Senate debates

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

Bills

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016; In Committee

10:22 am

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share 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.

Comments

No comments