Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 and in my earlier speech I was talking about the sorts of programs that were in place to support people who found themselves unemployed or needing to do further education, particularly young people.

Labor established the notion of mutual obligation, but mutual obligation works both ways. Mutual obligation rests both with the job seeker and with the government. As I pointed out earlier, we saw a really good program defunded, the Youth Connections program, and it has ceased to exist. And I started to talk about apprentices.

Apprenticeships give young people and mature-age apprentices an opportunity to develop skills that they can take forward. If we want to be an innovative nation then we want to be promoting apprentices and apprenticeships wherever we can. We have seen the government make it harder for apprentices. Labor recognise that taking up an apprenticeship takes money and that not every apprentice can rely on family to stump up the necessary tools of their trade.

Labor also recognise that providing apprentices with access to mentors and other support would lift the completion rates of apprentices. Completion rates are a problem amongst apprentices and when we were in government we believed that one way to ensure that apprentices completed was to make a mentor available to them—someone they could speak to or to get advice from when the going got tough. Because of its blame-the-young-person attitude, the government slashed and burned this program and the results speak for themselves. They cut a billion dollars out of the apprenticeship program. So access to mentoring and the Apprentice to Business Owner program were cut in that first horrendous budget under the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government.

We know that Mr Turnbull has said over and over again that lock, stock and barrel, he supports all of the budgets that this government have put in place. Indeed, he absolutely supports that billion dollars in cuts. So they replaced the apprentice support with apprentice debt by abolishing the Tools For Your Trade Payment program. We saw that they rebadged and cut funding to the Australian apprenticeship centres. They abolished the joint Group Training program and cut support for adult apprentices. Given that we are seeing how the Turnbull government goaded the car industry to the point that they are moving offshore and closing down in Australia, you would think that reskilling mature-age people, particularly through apprenticeships, would be No. 1 on their agenda. Unfortunately, it is not.

What we have seen after two years and the billion dollar cuts to apprenticeship programs is that the number of completions has dropped from 63,000 in June 2013 to just 29,700 in June 2015. What a disgrace. We have seen through the Senate estimates that apprentices often get a raw deal, that they are underpaid and treated badly in the workplace. So any schemes which support and promote apprentices as a way forward, particularly for young people but not exclusively young people, should be supported by the Turnbull government. But again, what we see is this punitive approach, not the support that is needed. We see that carrot and stick, not mutual obligation. The government see mutual obligation as simply resting with the job seeker and nowhere else. So all the effort and all of the compliance is simply there for the job seeker and any programs that might assist in enabling young people and older people to get jobs are ripped away.

The other area that provided great opportunities for young people have been the trade centres, which Labor put in place and, again, which have been chopped. A great opportunity for young people to gain skills, to try out a potential trade and to get a certificate to start them on their journey to work is gone—abolished by this government.

I had the opportunity to attend the opening of the Pinjarra Waroona Trade Training Centre at Pinjarra high school. It is a really fabulous centre, eagerly supported by local business and Alcoa. A big company like Alcoa really thought that that trade training centre at Pinjarra high school was something they would get great benefit from. Thankfully, that is still in existence because it was built when Labor was in government. But to just cut the funding to those trade training centres is another example of where the government does not understand mutual obligation. It simply says it is punitive measures that we need, apparently there is an abundance of jobs out there that people can just pick up and, obviously, people who do not do that are somehow lazy. I saw students at Pinjarra and Waroona high schools attending that centre. They were actively and enthusiastically participating in their learning and saw the centre as giving them real opportunities for a quality job—opportunities that will enable them to stay in that semirural location of Pinjarra and Waroona.

Similarly, Coodanup College in Mandurah—and we should all be very alarmed at this—currently has not one student reaching ATAR levels. I know that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, as someone who is really interested, with a career in the education system, would be appalled at that. Coodanup College, in the heart of Mandurah, has not one student reaching ATAR. We should all be doing whatever we can to help that school. Fortunately, under Labor's scheme, that school qualified for a trade training centre. I visited that trade training centre. The school is very enthusiastic about it, but that school needs more support to enable those young people not only to take up potential trades through that trade training centre but to reach that ATAR level. Interestingly, all the schools that surround that school do have children attaining ATAR levels, and it is the standout school that does not. I think there is a great shame about that. It demonstrates the sorts of cuts we have seen Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia, make to schools and, equally, the $3.2 million that this government has ripped out of every school. Schools like Coodanup College need to be funded according to need so that we can give those children a chance, because postcode is what is defining what is happening at Coodanup College, and it is very clear for everyone to see. It will get its trade training centre and provide those students with a career, but they certainly need help to make sure that they reach ATAR levels. But, again, we saw that the short-sighted nature of the Turnbull government has abandoned these centres too.

Other Labor senators have mentioned the job plan. We heard in evidence that job plans are simply taken off the shelf. They are not individually tailored to people's needs. Many people gave evidence during the inquiry that the job plan was simply one size fits all. No wonder people have trouble signing it—it is not meeting their needs. There is this 'inappropriate behaviour' thing. The department was not able to quantify what that meant. So, yes, Labor stands for mutual obligation, but that cuts both ways, and it is time the government got back on board with what job seekers really need, which is the proper definition of 'mutual obligation', support from the government and sticks when needed, but support needs to be there. This is not all one way: all job seekers who do not get jobs are lazy.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I made my first speech in this place nearly seven years ago, I made the observation:

… my own goal: for an Australia which is egalitarian in approach, which rewards independence in outlook and encourages interdependence as a necessary quality of a mature economy but which works actively to eliminate dependency as a long-term outcome. No policy should have the objective of denying a human being their right to support themselves and/or their family, and society should not tolerate conditions which condemn young people especially to the prospect of long-term unemployment and dependence on government handouts in a country such as ours.

