Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Nick Xenophon Team amendment (1) on sheet 8034 revised:

(1) Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

5 At the end of Part 7

Add:

243A Review of operation of Youth Jobs PaTH program

(1) Before the end of the period of 2 years after the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Act 2017, the Employment Minister must cause to be conducted a review into the operation of the program established by the Commonwealth and known as "Youth Jobs PaTH".

(2) The Employment Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).

(3) The Employment Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.

(4) In this section:

Employment Minister means the Minister administering the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the NXT amendment, I need some clarity from the Xenophon party. The proposal is for a review by the minister after two years. Given the history of the problems that have arisen with Work for the Dole, even to the extent where a young person was killed in Work for the Dole, despite the checks and balances that are supposedly there to look after not only the conditions that these young people would be working under but also their health and safety, from Labor's point of view we have severe concerns that they will not be carried out effectively or properly.

An example is that, under Minister Cash, apprentices, who get far more checks and balances in their employment conditions than anyone would have under this bill, are still being ripped off mercilessly by employers around the country. In fact, the Fair Work Ombudsman has conducted two investigations into the pay and conditions of apprentices, and what it found was that about 50 per cent of apprentices were not receiving proper wages and conditions. It also found that, even though that was the situation, only one out of 100 apprentices actually complained, because they are in a power situation with the employer that leaves them in a weak and exposed position.

I am concerned that this bill does not even have the checks and balances that are available to apprentices. The NXT amendment for a review after two years might be fair enough, but if the experiences of what we have seen in Work for the Dole and with apprentices are correct, surely there has to be something more than relying on estimates, where we will be given the run-around by the minister and the department, as we have been with the apprentice concerns and a number of concerns elsewhere. Why are we waiting two years, and why would there not be a more independent review, given the concerns that have been raised by the submitters to the inquiry? Why would we not do something earlier and more independent, rather than simply wait for the department to do a report for the minister that covers up all the blemishes, all the problems and issues that people are concerned about? I am concerned that we need to do something more than simply wait for two years. I would be interested to find out why NXT would wait two years for this and not do something more quickly—say, in 12 months—or something independent or, when the problems start to arise, deal with it in a more effective way than simply questions without notice or the estimates process.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to follow up on Senator Cameron's questions and the points being made there. I think they are very important in relation to this. If this piece of legislation to implement these slave wages for young people is now going to pass because of the support from the Nick Xenophon Team, I think we need to be really clear about what the review includes and to ensure that it is as independent as possible. I look at what happened in the VET sector, where we know the rorting was rife. The last thing we want to see is a situation where this scheme becomes the next absolute rort and exploitation of young people. If you look at the detail of this bill, it is absolutely ripe for the rorting. We need to make sure that we have those checks and balances and that the process is as transparent as possible. I am hoping that the Nick Xenophon Team can give us some more information about what their review will include. Would they consider making sure there is more transparency there? By just asking the government or the minister to do their own review without some points of pressure, I really fear that we are setting ourselves up for another massive exploitation, as we saw under the VET FEE-HELP scheme.

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

I rise to speak on this very worthy amendment of my colleague, Senator Griff. A review process, by implication from the discussions we have had with the government, must be comprehensive and must rely on independent experts. I would like to hear from the government on this. I think that the points made by Senator Hanson-Young are fair enough. My clear understanding is that any review will involve speaking to a broad range of stakeholders—including young people who are part of this program, independent experts and employers—having a robust analysis and tabling the report. That is how the independent review would operate. Fortunately, in this parliament we have estimates three times a year, in contrast to the South Australian parliament, where there are woeful accountability measures. We have a process where, if there were concerns, the Senate could support a specific references committee inquiry or indeed a select committee inquiry looking into these issues. So it would be helpful for the minister to confirm that such a review would be independent of the minister's office, and that it would include terms of reference which would allow a robust examination of the scheme, and that it would seek evidence not just from those young people and employers involved in it but also from unions that may be concerned about it—so that it will be a fair and comprehensive review process. That is why we are advocating so strongly for this amendment.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to put on notice that the Australian Conservatives will support this amendment. Perhaps for different reasons, Senator Hanson-Young happens to agree with me. We think schemes like this are open to abuse and open to all sorts of rorting. I have given the government the benefit of the doubt; the minister has given us various assurances that any potential loopholes have been closed. I think it is a precautionary measure to have a scheduled review, and so I am delighted to be supporting this amendment.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that Labor is not satisfied with anything we have heard from Senator Xenophon or Senator Bernardi. We will wait to hear from the minister, obviously. But here we are again: the Nick Xenophon Team have done a deal with the government, once again, for another review. This is just their modus operandi. And now we find out from Senator Xenophon himself that the terms of reference have not been determined—that he is hoping they will be robust! Are there terms of reference for the review, Minister? If there are terms of reference, can you table them? And if there are no terms of reference, what are you going to do about it?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government agrees to the amendment put forward by the Nick Xenophon Team and moved on behalf Senator Griff. Before the end of the period of two years after the latter of the bill receiving royal assent or 1 April 2017, the minister will cause to be conducted a review into the operation of Youth Jobs PaTH, prepare a report of the review and table the report in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days of that house after completion of the report.

