Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will start my contribution to this debate by saying that the Labor Party are about creating opportunity and access to work for young people. It is not about maintaining young people on welfare for their life. We are actually about trying to prevent that by putting in place the right sorts of supports that are needed. I found it very interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about intergenerational unemployment. That grew during the Howard years and it has been growing again since this government came to power, as has youth unemployment. It really shows a lack of understanding about the issues that impact young people when they are unemployed.

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015 introduces the social security measures from the 2015 budget relating to youth allowance and Newstart for young people. I will say one thing positive at the commencement of my contribution: it is better than what was planned in 2014; still not good but better than what was planned in 2014, where the then minister was waging a vendetta against young people. This legislation shows that the minister and the government still really do not get the issues that face young people when they leave work.

Instead of having a six-month waiting period, as was in the original piece of legislation, it has now been shortened to a one-month waiting period, where young people—once they are unemployed—have got to go one month without any income support. To my way of thinking, it is un-Australian that a person should go one month without any income support at all. It means that that young person has got to rely on their family if they are lucky enough to have a family that has the financial resources to assist them. It also means that if a young person does not have a family who can support them, they are thrown into poverty. Where do they get their money?

There has actually been some work done that says that rather than reducing the time that a young person is unemployed, it can actually add to the time. I referred to comments made by the National Welfare Rights Network's policy officer, Gerard Thomas. He insists that the measures could lead to a greater level of welfare dependency. His rationale for the proposed new waiting times is that if a young person is subjected to them, they cannot—as I have already stated—call on family support or assistance from a charity. Young people would have insufficient means to even help them look for a job. The support may be available from agencies, but what about if a person has got no money to hop on a bus, no money to go for a job interview and no money to buy the clothes that they need to present for an interview? It shows just how flawed this legislation is.

On the increase in the requirement for a waiting period for the extension of the youth allowance from 22 to 24, when I was 24 I was a mother with a child. There are many, many young people who have been in the workforce for many years. They are adults; they are self-sufficient. For some reason outside of their control, they have lost their job. They have still got the same financial obligations that they had before they lost their job. They still need to pay their rent. If they fall behind in their rent, then they end up either being evicted or put on the TICA list. That is a list of people who fall behind with their rent. If they have a mortgage, they end up defaulting on their mortgage. Just because you are 23 or 24 does not mean that you do not have the same obligations as a person who is 30, 34 or 40.

I find it quite difficult to understand where the government is coming from here. Although, I think I do understand the thinking of the minister. Listening to some of the contributions to this debate, they say: 'A young person is unemployed because the young person basically chooses to be unemployed. If they wanted a job, they would get a job. This government is going to help them get a job by giving them no money. The only reason that they are unemployed is because they want to spend a life on welfare payments.' Has anyone on the other side of this House looked at the amount of money that somebody on youth allowance receives? It is hardly a luxurious lifestyle. Has anyone of the other side of this House looked at the amount of money a person receives a Newstart? Once again, people on those payments are living below the poverty line.

This mean-spirited government is attacking those people by saying that they will not pay them a youth allowance when they become unemployed that in line with every other benefit, welfare payment or whatever you members on the other side would like to call it. I tend to think of it as a supplement that will allow them to survive. If members on the other side of this House believe that by withholding money and saying, 'Hey mate, you're on own for a month,' is going to make a person more willing and more able to find a job, then they really need to have a look at the people who are unemployed and the number of jobs that are available. They need to actually get out into their electorates and talk to some young people.

I converse regularly with people within Shortland electorate and particularly young people. We have got quite a high level of unemployment. It is higher on the Central Coast than it is in Lake Macquarie. It is very difficult for young people, particularly those on the Central Coast, to travel to look for employment. In some areas on the Central Coast, there is one bus in in the morning and one bus out at night. They are private bus companies. They are in a number of little settlements in the northern part of Wyong Shire, which falls within Shortland electorate. There are very few job opportunities for those young people in that area. No matter how hard we make it for them to survive and no matter how many hurdles we place in front of them, it is not going to mean that they will find a job any quicker. All it means is that they are going to live in poverty for a month.

I would add that it is more likely that they will find it harder to find employment. I refer to the comments that I was talking about before. The National Welfare Rights Network's spokesperson stated that it is more likely that young people will become totally disengaged. Rather than becoming less reliant on welfare, they will become more likely to need long-term assistance and be long-term unemployed.

I heard the previous speaker refer to ACOSS. ACOSS has expressed concern about this legislation. Every community organisation that deals with people in this space has expressed concern about this legislation. Member after member on the other side of this House can stand up and criticise Labor, blame Labor for every woe that exists, but the bottom line is that this is their legislation, and what they should be doing is trying to assist young people to get the skills that they need to get into the workforce.

They have made it harder for young people to get apprenticeships. There are fewer apprenticeships than there previously were. Organisations that were funded to help young people find work, like Youth Connections, have lost funding. The recipe that we have here is supposed to end up with a cake of 'young person with a job and a future.' For that recipe, the government is delivering lots of sticks but very few carrots. I do not think the government really understands or is across this argument. Rather it is seeing it purely from a cost-saving point of view and is offering sticks rather than carrots. You really need to put a carrot in there as well as a stick, and you need to seriously address this.

I have already mentioned that this legislation has the potential to ensure that young people end up in an endless cycle of no income support, pushing young job seekers into poverty crisis and homelessness. I know there are some good people on the other side of this House. I know there are people there who do not want to just stand there and sling mud across the chamber. I challenge them—I really do—to think about this. We are in a fortunate position. If our children become unemployed, generally speaking we have the financial resources to help them. But there are many, many people in the community—and I would say the majority of the people that I represent here—who find it difficult to find the resources to help their young people, their children, when they are in a crisis situation. It is very sad indeed.

With the unemployment rate set to peak at 6.5 per cent or higher—and it will stay higher for a longer period of time—this type of punitive measure is very unfair and is bad for the economy. This government came to power with the promise to create one million jobs. What about the jobs that have disappeared under it? Jobs have been disappearing at a rate of knots since the Abbott government was elected, and many of those jobs are jobs that young people could have worked in.

Obviously we are opposed to these savage cuts that will impact on young people. It really demonstrates the mind set of this government: 'You pick the most vulnerable people in the community, those people that are least able to speak out and argue for themselves, and then you attack them.' Good government is about inclusion. Good government is about looking after everybody in our society. Good government is about ensuring that a young person leaving school actually can get a job. How do you best achieve it? By making them wait a month with no money or by putting in place the immediate assistance that they need, giving them support and ensuring that they will be able to get to that job interview, have the clothes to wear to that job interview and feel really good about themselves? They should not be treated as second-class citizens, as this legislation condemns them to be.

See this speech in context