Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (12:32 PM) —I am pleased to speak to this report, which is about the active participation of mature age Australians in our economy and our society. I believe that issue should be at the centre of what we think about as a community but, unfortunately, it has been largely neglected by policy makers and politicians for far too long. Many of the people whom we are trying to help in this report feel that they lack a voice in the political process. Often having lower levels of initial education and not finding it easy to speak out about the troubles they have making ends meet, too many older Australians have been left behind and, more often than not, forgotten.

I commend the work of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations that produced this report. The committee is chaired by the honourable member for Bradfield, and the honourable member for Port Adelaide is the deputy chairman. I wish to make a few observations about some of the recommendations advanced by the committee. The committee recommended that a national strategy be developed to promote the benefits of maturity and age balance in the work force. The Labor Party has pushed for this for a long time. The member for Dickson and shadow minister for employment and training compiled an initial report recommending this course of action two years ago. I am also pleased to say that I promoted this proposal during my time as shadow minister for employment and training, and the member for Dickson reminds the government of it on a regular basis.

It was further recommended that a code of conduct of best practice principles be applied to dealing with retrenchments. The question that stands out is: why is this not in place? Why are there no such guides for employers, employees, their agencies and for their families when dealing with this issue? One of the problems we have faced for some time when dealing with structural change is that we have not been sensitive enough as a community to the costs involved in the process of change and the supports that people require through these transitions. This is about not just workers but their families and communities. It is also about how we work with employers and the agencies that people rely on when they are retrenched.

This was always a key concern of Labor governments and, for that reason, we put in place Working Nation and other labour market programs and a number of adjustment mechanisms. If the relevant Howard government ministers had the will, they would have developed a strategy similar to that which the former parliamentary secretary the member for the Northern Territory was intimately involved in putting in place during the last years of the previous Labor government.

I note that the report recommended that the requirement for employers to notify Centrelink in advance of the retrenchment of 15 or more staff be made more widely known. This is another thing that simply needs to happen. It is a must. It is another matter that is not difficult but just needs pushing from a government that seems unprepared to show any initiative.

It was recommended that a universal, professional careers guidance service be made available to young people at school and all job seekers on benefits. This proposal highlights one of the major deficiencies in the way the Howard government communicates with people at a local level. I suggest to the Main Committee that people need information; they need guidance on some things. What we need is a coordinated approach to skills development, and to disseminating information to younger and older people alike. Only Labor is committed to meeting that challenge, and our Workforce 2010 report, which was released by the member for Dickson some months ago, along with the Leader of the Opposition, puts much of this on the agenda. We are committed to meeting that challenge, and it is integral to the report.

The report on the mature aged then recommended that training courses designed specifically for mature age clients be developed. This is a proposal that needs serious consideration, and an institutional structure that can actually deliver it. I stress, in relation to this, the importance of work based training for mature age Australians. One of the clear lessons from training over the past decade has been the need for training to be made relevant to people; otherwise they will not embrace it, because they cannot see an end benefit from it. For individuals, that means making the training culturally accessible, and for companies it means making it relevant to the workplace and to local communities.

The report recommended that we trial a training credit scheme, linked to a definite job offer, for long-term unemployed mature age people. I am pleased to say that Labor has committed itself to promoting training opportunities for people in work, as there is limited incentive for employers to train their own work force, particularly those with a low skills base. This proposal picks up a novel approach to encourage employers to take on the long-term unemployed. It is an approach that says, in essence, `Give the person the job and we'll underwrite it with the costs of training.'

This concept has been applied internationally in a number of contexts. Some European countries, for example, use an offer of a guaranteed skilled work force to attract new businesses. That would be a novel idea for regional Australia. In the United Kingdom, employers have an offer of the government covering the costs of in-work training if the employer offers the work component. That applies to very disadvantaged early school leavers. I welcome consideration of this concept in relation to the mature age unemployed and urge the government to consider the range of possibilities in the area.

The report also recommended that we develop a national computer literacy and training program for mature age people. As we all know, computing skills will be a critical determinant of whether people get the jobs not just of the future but the jobs emerging today. Computing skills need to be considered as foundation skills. They need to be thought of in the same way as we think of traditional literacy and numeracy—as essential tools for both functioning in society and taking advantage of new opportunities.

My travels around regional Australia have brought home to me just how difficult it is for mature age Australians to commit to learning new computing skills. I wonder how many members of parliament—people who hold senior positions in society—have a solid foundation in computing skills. If that is the case for many of us, think how hard it is for someone who is long-term unemployed, who is coming off a low education base and does not have the opportunity to access the computing technology and assistance in learning that are available to us as members of parliament.

I suggest that it is possible. There are examples of communities that are making this work. The key point is that the environment in which learning takes place, and the people involved in training, must be trusted, and well supported and resourced. We must make it easy for people if they are to develop the confidence to take on the challenge of learning computer skills.