In relation to the comments made by Senator Xenophon: absolutely, we broadly agree. Without a doubt, if you are going to conduct a comprehensive review into the operation of this program—which, as I have indicated, we are very pleased to support—that would indeed necessitate the reviewer speaking to and taking evidence from a broad range of stakeholders. Those stakeholders would clearly include both employers and the youth who have been through the program. In relation to the terms of reference—no, Senator Cameron, no terms of reference have yet been drafted. But again, the fact that we are agreeing to conduct a review of the operation of Youth Jobs PaTH is self-explanatory.

In terms of a number of the issues that have been raised by both Senator Cameron and Senator Hanson-Young, it is very interesting that they stand up in this place and say to the youth of Australia, 'We are here supporting you.' But when you look at the position that they are taking in relation to this bill, by their actions they shall be judged—because they are doing the exact opposite. This government makes no apologies for the fact that we firmly believe that the best form of welfare is a job. We have a problem with youth unemployment in this country. There are youth out there who would love to get their foot in the door, but because they do not have the skills that employers are looking for they will never be given that opportunity. We as a government are very proud that we are making a total investment in youth employment of approximately $850 million, as announced in last year's budget. Part of that program is obviously Youth Jobs PaTH. We are getting our youth ready, we are giving them a go and we are getting them a job.

I am always fascinated to go online and read about the number of interns that both the Labor Party and the Greens quite literally push through their offices. These interns go online and they are quite happy to extol the virtues of the internship. It is always interesting that those on the other side are prepared to reap the benefits of internships—and in many cases unpaid internships by Labor and the Australian Greens movement—but, when an opportunity is offered to a young person who, but for that opportunity, is probably staring down the barrel of a lifetime of welfare, the first thing Labor and the Greens say is, 'No; we will deny you that opportunity.' Well, guess what? We on this side of the chamber are very proud to stand here and say that we will do everything we can to empower those youth who are on unemployment who do not have the skills and who do not have the opportunity to get their foot in the door.

In terms of the issues that have been raised about safeguards, I will inform the Senate of the safeguards that have been put in place in relation to this program. As I said, the program has started, and we are delighted. The program started on 1 April. There are youth who are currently in receipt of unemployment benefits who are now the beneficiaries of phase 1, the 'Prepare' stage. They are undertaking employability skills training—and guess what? The feedback is fantastic. I am also pleased that a number of youth who have not actually had to undertake the first phase have gone straight into the internship phase. In fact, we have already had one person who was on unemployment benefits offered a job. We make no apologies for that.

In terms of the program itself, as we have consistently discussed at estimates hearings, as we have consistently discussed with the shadow spokesperson, Mr Husic, from the other place, and which we have briefed Labor on in detail—and Mr Husic has actually been very good to work with in relation to this—the program has comprehensive safeguards in place to protect participants from, as those on the other side like to say, exploitation and churning, and to prevent host businesses from terminating or reducing the hours of existing employees.

The department are applying their well-established program assurance strategy—as for all employment services—to the PaTH program. They are doing it, in the first instance, by way of prevention. Program guidelines and the internship agreement will make the obligations and program intent clear to providers, jobseekers and the host businesses. Providers will have access to information on a host business's PaTH internship history, showing how many interns have been employed by the business. The internship agreement itself is clear on the requirements and that inappropriate use could result in exclusion from further access to the program. If you choose to abuse—and, I have to say, I give employers the benefit of the doubt; most employers in this country do the right thing—you can be barred from ever utilising this program.

In terms of detection, this may be through identifying noncompliance or triggering a review of a business's use of the program through data analytics; the tip-off line; the national customer service line; jobseeker surveys; provider audits and the rolling random sample process; and also of course through working with providers and host businesses to ensure that they fully understand the policy requirements—and, if required, terminating internship agreements and preventing access to the program by host businesses that use the program inappropriately.

Employment service providers will monitor how the PaTH internship program is progressing. If their monitoring suggests that an employer is not using the program appropriately; again, they may terminate the internship agreement and report the employer to the Department of Employment. As a further safeguard, jobseekers can raise concerns directly with their employment services provider or the Department of Employment, through the national customer service line, while organising a PaTH internship placement or during a PaTH internship. Jobseekers will stay connected to their provider during the placement, including attending their ongoing appointments. Again, any host business found to be misusing the program will be excluded from future participation.

I also make the point, though, that the intern stage of this program is voluntary. You do not have to undertake an internship if you do not want to; however, there are many youth out there who are quite literally looking forward to the opportunity of getting their foot in the door via this program, like so many people have done through Labor Party offices and through the Australian Greens offices. So many have had an opportunity to showcase their skills. In fact, the intern who went through the office of the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten—I think his name was Ben, and I will correct the Hansard if his name is not Ben—has proudly stated that through that internship he was able to contribute to last year's budget-in-reply speech. That was the opportunity offered to him, and he clearly relished the opportunity.

