Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (11:27 AM) —I rise today to speak in opposition to some aspects of the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 which is before the Main Committee. I say this because I consider that the youth unemployment rate in this nation today, standing at 23.5 per cent, is clearly an astonishing and unacceptable figure.

I am also especially concerned about the fact that after three years the current government has only been able to reduce youth unemployment by 18,500. That says to me that more has to be done to create decent opportunities that will encourage young people to stay longer at school. And, while staying at school, young people should give serious thought to whether they pursue post-secondary education at a university, or, alternatively, take up a TAFE course, especially as there are growing skill shortages at the moment in some of the traditional trades. That is happening at a time when apprenticeship training in the traditional trades is actually going backwards.

I also indicate my opposition to some aspects of this bill because I consider that growing numbers of our young people are stuck in a rut, a rut of unemployment or jobs without real career aspects, because of the failure of some employers to front up to their responsibilities on the training front.

In considering the issue of junior pay rates, I am very firmly of the view that, should the Industrial Relations Commission report recommend that some form of junior rates continue, it is absolutely essential that in that context employers—and I am saying all employers—front up to their responsibility to ensure that training is part and parcel of such a system.

I consider that young people are prepared to make a variety of sacrifices, provided that, in making those sacrifices, there are guarantees, especially as a result of access to decent training opportunities, of a better working life and career opportunity throughout the rest of their life.

I suppose that takes me to the achievements of the Australian Labor Party between 1983 and 1993 when, I am pleased to say, the year 12 school retention rates and the proportion of school leavers who actually went to university doubled. I personally consider that a major achievement of which this nation ought to be proud. In the context of trying to ensure that we went down the path seriously of creating a long-term learning society, over a decade we actually doubled the year 12 school retention rates, which was all about trying to equip people, having achieved the essentials of life from a learning perspective, to build a reasonable and a decent career opportunity in the future. I think that was a wonderful achievement.

My problem is that, since then, clearly cracks have developed in the pathways between school and work. That has really occurred over the last three years, and I think it is about time that this government got the message from the Australian community that our young people deserve better than the government is offering. The number of young people finishing secondary education has fallen since the Howard government was elected. This is related not only to a lack of emphasis on and support for keeping people at school but also to the squeeze on school funding. The squeeze on school funding has made it more difficult for the school system to look after career opportunities for our young people.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11.32 a.m. to 11.44 a.m.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Prior to the suspension, I was referring to the fact that the number of young people finishing secondary education had fallen. What also disturbs me is the fact that the proportion of school leavers going to university has also fallen since the Howard government was elected. I consider this is because of government policies which in essence mean that children from wealthy families can fill places that are now denied to brighter, hardworking children from lower and middle income families.

It is almost as if, under the Howard government policies, if you are thick and rich you can get to university, but if you come from a struggling working-class family you may not. Because of the new policies which are in essence best described as `if you have got the money you can get in', a lot of very bright young people from backgrounds that are not as wealthy are actually being denied an opportunity. That is not just bad for a young person and that young person's family; it is also bad for the nation. It means, in essence, that those with the potential and best capacity for leadership, who can take Australia forward in the 21st century, are being denied that opportunity because of their economic and social circumstances and their personal family background.

I also believe that there are not enough training places for early school leavers due to deep cuts in support for vocational training and incentives to employers to take on new apprentices. On that note I refer in passing to the fact that this government actually withdrew some of the completion payments that apply to group training. One of the most important areas of apprenticeship training at the moment is, in fact, group training. The withdrawal of those completion payments is an absolute disgrace and it is actually going to pull Australia backwards on the skilling and the trade front in years to come.

It is also interesting to note that, since Labor's last full year in government, the number of traditional apprenticeship commencements has plummeted by 5,000. That is going to be worsened potentially by the changes in completion payments with respect to group training. It is absurd that this is happening at the same time as key areas of the economy are also experiencing crucial skill shortages. This is evidenced by a report recently prepared by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that actually identified, state by state and nationally, the fact that in a number of traditional areas of apprenticeship training we have now got major skill shortages in Australia—at a time when we are going backwards on the apprenticeship completion numbers in those traditional areas.

With that in mind, I raise the fact that, as of 1 January this year, the government introduced the so-called youth allowance. The introduction of this government's youth allowance means that many 16- and 17-year-olds who leave school early will no longer get any income support whatsoever. Furthermore, many young unemployed people aged between 18 and 21, and their families, are worse off because of this decision. Because of these decisions, schools will clearly need extra resources to meet the needs of these students. The federal Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs—as it was when this bill was originally prepared—put forward a cabinet submission recommending that $140 million be allocated to help schools cope with the extra students returning due to the youth allowance. In January 1998 the Howard government announced some additional funding, but it was $100 million short of the amount recommended in the cabinet submission. I suppose we come to the conclusion that something has gone missing.

