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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to youth unemployment.

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Abetz to my question on employment, particularly as it relates to youth unemployment and young people being dropped off income support for six months. I am particularly concerned about the minister's answer because I believe that the approach taken is in fact assuming a level playing field for people who are unemployed, particularly young unemployed people. It assumes that there is a good supply of appropriate, ongoing jobs for people to just walk into. As we heard yesterday from Senator Fierravanti-Wells, the government is coming from the approach that, if you are unemployed, it is a lifestyle choice, which of course we know is nonsense.

The Anglicare Australia report titled Beyond supply and demand: addressing the complexities of workforce exclusion in Australia, which was released today, makes some very important points about workforce exclusion. It says that workforce exclusion is both complex and enduring, particularly for those people who are disadvantaged. The Anglicare report is a timely reminder that we need to treat people as individuals and to view them as people rather than as statistics or as people who are simply making a lifestyle choice to remain unemployed. The report recognises that people are struggling to find work and that they face a complex set of barriers that we need to address. Therefore, we need to address their individual circumstances and not jump to Senator Abetz's conclusion that this is simply about industrial relations, which it quite clearly is not. He knew very well that that is not what I was referring to. We know that punishing people and shaming people is neither an effective nor a sustainable approach to assisting people out of poverty and into work and nor does it help them to overcome their barriers to employment or engage them meaningfully in a long-term way in the workforce.

The report provides further evidence to this end, and it makes the point that how people are treated by employment services is important for effective outcomes. I have had numerous reports where people are not being treated appropriately by jobs and employment service providers. The report found that the most effective programs used a case management model, including providing post-employment support and tailored services that meet individual needs. The most effective programs had strong links with local employers and other support services. Most importantly, perhaps, was that the effective programs focused on placing people in quality jobs with good employment conditions—in fact, focusing on sustainable, long-term outcomes. A key finding is that services need to acknowledge the person at the centre of workforce exclusion and their circumstances. It is also important to remember that not all employment is necessarily good employment, and if people are forced into a position where they have a very negative employment outcome—again, I have had lots of feedback on that—it further entrenches workforce exclusion rather than contributing to positive, long-term, sustainable outcomes. The problem here is that the government's approach of 'Let's drop people onto six months of no income support' is further entrenching and, in fact, providing more complexities to people being able to find work, and it is not an incentive based approach; it is a punishing approach which does not lead to long-term sustainable outcomes.

The other question I asked as part of my supplementary question was about some of the provisions that the government is putting in place in the budget. Two of those were around further wage subsidies and the job commitment bonus. When I asked this in estimates I did not get a good answer, and that is why I asked here. Wage subsidies, it looks like, will not be available for part-time or casual work if you can find ongoing part-time work. If you do find part-time work, when you have come off Work for the Dole, you go back onto the cutely-called Newstart nil payment, which of course further punishes people and leaves them in a very bad position, further entrenching poverty. But wage subsidies will not be available if you find part-time work. Why is that, when we know that when you are first starting employment it is often part-time or casual work? Again you are discriminating against people who are struggling to find work, who are struggling to get a foothold into employment. Bang—yet again, you are being discriminated against. You are not going to get a wage subsidy. If you can keep and maintain part-time work, which is what the Job Commitment Bonus is supposed to be about, it looks like you are not going to get that either. Again, this is really providing a disincentive to young people and, in fact, older workers who are trying to find work.

We need to improve our employment services and how we support young people in particular into work and sustain them in quality work.

Question agreed to.