I go back to Senator Xenophon and this amendment. Senator Xenophon, we support the amendment. A review will be commissioned by the minister and tabled in the parliament in the terms in the amendment.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing that has been said there adds anything to what we already know about this program. Nothing has been said that would give me any comfort that this minister can do any better in this area of responsibility than she has done in the area of apprentices. Apprentices are being ripped off mercilessly under this minister's watch. There is nothing being done—there is never a comment, never a statement and never any action—yet this minister comes here and tries to lecture us in her high-handed manner that she can resolve all these problems by data analytics and the employers basically conceding to provide information. Minister, that is not how the world out there works. If you actually did take time to look at the rip-offs of young apprentices that have been happening out there, you would understand why Labor has concerns about what you are saying.

We will not be satisfied with a two-year review that has no terms of reference and that we think will be widespread. Senator Xenophon has simply been making it up on the run. He does not know how this review is going to be undertaken. There are no terms of reference and no agreement. We will wait for two years to find out what happened to young people. Senator Xenophon, this minister cannot look after apprentices properly and yet you are going to give your faith to this minister to look after young kids, who will be exploited even more. Fifty per cent of apprentices feel exploited in this country under the watch of Minister Cash.

Where are they going to work? I like the idea that you can compare what is happening with this program with internships in parliament with departments, shadow ministers or parliamentarians. It is an absolute nonsense. We already have got Subway, a multinational, advertising that it is going to put on interns. What are they going to do? They are going to be sandwich artists.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an absolute disgrace. You should withdraw that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is saying this is a disgrace. I agree it is a disgrace, Minister. I think you are a disgrace. You cannot look after apprentices, and you are trying to tell us that you can look after internees being ripped off by people like Subway and 7-Eleven and Caltex, all under your watch. And you come here with your bombastic attitude telling us that we do not look after young people, but we do look after young people. You should just learn the same trait of looking after young people.

If you are in here on an internship, what you get from that internship is actually some recognition of the work that you do for your degree. That is what happens. You get some recognition for the work that you do. But this minister and Senator Xenophon have done a deal. Senator Xenophon will get some other deal down the track for supporting this bill. And we have this two-year review with absolutely no terms of reference, just a hope and a prayer that this minister will do the right thing, a hope and a prayer about the checks and balances—and I will come to the checks and balances down the track a little bit—including data analytics.

This is a government that has been using data analytics in the Department of Human Services, and how well has that gone, Minister? I just think the checks and balances in here are absolute nonsense. You do not have the capacity to look after young people that are operating under legislation in your portfolio. That is clear. This is an $850 million investment, and the people who are getting the benefit will be the people like Caltex, 7-Eleven and Subway. These are big multinationals who should actually be employing young people. They should not have to get funding from the federal government to actually put young people in a job. And there will be displacement. We might get some views on displacement from you down the track and on what the checks and balances on displacement are. But there are no comprehensive safeguards, as the minister has outlined.

I put to Senator Xenophon: if we start seeing, as we fear, widespread exploitation under this program, and if we start to see traits that are happening to young apprentices happening to these young people on so-called internships, will you support a Senate inquiry, independent of the minister, prior to the two years? If we see problems starting to arise, which we fully expect, will you support Labor and get an earlier review through a Senate inquiry process? Or will you argue that there is a process in place and we have to wait for two years and let kids be ripped off and exploited for two years, let kids be injured, let a young kid be killed—as happened in the Work for the Dole—in this program before you do anything about it? What is the Nick Xenophon Team's position on getting a review earlier than the two years if, as we fear, exploitation takes place?

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

I think Senator Cameron knows very well that as a general principle we support Senate inquiries. Even as a general course of the way we operate, we would support Senate inquiries. There is a reason why we do not have specific terms of reference at this stage, which is that there could well be a number of matters that arise in the course of the implementation of the program that need to be looked at forensically by an independent review. In answer to your direct question, Senator Cameron, if others in this chamber have concerns about this program prior to the independent review that will be instigated by the minister and if there is a move for a Senate inquiry—a references committee inquiry, presumably—then of course we will support that. We want to see the terms of reference, but you know that we are quite flexible. Our history in dealing with the opposition and the Australian Greens on these things is that we are amenable to a process that has solid terms of reference so that the inquiry can look at all of the issues. The short answer is yes.

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

I want to go to the issue of the review first. I have quite a bit of experience in this place with reviews. I am thinking of the cashless welfare card. Honestly, the interim evaluation shows that, to the largest extent, it is not worth the paper it is written on. They have done a review and, even with the information that is contained in the review, the minister has just spun that to justify proof of concept. The data they have included does not support the conclusions that the government are drawing and they are using that to justify the expansion of the cashless welfare card trials in the current sites. Also, in the budget there are two new trials. The data simply does not support the conclusions they are drawing. Forty-nine per cent of people have said that their life is worse. The government have spun the so-called figures on drug, alcohol and gambling to the greatest extent possible.

I am sorry, but I do not have much faith in reports or reviews and that the government actually take them into consideration. I am not saying it should not be reviewed, but my point is that this is another ideological program by the government. They will ignore any adverse findings anyway and will continue with it. We need to remember up-front that any review needs to be looked at very carefully so that we ensure that the government act on it. So, while I would have a review, I have little faith that it would be acted on. It is well known that a lot of people within government do not like Work for the Dole, but it continues despite the accidents that have occurred and despite someone losing their life—and we still do not know what happened; we still have not seen that report.