It was also recommended that training components funded under Job Network be given vocational training recognition according to endorsed national competency standards. There is a need to get our accreditation aspects of Job Network training right. The truth is that, at the moment, as the member for Dickson and shadow minister for employment and training knows, Job Network training is not working for people trying to get into new industries, particularly in small and micro businesses. Our training framework is simply not integrated with the operation of the Job Network. That has been the case from the very beginning, and the government has done nothing to improve the situation, despite feedback not only from the training community but, importantly, from the unemployed themselves, many of whom are of a mature age.

It was then recommended that a wage subsidy apply to mature age people undertaking apprenticeships or training. The Labor Party proposed this some years ago. During the course of the inquiry, officials of both Treasury and the Department of Family and Community Services noted that, when you have a demand side problem, wage subsidies are an effective response. That is what Labor has been saying since 1996 when the government abolished Jobstart, the most successful labour market program we have had this decade, and we will continue to argue it. Training wage opportunities and subsidies are about getting a foot in the door while attending to the long-term needs through structured training. This is a practical example of a partnership approach between the worker, the employer and the government, all facing up to their obligations to assist, develop and put in place a sense of community, especially for the most disadvantaged around Australia, many of whom are of mature age—the very issue discussed in this report.

I would argue that those subsidies are an investment and to the long-term benefit of the community. They are cost-effective and represent a good return on investment from the taxpayers' point of view. It is an approach that Labor pioneered in government and one that was slashed, unfortunately, by the Howard government in slash and burn budgets commencing in 1996. The government reconsidered training wage subsidies in developing its indigenous employment strategy, a strategy that we complimented despite the huge cuts initially made to the indigenous employment strategy.

I urge the government to pick up from the mistakes it learnt with respect to its early approach to indigenous employment and training and to consider such subsidies for other groups in the community who are disadvantaged in the labour market. Many are youthful or mature age. It is about trying to ensure that the success we have seen from applying these subsidies to indigenous people under this government—which builds on our success when the Labor Party was in government, and, more importantly, the success of training and subsidies we had in the broader community—now be extended to mainstream employment and training opportunities for all Australians, irrespective of one's background or where one lives.

Mr Snowdon —Hear, hear!

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —As the member for the Northern Territory also noted to me, there are a number of recommendations that make it clear that our social security system is not yet flexible enough to deal with the flexibility of our labour market. I suppose this is the crux of the debate about the welfare to work responsibilities of governments of all political persuasions. What this system currently cannot handle, because it is not designed to do so, is the transitory nature of many of our activities. Employment, education, training and caring are increasingly part-time functions. That is reflected in the change in the structure of employment in Australia and the lift in the participation rate over the last 10 to 15 years.

Our social security system, our employment programs and our training system still do not reflect the reality of the world of work in Australia in the 21st century. Increasingly, it is now a debate about how we combine work, study, family and leisure at different stages of our life. People will not embrace this idea unless our social security system, skilling and employment systems, firstly, recognise it and, secondly, accommodate it. While this issue was raised in the recent welfare review, it has not been considered across the board. The report, therefore, recommends that the taper rate for benefits for long-term unemployed mature age people be reduced to encourage them to take up part-time work to get them back into the work force and then enable them to choose what is the best path for them in the future.

This is the equivalent of what Labor economists refer to as an earned income disregard. In effect, it is a form of an in-work benefit and is designed to reward work over welfare. This is something Labor has consistently been promoting. The Treasurer told us alternatively a year ago that so-called tax reform would solve the problems of work disincentives, but it has not done so, and I think we all know that.

The report recommends looking at whether transport difficulties are disadvantaging job seekers, and suggests trialling a transport reimbursement scheme for job seekers experiencing these difficulties. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I know—coming from the northern suburbs of Melbourne—mobility can be a major problem and a barrier to employment. There is no provision under the Job Network contracts that recognises lack of mobility as an additional barrier. This is something that is costing people jobs, but something that the Howard government, unfortunately, continues to ignore. I suggest that it is something that is not hard to fix. In fact, some of the better Job Network providers who are more concerned with the needs of the unemployed than the profit line are doing something by trying to access employment opportunities and overcoming transport barriers for the unemployed. Unfortunately, many job seekers are still left in the lurch because the Job Network does not make such an approach mandatory.

It is also recommended that unemployed people of 45 or over with appropriate skills and aptitude be trained as mentors and supervisors. We must think creatively about the positive contributions older Australians can make in our communities. I commend this proposal and urge members to think laterally about the opportunities here.

I would also like to note the need for reform that creates a bridge between work, particularly part-time work, and retirement. Other countries use part-time work as a bridge to retirement, and Australia's record in this regard is abysmal. At present, superannuation, social security and eligibility for assistance are not designed to accommodate people using part-time work as a bridge to retirement.

In conclusion, the issue of mature age unemployment is serious. The report addresses some of the barriers; it is now a question of whether the government will act in a constructive and proper way in respect of some of the report's recommendations. The clear message is this: if we do not act as a community on some of the recommendations then we are condemning a lot of Australians and Australian families, communities and suburbs to a lesser opportunity in life than is available to a lot of Australians, especially in the suburbs and communities that are doing exceptionally well at the moment. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and all government ministers to pick up the recommendations from the report and run with them rather than run down a line that has produced no effort in the past. (Time expired)