent work experience—and that is exactly the type of preparatory work that our measures go to addressing. The measure will save $200 million by introducing a four-week waiting period for youth under 25 and cost $375 million in additional support services for young job seekers, so the total cost of the reversal is $1.8 billion.

During the first four weeks young job seekers will be meeting with a jobactive provider, agreeing to a job plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a job seeker profile on the JobSearch website, providing evidence of satisfactory job search with up to 20 job applications. These are the sorts of things that our government has decided are going to give our young Australians the best chance of actually getting a job—you have to have the resume, you have to actually rock up to appointments on time when you make them. Creating a job seeker profile and actually applying for jobs is also important.

We have also made $1.8 million available in emergency relief funding to provide assistance to job seekers affected by the measure and experiencing hardship, so we are hardly the punitive government that senators opposite would have you believe. We are absolutely targeting our funding to those most in need, as we should be. Those young people who live at home with parents who are more than able to care for them during this period should absolutely be doing that. That is the responsibility of us as parents—that is, to assist our young people. Obviously, for those families who lack that capacity and those means, our government has targeted measures to assist them, so do not believe the hype of the other side. Every single thing we have done around our jobs package and our small business package is absolutely focused on encouraging young people to make every effort to look for work and maximise their chances of finding a job.

The bill also includes a number of important exemptions for the four-week waiting period that have not been mentioned by senators on the other side, so I thought I would add those to the debate. If someone has served a four-week waiting period in the previous six months they will not have to serve another if that jobs ends through no fault of their own. We understand that stuff happens. If you have diligently been working hard—turning up to work, contributing to your employer's benefit—and you lose that job, then we do not expect that you have to go through the waiting period again. You have done exactly what we have wanted you to do—that is, go out, get a job and stick at it. If you have a disability or an activity test exemption you will not have to serve the waiting period. And the measure will not impact job seekers who have left state care within the last 12 months.

It is estimated that 6.5 million young people under the age of 25 are living at home with one or two parents, and that would suggest that those families are able to care for those children during short periods of hardship when they are between jobs. Some of those young people may not require income support payments. I need to make it clear, and this has come through in evidence to the Senate education and employment references inquiry into temporary working visas, that young people in Australia can sometimes be a little picky about the types of jobs they take. We want you to get a job, any job, a suitable job; we do not want you to wait for the job that you would like to have and have the Australian taxpayer support you until you find that dream marine biology position you have been waiting for in Cairns. That is not the role of government, it is not the role of the Australian taxpayer. The very precious dollars that Australian taxpayers provide the federal government with to support the vulnerable in our society need to be targeted to just that, not to families and young people who can make discretionary choices about the types of jobs that they would like to have rather than getting any job at all. I would hope that that would be a principle that all of us would agree with.

These measures are fair, they are targeted, they are strategic, they are evidence-based, and I think, in terms of policy development, that is really what we need to focused on. I remember in the period between when I left school and when I headed off to uni, I worked in a pizza shop. I liked working in a pizza shop because I got free pizza and I did not mind waitressing—you get to have a chat to the customers—but I hated picking cherries. It is hard work, and you have to do it a certain way to get—yes, senators here are nodding; they have done it too. They know what I am talking about. You have to do it a certain way to make sure you get two cherries stay on each stem. That was backbreaking work, but I did it. It did not get me a lot of money, but I did it.

Again, I refer back to the Senate education and employment committee's inquiry into temporary working visas: sometimes those involved in the job discussion across Australia—and I am specifically thinking of Ms Kearney of ACTU fame—have a very simplistic equation that they bandy about—that is, X youth unemployment in this regional area equals Y 417 visa applicants, the backpacker visa, over here. Instead of getting all of those 417 backpackers into your cherry farm or into your banana farm up north, Senator Canavan, you have high youth unemployment in your local region. It is a very simple, basic equation: A equals B, so we will just swap them. That is an absolutely innumerate response to the very, very complex reasons as to why young people, particularly in regional areas, cannot find work. It is a complex problem and it points to the fact that the ACTU more generally has absolutely no plan to address youth unemployment—no plan. We have been talking about youth unemployment. It is a scourge because it affects confidence and it affects future productivity for our nation. Importantly, how are these young people, as they grow older and have families, going to be able to provide for those families and have that financial security and stability that we all need? I have not heard one good idea or one practical idea from the other side. I am going to run through some of the fabulous ideas that our government is implementing, in stark contrast to those opposite and their rhetoric and the ACTU's rhetoric around this issue, which will be put to shame, because you cannot just say, 'A equals B.' It is a very complex equation: how you support a young person into work and make sure they have the skills and experience they need to stay there.