While I am on my feet, I would also like to address the issue of interns. One of the deeply offensive parts of the bill is that it continues to talk about these people as interns. They are going to be exploited workers. The Greens amendment that ensured that people would not work for below the minimum wage was voted down, which is a tragedy. It is quite clear, therefore, that people may end up working below the minimum wage. The government link that to internship when someone will clearly be doing a job that somebody else could do in a paid position. I am still not reassured that people who currently have jobs will not be replaced in this program, despite the government saying that they will not be. The concept of internships under this government has been continually eroded. To compare it to interns in parliamentary offices is, quite frankly, a joke when you compare the exploitation that is going to occur. It is not that it may occur; it will occur in these positions. That is appalling, in my opinion. It is just a cheap political stunt to say, 'You shouldn't complain, because you offer people opportunities to understand the political process.' We are not putting them in workplaces where they work on making a profit for a company. Businesses are already advertising. I know the minister did not like the term 'sandwich artists', but that is, quite frankly, the spin that Subway is putting on it to try to get people onto the superlucrative deal for the big companies. That is the spin they are putting on it. Whether the minister is offended or not, that is the spin that Subway is putting on it, and it is what we can expect from other large employers.

I would also like an assurance from the minister around this whole issue of it being voluntary and being linked to the employment plan. I have had numerous complaints from people who have felt they had no option to argue with their employment plan. In fact, the previous measure that fell off the Notice Paper when the parliament was prorogued for the last election, the stronger compliance for jobseekers measures, sought to make it more difficult, or would have made it more difficult, for people to question and be involved in a good discussion about their employment plan. What guarantees are there—and will the minister commit to this—that no-one will be forced to take on an employment plan where they do not want to do this program but the jobactive provider says, 'This is going to be part of your employment plan'? At what point can they do that, and who can they go to, when the jobactive provider says, 'You shall do it'? It is going to be more and more difficult to discuss and question the employment plan if they do not feel that that position under PaTH is appropriate for them.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know we are being broadcast, and this might be slightly confusing for people who are listening in. This bill is actually a very, very discrete bill, and does two very, very small things that are clearly in the interests of the person who will be voluntarily undertaking the internship. As I have stated, the PaTH program, which we are very proud of, has commenced. It commenced on 1 April. All this bill does—I think most would be at a loss as to why Labor and the Australian Greens are not supporting it, given everything they are standing here today and saying—is ensure that the $200 per fortnight incentive payment is not treated as income, and therefore the intern will get the full benefit of the $200. Also, if during the hire phase the now employee loses their job through no fault of their own within that 26-week period, they are automatically reconnected to the system to ensure that they do not lose any money. So I am a little surprised that the Australian Greens, in particular, given that the program is up and running, are not seeking to ensure that those participating in the program absolutely do get the full benefits of it.

Putting that aside, in relation to Senator Siewert's questions, the internship program is entirely voluntary. Young people will be able to choose the workplace that they go to, with the support of their provider. In terms of what you asked in relation to the job plan, a PaTH internship will be an optional term of the jobseeker's employment pathway plan—or the job plan, as it is colloquially known—not a compulsory one, and therefore a failure to complete the internship will not constitute noncompliance by the jobseeker. The internship agreement itself will inform the jobseeker that PaTH is a voluntary placement and that they may end the placement at any time. In terms of who they are able to go to—in the instance you gave, if the job provider was saying, 'I'm going to make this a compulsory part of your plan'—they will have all the information provided to them to ensure that they know that it is not. Then the usual channels will apply, in terms of the information lines, the Department of Employment et cetera, to ensure that there is a mechanism for them to complain.

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

I want to respond to the minister's comment at the beginning of her answer to that question—and I appreciate the answer. Yes, we do know we are discussing those two parts of it, but of course this is part of the whole concept of PaTH. The government chose to start the program before this legislation had been dealt with. I appreciate the two measures that the minister was talking about, but the simple fact is: the government knew that these measures had not been through the chamber and that they were subject to a great deal of opposition from, at that stage, a number of parties, and now it is the ALP and we who still have very strong concerns about this.

Thank you for the answer, Minister. I appreciate your confirming it is voluntary. In terms of the job plan, the employment plan, the usual method of complaint is the information line. Could you just articulate what other measures there are? Often the people who are using the services of the jobactive providers actually do not know their options for who they can raise their concerns with, and they feel pretty trapped when there is a lot of pressure on them. I know this because people come into my office and tell me. They feel pretty trapped and deeply concerned that they feel that they do not have an option to raise concerns about their plan or question it.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are correct: there is the National Customer Service Line, which is highly utilised by people in receipt of benefits. There is also the tip-off line. There is also the Department of Employment itself directly, by email. And members of parliament themselves are often referring things to us. So it is the avenues that would normally apply in terms of issues that need to be raised.

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

The other part of the question was: how do people know? As part of the approach in this program, will those be clearly outlined when people are participating in the pre-program and when they are discussing this matter with their jobactive provider?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is yes.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, could I acknowledge the commitments that Senator Xenophon has given in relation to emerging problems and support for a Senate inquiry if required. I think we will be calling on that sooner rather than later. We do not support this bill. We think there are huge problems with the bill. We think that the review has got significant problems, given that there are no terms of reference for the review. But I suppose it is better than nothing. But I would like to use the time when the Xenophon amendment is before the chamber to deal with a number of issues before we go to a vote on that amendment, which we would be inclined to support, given that there has already been a deal done. The deal has been done. It is not a very good deal. There are no terms of reference. There is a nod, a wink and a handshake—typical of the Xenophon team's dealings with this government. Whenever the government is in trouble, the Xenophon team will pull them out of trouble, and we will not explore the real issues; we will just get another commitment for a committee or some inquiry. That just seems to be how it works.