I believed those comments then, and they go very well to the discussion we are having here in this place at this time on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015, because it goes exactly to the point that no community, no economy, no country should encourage the circumstances of young people especially being condemned to the prospect of long-term unemployment and dependence on government handouts in a country such as this one. I think we are in agreement with the comments that have been made by others that there has to be every level of assistance so that young people in the community who are unemployed and who want to work and are able to work actually develop the principles early in their lives so that they will get into a work ethic and they will be able to honour that obligation to themselves and to their families to be able to support them. This is what this bill is all about.

It complements legislation last year for stronger penalties for job seekers who failed to undertake the tasks that we, as a mature society, would require of them: looking for work, participating in activities and then accepting a suitable job offer. All of us in this place have been in that circumstance at some other time of our lives, and many of us have encouraged children—possibly, into the future, grandchildren—and those young people around us to do each of those: to look for work, to participate in activities that are going to secure them employment and then, of course, to accept a job offer. It is interesting that the changes that were introduced by that bill last year, the successful no-show no-pay reforms, which were agreed to by the parliament in 2015, have seen job seeker attendance rates at rescheduled appointments increase from 65 per cent to more than 90 per cent in that short period of time. That must be a very strong stimulus.

There are five real elements that go to the core of this bill. It ensures that job seekers will, firstly, enter into a job plan; secondly, meet their job search requirements; thirdly, participate in activities, including training and Work for the Dole; fourthly, attend appointments with their employment providers; and, fifthly, seriously look at and accept offers of employment. Let me go back to each of these.

We all know that for those who have lost a job the likelihood of getting back into employment depends largely on them looking for work and having providers available who can assist them as quickly as possible to get back into employment. A job plan is essential. In the case of young people who are unemployed and looking for work a job plan is at the core. They must participate in that process, as must their parents if that is required, along with the provider, funded of course by the taxpayer through government.

They must meet their job search requirements. In many cases they will be developing skills along the way as they go through that exercise. I mentioned thirdly that they must participate in activities, including training, Work for the Dole and other initiatives that are in place to assist them in their development and their training. They must turn up for appointments with their employment providers and they must accept an offer of suitable employment.

Taxpayers in this country and the wider community would expect job seekers to meet their mutual obligation requirements. There is definitely community concern expressed to all of us that the current rules make it too easy for a job seeker to choose welfare instead of accepting a job. Going back to the point that I made in my first speech: no policy should have as its objective denying a human being their right to support themselves and their family—that is absolutely critical. The principle contained within this bill reflects the fact that the Australian income support system is there as a safety net for people who cannot find employment. It is not there to support those who simply refuse to look for, or to accept, a job. It is not there for those members of the community who simply say: 'I'm alright. I don't want to work. Let the rest of the community support me.' If there is not a reason for them not to be looking for work, or working, they should be.

We know that with the changes made by the previous government job seekers who refused to participate in work without a good excuse did not have any financial penalty imposed as a result of that. We know that that process has failed. We know it is not working. We know it has not encouraged—and this is the very fundamental thought and principle—especially young people to look for work. We know, for example, that in 2009-10, when the waiver provisions were first introduced, only 45 per cent of penalties for refusing a suitable job were waived. By comparison, in 2013-14 that 45 per cent had increased to 78 per cent, simply because 'no work, no pay' is a very strong incentive. The current rules no longer provide a sufficient deterrent to refuse work, because job seekers know, in that circumstance, their payment would be achieved and there would be no consequence for them.

I want to reflect for a few minutes on the value of work. We all participate in it. I am speaking particularly in the context of a young person coming out of school, training or education who has not worked. We know that the first value and benefit of work is discipline—self-discipline; the need to actually get out of bed in the morning, to plan and to turn up to the workplace where the young person has found employment. We know they need to do so day after day. The discipline of attending the workplace is a critically important one and one that is lost, unfortunately, on many young people in the community.

The second one is social engagement. We know that we spend most of our waking lives in or associated with work in the workplace. Look at us in this place and the proportion of our working lives that we spend in the workplace or associated areas. We have that social engagement which is so critically important to the development of a young person and indeed to the wellness and the wellbeing of all of us in the community. We know that it is a great spot for young people to perhaps meet their future spouse. In fact, many people find their partner in life in their workplace. So social engagement is the second great benefit and value of work.

The third, as Senator Smith is only too well aware, is the benefit of developing communication skills. Where better than a workplace to listen to the views of others, to develop the skill of putting your own view and, in relation to workplace activities, to develop the skills associated with negotiation within the field of communication.

The fourth, and most obvious, is skills development. We know that in the war and post-war period when people came into employment they stayed in that job for all of their working life. We know of the contrast to today where the average young person from the start of their working life to the end of their career will undertake some seven or even eight career changes. It is interesting for all of us in this place to reflect on the number of career changes. You, Mr President, have a very interesting and colourful background in terms of the careers that brought you to the presidency. I know that this is my eighth complete career change. So skills development in the workplace is critically important and is underpinned by the necessity of this social security legislation amendment that we are discussing here today. Not only is it relevant in the workplace but the skills a young person acquires in their workplace are taken into their home, into their social lives and into their related recreational environments. The fifth of my points—and I do not think you are going to allow me to proceed— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, you are absolutely correct. It being 2 pm, we now move to questions without notice. You will be in continuation.