I mentioned work experience. The National Work Experience program provides job seekers with an opportunity to undertake work experience in businesses for up to 25 hours per week for four weeks to improve their chances of finding work. This is evidence based. They will retain their income support payment during this time and will receive a supplement of $20 per fortnight. Employers who have had a great experience over four weeks can go on with this young person who has rocked up every day, bright and shiny, keen as mustard and delivered every day. Many of those young people will be offered permanent employment in those small businesses. Those employers will get access to a $6,500 wage subsidy for youth, Indigenous job seekers, parents or the long-term unemployed—and, obviously, the Restart wage subsidy of $10,000. The program will help approximately 3,500 job seekers in the first year and 6,000 per annum in the following year. That is great news for unemployed young people, and that is the Abbott government delivering jobs through the National Work Experience program.

Similarly, the $212 million Transition to Work service will help young job seekers most at risk of long-term unemployment improve their chances of finding and keeping a job. This is important stuff. It is complex. These are human beings who are situated in certain contexts and are surrounded by certain sociocultural impacts and influences. They may have low literacy and numeracy levels. We are funding support programs to help them directly. You would not have thought that if you had been listening to anyone opposite—it is absolutely not true. Our intensive targeted support for vulnerable job seekers is terribly exciting. If you had been in here about 40 minutes earlier, you would have heard rhetoric from those opposite about the harsh and punitive nature of the Abbott government when it comes to the most vulnerable in our society. What a joke! I challenge them to match our support programs—the innovative youth program trials for 3,000 people annum; $55.2 million for up to 40 community trials to explore better ways of getting young people at risk of welfare dependency into jobs, especially when there is entrenched disadvantage.

We know that this is a problem in our communities. In regional communities right around Australia, high youth unemployment is incredibly confronting and it is very, very concerning. It does not matter whether I am talking to young people, whether I am talking to industry wanting the skills for the industry of the future or whether I am talking to grandparents—everybody is concerned about this. I would point to a report by the Foundation for Young Australians into the new work order and the types of skills and experience that our young people are going to need for the economy of the future. It makes very, very interesting reading that we all have to take note of.

In terms of our intensive support for vulnerable job seekers, we have support for parents to plan and prepare for employment. As I have said, great role modelling will make the biggest difference. We have employment support for young people with mental illness—$19.4 million for trialling and supporting 200 young job seekers with mental illness in disability employment services by providing job-readiness vocational and in-work support. I could go on and on and on. In stark contrast to those opposite, this government is serious about the scourge of youth unemployment. We have a suite of measures to address it and to research some of the causes and what is going to make a difference on the ground so we can target the Australian taxpayer dollar effectively and solve it. There is deafening silence from the other side. (Time expired)

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill introduces a number of measures in the social services portfolio, including 2015 budget measures and several measures previously introduced in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 4) Bill 2014.

There are five schedules to the bill, and I understand that the opposition will be moving amendments to oppose all of these measures except those in Schedule 4. I will be supporting these amendments to oppose those schedules. I would like to focus on Schedule 3 of the bill which, if passed, will see around 75,000 people under 25 will be hit by a four-week waiting period. In the community, a four-week waiting period will really hurt youth who do not have support of their families. For those who live with their parents, but their parents happen to be poor, this is also a really tough measure. Less fortunate families rely upon their young people to bring money into the household to balance their budgets. And four weeks is going to be four weeks too long and will place more pressure on these households.

I do acknowledge that there are a number of important exemptions to the four-week waiting period. The argument has been made that these exemptions from the four-week waiting period will ensure vulnerable people will not be affected. But Centrelink is entrusted to make assessments of the circumstances of the young people in order for the exemptions to kick in. I have great respect for the staff who work at Centrelink, but they are under a lot of pressure and have limited time to process applicants for payments. We know that often young people only reveal their full circumstances once a relationship of some trust has been established. The National Welfare Rights Network has stated that:

A person on the minimum wage would find it difficult to survive a few weeks without any regular income. So why are we cutting payments for young people who live on at most a Youth Allowance of just $213 a week, which is only 32 per cent of the minimum wage?