I just want to go into some of the details, Minister. You indicated the program has started. So the program commenced without a legislative framework. Could you explain how that can happen. How many participants are there? What are the ages of these participants? What industries or employers are they engaged with? Are the intern payments being counted as income? And, if so, how will they be reimbursed, if the bill passes?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron, for those questions and, yes, you are right: the program did not require legislation, as with many government programs, to commence and therefore it commenced on 1 April.

In relation to statistics, I have some statistics with me, which I am sure the department is currently getting for me. If I cannot get them during the term of this debate, I will certainly endeavour to provide them to you later on today. I understand that approximately, at this point in time, 40 per cent of the internships are within tourism and accommodation but, obviously, there are a wide variety of industries that have come on board. I will endeavour to get the statistics on how many are currently in the program, bearing in mind that the program has been up and running now for only five weeks.

In terms of your question, currently, without the passing of the legislation, is the $200 a fortnight top-up payment counted as income? The answer is: yes, it is—hence the reason we are debating this bill—and there will be no reimbursement; there will be none.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you have actually allowed your department to work with employers to engage young people without all the so-called benefits that you claim the bill will provide—pretty typical. Minister, you indicated in your summing-up speech yesterday that there was feedback from youth who you said had been telling us: 'We would love to get a job, but we don't have the skills the employers need.' Can you advise us: who did you consult to get this feedback? What was the process, and when did the consultation occur?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As you would know, in relation to government programs, departments undertake ongoing consultation and, certainly, in relation to this program, the department undertook extensive consultation, in particular with employers but also with jobseekers and job providers.

Regarding my own consultation, I talk to youth all the time and I ask them what the barriers are in relation to getting them off welfare and into work. Overwhelmingly, I am often advised that they cannot get their foot in the door. They do not have the requisite skills that an employer requires. That is why the government was very upfront about the fact that this program directly responds to feedback received by youth—and, in many cases, it is their parents who say, 'I do not want to see my son or daughter living a lifetime of welfare, but I don't have the capacity to give them the skills they need.' The feedback has been overwhelming in terms of the government ensuring that these young people to have the employability skills that employers are looking for.

I have some further information about consulting. The department of employment, as I said—it is ongoing consultation, obviously, in relation to government programs with a wide range of organisations and the design of the jobactive PaTH. It, clearly, takes on board all views—in fact, I have to say again: the shadow minister, Ed Husic, was very good in terms of providing me with feedback. I understand that—and I do not have the brief date of this—they consulted with over 50 organisations, including industry peak bodies, industry associations, employment services, peak bodies, unions, employers and state government departments.

The department released a consultation paper to seek stakeholders' views about the employability skills training, which was the first element of jobactive PaTH. More than 70 written submissions were received by the department, with stakeholders providing positive feedback—so extensive consultation was undertaken.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister, but you have not gone near the question I asked you. I am not surprised that the employers love this program, because what you are doing is subsidising the company to bring young people in to do work that someone could have been employed to do. I am not asking you who you consulted with, but if this was just rhetorical flourish yesterday in your summing up, then do not dig deeper—just tell us it was a rhetorical flourish and that there has not been feedback from youth. I have asked you, given that you made this statement yesterday, and I do not mean you personally: what youth did the department consult with; how many young people did the department consult with; how did you find these young people to consult with; and when did the consultations occur? Maybe I will try again and ask you to deal with that and stop digging a bigger hole. If it was a rhetorical flourish, just tell us that, and we can move on.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I have clearly articulated the answer to that question.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is the type of answer we are going to get, no wonder young people cannot be protected under your watch. That is the problem we have. Why don't you take it on notice to provide us with the detail? I think it is a fair question, as you claim that young people want the program. We are simply saying to you, 'You're saying that you consulted. Tell us who you consulted'—and that is not you; that is the department—'what was the process, and when did the consultation occur?' We have not had any answers to that. I would appreciate it if you tried to deal with that.

In your speech yesterday you went to the issue of an ANU student working in the Leader of the Opposition's office, and you have raised it again today. Do you accept that there is a vast difference in terms of qualifications received and the skills and experience you would have in a professional internship and those you would have as a sandwich artist at Subway? Are you saying that they are both the same and, if you are, can you explain how these would be the same?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you have the call.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will defer to Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation supports this legislation being passed by the government, and I believe that it is a good step in the right direction towards addressing youth unemployment. Many areas that I travel to have a youth unemployment rate of about 25 per cent, or even more. Youth feel that they are forgotten, they are not being listened to and policies have not been put in place. What is also lacking are incentives to give them reasons why they should go and get a job or want to work. I think this legislation is a great incentive. Yes, they are getting the Newstart allowance, but it is also going to allow them $200 extra a fortnight to help them manage to get clothes and to present themselves well. Someone has to do something about it. Not only are kids finding it hard to get jobs; let's be honest about it, a lot of them are unemployable. If some of these young people had walked into my shop looking the way that they do when I had a business, they would not have got a foot in the door with me in the first place.

