Mr SAWFORD (12:54 PM) —In the last 50 years in most OECD countries, including Australia, capitalisation has quadrupled, productivity has trebled, energy consumption has trebled and employment has grown by one-third. The last bit is the bit we do not do too well in: employment has grown by a third. It results in an inefficient economy blowing out health, welfare and crime costs to such an extent we no longer tell the truth about unemployment. In fact, we do not know the whole truth about unemployment.

Consider the following: 700,000 people in this country are unemployed, 700,000 are underemployed and 700,000 are hidden unemployed; and there are 70,000 advertised job vacancies. Tim Colebatch reported in the Age last week that 22 per cent of working age Australians are on benefits. Maybe that is why I can state that 700,000 Australians are underemployed and another 700,000 are hidden unemployed and no-one seriously challenges me. The simple truth is, though, that I do not know how many there are, but the more important point is nor does anyone else, and that is the nub of the problem. Accurate data, comparative data and longitudinal study references are not available to identify the whole problem of unemployment. If you cannot identify the problem, there is no way whatsoever you can come up with a set of appropriate solutions.

As this report, Age Counts, indicates the mature age unemployed are not easily identified. Evidence given to the committee strongly suggested that concentrating on the recorded unemployment rates overlooks much of the mature age difficulties in the labour market because of the propensity of so many mature age unemployed not to be counted.

However, what picture can be claimed about mature age unemployment is not encouraging. Consider the following. The mature age unemployed comprise a high share of discouraged workers, 63 per cent in 1998. They are underemployed. In January 2000, 40 per cent of men aged 45 to 55 wanted to work more hours. Two-thirds have low literacy levels. Just over 40 per cent live outside the state capitals. Long-term unemployment is greatest among the 45- to 54-year-old age group. The average duration of unemployment is nearly 150 weeks and increasing. All of this is highly accentuated and extremely difficult for indigenous Australians, those from non-English speaking backgrounds and those in certain non-metropolitan areas.

Unemployment midlife has a severe effect on people's lives, affecting not only the unemployed person but also family members and the wider community. Unemployment makes people sick, kills people, breaks up relationships, destroys assets and induces negative mindsets in children.

This report offers a range of solutions and possible directions to address mature age unemployment. The best solution is not a solution at all. It is the deliberate long-term gathering of data through longitudinal studies. The most agreed solution is early intervention. Employment assistance is best prior to retrenchment, with peer group support and with self-esteem still intact. An urgent solution is a public education campaign to address age discrimination, which is rife in this country and a disgraceful commentary upon all of us.

A pie-in-the-sky solution is a voluntary code of conduct among employers when considering retrenchments. Although having no disagreement with the intention of the code of conduct, Labor members have no faith in it being voluntary. If the valued sentiments are to be taken seriously, then legislation is the only way. The most ignored solution is the deliberate engineering of employment dividends from government intervention. For example, for every $1 billion spent on road building about 10,000 to 12,000 jobs result. The same investment in rail yields almost double the employment—that is, 20,000 to 22,000. This never seems to be considered, and perhaps it is time it was.

The most unimaginative solution is the complete rejection of wage subsidies. Notwithstanding the fact that 57 per cent of employers responded negatively to wage subsidies, it obviously follows that 43 per cent were not necessarily negative. Why not ask different questions, such as why not wage subsidies to reduce overtime; why not wage subsidies to pay on-costs of job creation; or why not some lateral thinking to create something new?

The most ridiculed decision is the proper examination of working time reorganisation. With underemployment rising now at twice the rate of 1980 and 33 per cent of the work force now working very long hours, no employment debate will be complete if working time reorganisation is not seriously considered. The against-the-odds solution is setting up a small business. Success rates as low as three per cent were reported to the committee. The great cop-out solution is complaining about the immobility of labour whilst ignoring the immobility of capital.

I express my thanks to the committee's chair, Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield; members of the committee; members of the secretariat; and, most important of all, the people who submitted their ideas in writing and in person in the hope that the problem of mature age unemployment would be seriously considered. (Time expired)