The measures in this bill have brought us to a tipping point with regards to inter-generational equity in this country. History will judge us poorly if we do not give Generation Y the hand up that they need. Our youth should not have to carry the burden of the labour market's structural failings. We need to avoid scarring tens of thousands of young people each and every year with a raft of harsh and punitive social security policies that basically blame them for the failures of the labour market to provide sufficient jobs for all those that want them.

I recognise that there are a minority of people that do the wrong thing. There may be young people who finish school, live at home, can't be bothered looking for a job and expect the government to pick up the tab. This is not on, and if there was a policy that could guarantee that only these people would be captured, I could support that. However, I cannot support a punitive policy that paints all young people with the same brush in order to target a minority.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank colleagues for their contributions. Colleagues have well canvassed this bill that we will introduce for the 2015 budget measures in the social services portfolio, along with certain other measures from the 2014 budget and earlier fiscal decisions. The 2015 budget measures incorporate the reintroduction with modifications or the replacement of three 2014 budget measures introduced previously.

The one-week ordinary waiting period that currently applies to the NewStart allowance and the Sickness Allowance will be extended to the Youth Allowance (Other) and the Parenting Payment. This measure modifies last year's budget measure so that Widow Allowance claimants will not be affected. The one-week waiting period is designed to encourage people to support themselves in the first instance where they are able to do so before seeking income support. The existing severe financial hardship exemption from the ordinary waiting period will be retained, but a new requirement introduced is that the person is also experiencing a personal financial crisis. This could include domestic violence or unavoidable or reasonable expenditure. This will better target the exemption to those who are most vulnerable and most in need of immediate assistance.

The bill currently provides for these amendments to start on 1 July 2015, but government amendments will provide for a new start date for the measure. From 1 July 2016 the age of eligibility for the NewStart allowance and Sickness Allowance will be increased from 22 to 25. Young jobseekers between the ages of 22 and 25 will be able to apply for Youth Allowance instead. This measure delays the start date of last year's budget measure by one year to 1 July 2016. Young people aged 22 to 24 and already in receipt of NewStart allowance or Sickness Allowance on 30 June 2016 will not be affected and will remain eligible for these payments. This measure will broadly align rates of payments for young unemployed people with the rates for young people studying full-time. Currently NewStart and Sickness allowances are paid at a higher rate than Youth Allowance. This can act as an incentive for young people aged 22 to 24 to either give up full-time study in order to access NewStart allowance or stay NewStart allowance instead of pursuing full-time study to aid their transition into work.

The changes to the age of eligibility will remove this incentive by placing all young people aged under 25 on Youth Allowance irrespective of whether they are unemployed or studying full-time. There is more flexibility to earn while on Youth Allowance. The income free areas are higher before payment is affected and so this change will strengthen the incentives for young unemployed people to work or pursue education and training opportunities.

The 2014 budget measure, stronger participation incentives for jobseekers under 30, which sought to introduce a six-month waiting period for those under 30 applying for NewStart allowance, Youth Allowance or Special Benefit will no longer be implemented. Instead, this bill introduces a four-week waiting period for those under 25 applying for Youth Allowance (Other) or Special Benefit. This measure forms part of the Youth Employment Strategy in the Growing Jobs and Small Business package. This measure will start 1 July 2016 and will only apply to jobseekers assessed as job ready in Stream A of jobactive. We know that in New Zealand when a similar measure was introduced 40 per cent of job seekers did not go on the payment; they went out and got a job rather than completing the pre-entry requirements. This evidence supports our approach.

During the waiting period young people will be required to undertake pre-benefit activities through a new program, Rapid Connect Plus, which will help them to prepare for and find work. These pre-benefit activities will include meeting with a jobactive provider, agreeing to a jobactive plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a jobseeker profile on the Job Search website and submitting up to 20 job applications. Jobseekers who have been assessed as having significant barriers to work will not be required to serve the four-week waiting period. This will include people assessed as Stream B or C of jobactive, parents with 35 per cent or more care of a child and young people in or leaving state care.

In this bill there are amendments to see that anyone who is incorrectly classified as Stream A when they should be B or C will be back paid. This is a significant amendment and will further protect Stream B and C jobseekers. Exemptions from the four-week waiting period will also be available to jobseekers with the temporary activity test exemption of more than two weeks, such as pregnant women in the six weeks before they are expected to give birth or people testing their eligibility for the Disability Support pension.

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 access student payments, such as youth allowance student, without having to serve a four-week waiting period. Under the Growing Jobs and Small Business package, there will be additional support options for young people with a mental illness— (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.