Someone has taken the initiative to say: 'Listen, guys, get your act together. Clean yourselves up. Presentation means everything to an employer.' I have to acknowledge this and give credit to the government for doing something about it. I have seen photos where kids have been transformed from an appearance of looking unemployable to where they have taken pride in themselves—and now they have a job.

Senator Cameron makes the comment, 'A business is going to rip off the system.' That may be the case, but the biggest rip-off in the system under the Labor Party was the pink batts. Where was their accountability when businesses took on doing the jobs and ripping off the taxpayers for how many billions of dollars?

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Labor Party talks about the youth or the Greens talk about youth employment, wages and everything like that, why would you knock back something like this that has given the kids an incentive to go and work? Would you be happy enough to see them sitting on a Newstart allowance?

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order. I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly and that senators are entitled to be heard in silence.

I hear the interjections. Of course, I do not know their backgrounds, but how many in this chamber have actually held a small business and employed staff? There are not very many in this chamber. I am speaking from a small business person's point of view.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I employed 400.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not talking about a union rep or a union delegate who pushes the agenda of their own union ahead of what the workers really want and getting jobs. What I am talking about is that this is an opportunity for kids to have jobs. It is going to be reviewed in a couple of years time. It is a four-year program, but it will be reviewed. It is going to actually work. Isn't it best to have kids out there, or our youth, who have the opportunity to get a job? Then they can go on to further employment. That is a start.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give them a job and stop using them for slave labour!

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole fact is that I have spoken to businesses. They want to put it on. Small businesses are struggling, and until we address—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Williams, on a point of order?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You brought to the attention of the chamber that interjections are disorderly. I ask you to bring standing order 197 to the attention of Senator Hanson-Young. If not, please use standing order 203 in consideration.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Williams. I will repeat that interjections are disorderly and that all senators are entitled to be heard in silence.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I also express the fact that the interjection from Senator Hanson-Young—she is saying this is slave labour. What a load of rubbish! It is not slave labour. It is about getting to know a trade or to work in one. An employer is struggling these days, and a lot of people will not—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Excuse me, Chair. I am still getting interjections from Senator Hanson-Young and it is disrupting my speech to this parliament, which I think is very important because the Australian people are interested in what I have to say.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I reiterate my third call for senators to extend the right of all senators to be heard in silence. Interjections are disorderly—please desist.

As I said, having run my own small business, it is quite expensive to put someone on, especially if they are not very well equipped with the knowledge of how to do that job. There is a training period. This is also involved in a training period: if they are capable of doing the job, the employer will—in my instance, if they are capable of doing the job, I would have put them onto further employment.

Until we address the industrial relations in this country by allowing small businesses to employ a person they wish to without fear of discrimination, and sack that person freely without fear of discrimination because that person is incapable of doing that job, nothing will change in this country. That is why small businesses are stifling—not only small businesses, but also other industries—because they are strangled by legislation. So that needs to be addressed.

This is a step in the right direction to get the youth employed, especially in rural and regional areas. I know that businesses will take them on. They are giving them the incentive to put them on, and the youth are given an opportunity they would never have had. If those on the opposite side and the Greens are going to vote against this bill purely because of the $50, they are, I will say, not really considering the unemployed youth out there. They are not really considering giving them an opportunity. By giving them work like this, they are actually going to pick up an extra $200 a fortnight. If they do not have work, what are they stuck with? Unemployment; on the streets; probably on drugs; tied up in gangs; looking, possibly, at crime; no hope of ever having a job whatsoever in the future. This is, at least, going to give them an opportunity to possibly end up with employment. I am sure their parents would encourage them to take up these jobs.

I think it is a great program. Like I said, One Nation will be supporting this. Shame on those on the opposite side of this chamber, be it the Greens, be it Labor or whoever. If they do not vote for this, they are not interested in youth and they are not interested in getting them off the streets or off drugs, or giving them a future in employment. This is a helping hand up. That is all it is: a helping hand. And they are crying out for it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, Minister, can you advise as to whether you have any feedback from the department—it should be pretty easy; you have come in here to debate the bill—as to the numbers and the demographics of people that are on the bill, the industries and those questions that I asked. So I would ask that.

Before I sit down, let me just come to One Nation's so-called contribution. One Nation do not even know what this bill is about. One Nation has just said that this is about work. The minister has been at pains to say that it is not work. This has been one of the big issues. Probably, we would agree with Senator Hanson that, in reality, this is work. Young people are going to be put into a situation in which they will get less than the minimum wage in this country. They will be carrying out work for an employer who will be subsidised by the government. No wonder the employers all say this is a great program. They are being provided subsidised workers. Senator Hanson is correct that this is work. It is not work experience; it is work—and it is being subsidised by the government.

It makes me really wonder about One Nation—even more than I have always wondered about One Nation! The truth came out from Senator Hanson and One Nation towards the end of that contribution. One Nation just wants workers to come to work where they are intimidated by the employer, where they can be stood over by the employer, where the employer can treat them with absolute disdain and with a lack of respect and where the employer can do away with wages and conditions. And, yet, the employer should have the right to sack that worker. That was the contribution, basically, from Senator Hanson. That was the contribution.

How dare One Nation come here and question the opposition's pursuit of fairness in the workplace. Where was Senator Hanson and One Nation when WorkChoices was introduced by this mob across the chamber, when workers were getting their penalty rates ripped away and when their annual leave loading was getting ripped away, when their minimum hours were getting ripped away and when they were casualised and compromised in their conditions?

One Nation were nowhere to be seen. One Nation are not the champion of battlers in this country. And the more working people hear from One Nation about not just their loopy views on a whole range of issues but their aggressive antiworker views the better. The more debates that Senator Hanson contributes to in this place the better it is for progressive politics in this country because we simply see what One Nation are all about, and that is cuddling up to the Liberal Party. They are simply a branch of the Liberal Party to the far Right, working with the Liberal Party to rip working people off.

This is not simply about an opportunity to get jobs; it is an opportunity for employers to rip people off, and none of the checks and balances that are in place are really there to protect young people in this country. Again, One Nation say they are concerned about youth unemployment. Maybe they should come in here and work with the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench to look at how we can actually develop industry in this country, develop jobs, and not simply hand over $50 billion to the big end of town as a trickle-down approach to economics.

One Nation really need to understand these issues a bit better than was demonstrated in that pathetic contribution that they just made. One Nation were dragged kicking and screaming against their will to stand with the majority of senators in this place to protect penalty rates. No-one should forget that Senator Hanson and One Nation's first and foremost position was to support the ripping off of penalty rates from workers in this country. So One Nation have no credibility when they come in here and talk about looking after young people. We got the message right at the end of One Nation's contribution, and that contribution was the employer should be allowed to hire and fire as they like—no protections.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is someone in the observers' area taking photos of the chamber? You are not allowed to take photos in the chamber.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get the Federal Police in and get that phone off them right away! It is a joke.

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

The best ones have to be explained.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. You would know all about that, Senator Dastyari. Explanations seem to be your forte recently. What we have here is a real problem, that young people are being put in a position where they can be ripped off. Minister, can I ask you: do you have those answers to the questions that I asked?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I do provide you with the statistics that I have been provided with to date—which in obviously in two weeks time we will be able to update at estimates—I would just say to any small-, medium- or large-business owner who is listening in to this debate, you should feel personally insulted by the attack that Senator Cameron, on behalf the Australian Labor Party, has launched upon you. The majority of business owners in this country do the right thing. To sit here and to listen to Senator Cameron deliberately undermine and malign them, God help business in this country if the Australian Labor Party and that attitude are ever again elected to govern. Businesses in this country deserve our support. Senator Cameron, I would be embarrassed if the closest I had ever come to a business was to close it down, but I know that you hold that as a badge of honour and shame on you—through you, Temporary Chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: that is disorderly conduct. The minister should withdraw. There is absolutely no way that she can make that assertion. She is breaching standing orders and she should withdraw.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. That is a debating point.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As to the statistics, as I said, we have estimates coming up and we can update you, but I am advised that 59 interns have put their hand up voluntarily and have commenced in the program. That means that 59 young people who were looking down the barrel of potentially a life on welfare and who were unable to get their foot in their door are now undertaking the opportunity, as many have done throughout the Labor Party organisation, to showcase their skills to an employer. I also understand that 858 have commenced in employability skills training.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reflect on the outrageous slurs on young people across this country that we heard from Senator Hanson, the leader of the One Nation party, in her contribution to the committee stage of this bill. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace for the leader of One Nation to stand in here and say, 'Young people across this country deserve to be paid less than the minimum wage and used as slave labour, because otherwise they are all going to turn out to be drug addicts or members of gangs.' That is the type of attitude that we have coming from the leader of One Nation.

The One Nation party need to be exposed for the frauds that they are. They do not give two hoots about young people. They do not care about the disadvantaged and the unemployed. They have supported this government's cuts to education over and over again. In the beginning they championed the cuts to penalty rates—because, of course, 'young people do not deserve to be paid a decent wage on a Sunday'. We also know that they supported corporations and big companies getting tax cuts above and beyond support needed for young people and struggling families across this country.

We see their sheer hypocrisy here with this bill. This bill is all about allowing a loophole and setting up a rort for big multinational companies to exploit dirty, cheap labour off the back of young Australians. That is what is going on here. Big multinational companies are going to squeeze everything they can get out of young people for nothing—for absolutely nothing. The leader of One Nation apparently goes around the country talking about the need to crack down on multinationals, and here we have the bill that is going to hand them the labour that they need for free. It is an absolute disgrace—a protection racket for the multinationals and a well-orchestrated rort.

Young people are going to be screwed over and over again under this piece of legislation. There are no safeguards, and the review is a sham. It does not matter what you have heard from the Nick Xenophon political party—the review that has been negotiated by the Nick Xenophon political party in order to get support for this bill and to flick it through is an absolute sham. And now we have the leader of One Nation kicking young people when in fact they need our help. They need a helping hand. They need to be given the opportunity to get up on their feet; not punished and told, 'Unless you go and work for $7.60 an hour, you are going to end up being a drug addict.' That is not a responsible attitude from a leader of a political party.

One Nation need to be exposed for being a bunch of frauds. This bill establishes a protection racket for multinationals to rort the system and allows young people in this country to be exploited on the taxpayer dime. It is a sham. It is absolute hypocrisy for the leader of One Nation to come in here and cuddle up to the government and say, 'This is a wonderful bill.' She was obviously reading the notes given to her by the minister. That is the independent thought that is coming from her wedge of the crossbench here today. What an absolute sham!

One Nation do not give a damn about young people in this country. When they are doing it tough and they are down on their knees, Pauline Hanson is standing right on top of their heads, squashing them down further and further just for her own political gain. It is absolutely appalling that rather than offering young people assistance, rather than giving them a genuine pathway to education, to training, we are setting up a system that is going to allow big multinational companies—7-Eleven, Subway, Hungry Jack's, McDonald's—to rip off young people on a daily basis. And what do we hear from Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation? We hear, 'Oh well, young people deserve it because they are too lazy to go and get another job.' Youth unemployment in this country is rising every day. Rather than creating jobs we are turning young people into a category of slave-labour workers. It is absolutely appalling.

I have a question for the minister, very directly, and I want a yes or no answer. Is the government going to prohibit 7-Eleven from being able to use these internships? Yes or no?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

7-Elevens, like any other employer in the country, can seek to access the program. Whether or not they ultimately enter into an internship agreement is clearly a matter for the department. As I have stated, any employer found in any way not to be complying with the program will absolutely be barred from utilising the program.

Given that you have raised 7-Eleven, I am delighted to advise—in particular, to those listening to the broadcast—that, as you would be aware, the government has introduced one of the most comprehensive worker-exploitation policies, directly in response to what happened at 7-Eleven. I understand it is due to go through the House of Representatives this week and, Senator Hanson-Young, I would be delighted to sit down with you to ensure that we have the support of the Australian Greens so that in the final two sitting weeks of the parliament the bill to prevent the exploitation is able to sail through, preferably in a non-controversial manner.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, just on the attack you made on me during your last contribution, I am not too fussed. I dish it out and I expect to get it; that's fine. But I do want to make the point that I do not think my reputation as a union official was for shutting places down. I do not think anyone in any of the industries that I worked in—and I worked in industries across the country—took the view that I was a union official who wanted to destroy companies and destroy jobs. So there is absolutely no basis to the attack that you launched. But that is fine; it is a tough game in here. You have to give it and take it, and I am comfortable with that. I just wanted to correct the record.

Minister, could you provide us with details of the outcomes of the risk assessments that have been done prior to these young workers being employed or engaged through this program? What was the nature of the risk assessments, and can you table the copies of the risk assessments that were done before any of these young people were employed? Could you also give some clarity to what you said yesterday—that is, if a young worker lost the internship through no fault of their own, who will determine whether an intern has lost their internship through no fault of their own, and what criteria will be applied to the no-fault test?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron, for those questions. In relation to the issue of the risk assessment, I can advise that employment service providers will have to be satisfied that host businesses will have a safe system of work in place. Providers will conduct a risk assessment for each PaTH internship. Providers will consider the level of supervision, work health and safety training, the need for additional material and equipment, and whether the placement is suited to the jobseeker. Before the internship commences, providers will advise jobseekers how to report any work health and safety issues regarding the activity. In fact, I have been provided with a copy of the card that is provided to both the intern and the host to ensure that all the relevant details are provided to the intern, including the details of Safe Work Australia.

If a provider does not fulfil these requirements to ensure the safety of a jobseeker, under the services contract the department may impose remedial actions that are based on the severity of the breach. This could include educating providers, recovering payments, limiting future business or, in the most serious of cases, termination of the contract. Host businesses that do not ensure the safety of an intern may have their internship agreement terminated and will also be excluded from further participation in the program.

Prior to the commencement of any PaTH internship, the employment services provider will also be required to ensure jobseekers understand, and are provided with, documentation that explains their rights and responsibilities during the PaTH internship. Jobseekers will also receive information on who can provide assistance if they require additional support or believe the host business is not meeting the requirements of the PaTH internship agreement. As a further safeguard and in response to questions that Senator Siewert raised much earlier in the debate, jobseekers can raise concerns directly with their employment services providers or the Department of Employment through the national customer service line while organising a PaTH internship placement or during the PaTH internship, and jobseekers will stay connected to their provider during the placement, including attending ongoing employment.

In terms of whether or not I am able to formally table the risk assessment, I will need to take advice on that and get back to you—unfortunately, after the debate has concluded.

Senator Cameron, you also asked a question about what the process is in terms of a jobseeker losing a job through no fault of their own. The secretary is the person who will determine whether or not a youth bonus job lost prior to the end of the 26-week suspension period was lost due to a voluntary act that was not reasonable—in the event that there is a dispute. If you are talking with your jobactive provider about this, the secretary will make the determination.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my last question. How would the secretary determine a view on this?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consistent with other decisions, the Department of Human Services itself. It may not be the secretary, but the relevant delegate will take into account all relevant factors. But it will be on a case-by-case basis.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment on sheet 8034 revised, moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.