What has gone missing is not just the financial commitment, the under-budget allocation. More importantly, there is a failure by the government to actually commit itself to doing something in a proper way for these young people. It is all about savings rather than investment in our young people for the future. I probably do not need to remind the House that this piece of legislation was so badly mishandled by the Howard government that its implementation date was delayed for six months so as not to throw the school year out.

The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to tidy up the mess the government created. As such, it will receive support from this side of the House—but qualified support. We understand that the purpose of the bill is not to further reduce entitlements for young people. But, despite the bill's intended purpose, and some of the beneficial measures that the fulfilment of this purpose provide, there are some aspects of it which do further reduce entitlements for young people.

I want to make it absolutely clear that, in light of the appalling situation that the government has created for young people, Labor sees it as its duty to oppose any measures that will further reduce their entitlements. Labor will therefore, firstly, oppose the measure in schedule 3 which proposes that the actual means test can be applied even where the reason for applying it has not existed during the most recent tax year and the family has suffered a substantial decrease in income.

Although it is acknowledged that this proposal reflects the old Austudy regulations, its incorporation into the Social Security Act will open up unfair practices. For example, the parents of a youth allowance applicant might have owned a company until January of 1998 when they sold that interest. Under the proposal, in 1999, even though they are being assessed on their income and expenditure during the 1998-99 tax year, they would be subject to the actual means test on the basis of an interest in the company they had not had for 12 months. I believe that this is quite a strange proposal and extremely unfair. In fact, we are still awaiting advice from the government about the reason for this measure, as it does not seem to make any sense.

Labor will also oppose the rate reductions contained in schedule 4 for disability support pensioners under the age of 21. The rate reductions mean that, for example, a single pensioner between 18 and 21 years of age, who does not live at home and who has a dependent child, will lose $7 per fortnight while a partnered pensioner over the age of 18 will gain about $17 per fortnight. It seems to me that this is a perverse result and will clearly result in a reduction of moneys for one of the most vulnerable groups in the community. It is, unfortunately, typical of the current government's approach to the interests of vulnerable Australians.

The schedule also seeks, unfortunately, to provide that the guardian allowance will not be paid to a person unless they are receiving family allowance at more than the minimum rate.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11.51 a.m. to 12.04 p.m.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Furthermore, under the current provisions, the rate of family allowance is reduced where income exceeds $23,550 plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. Amongst other things, a family allowance child can be a child receiving youth allowance. The problem is that the schedule seeks to amend this so that a child receiving youth allowance is a family allowance child only if they are under 18 years of age. But it does not take into account the fact that young unemployed people are now regarded as dependent until they are 21 years of age and may therefore receive a lower rate as a result of the youth allowance legislation. I believe this is clearly a contradictory result and that is why we are opposed to it.

As a third matter, Labor proposes an amendment to the measure in schedule 4, under which the income test threshold for family allowance will not be increased on the basis of a child receiving youth allowance if the child is over 18. Our amendment would seek to provide that a person over the age of 18 would still be regarded as a dependant for the purposes of the family allowance income test, if they are receiving a reduced rate of youth allowance because of the parental means test.

Fourthly, Labor will oppose the measures in schedule 5 that seek to reduce the rates of exceptional circumstances relief payment and restart income support payment for people of youth allowance age. Labor will oppose this as it will clearly result in a reduced entitlement for some people.

To sum up: the bottom line is that there are not enough training places available for those who want them. They continue to be turned away from a TAFE system which is in danger of falling into neglect. The changes embodied in this bill do nothing to assist such young people who are having enough difficulties at the moment with respect to even getting access to decent training courses. In this environment, the Labor Party will oppose any measures which seek to reduce entitlements for young Australians and their families.

Part of our responsibility as a compassionate country is to look after those most at risk of not making a successful transition to economic independence. These young people deserve better than Work for the Dole, but that is what the thrust of this bill is about. It is, in essence, continuing what has become a characteristic of this government—pointing the finger at young people and saying that they are to blame, rather than facing up to the fact that government has to accept its responsibilities and also accept, publicly, that some of its policy decisions have not really contributed to assisting these young people and their families, who are crying out for help at the moment.

For that reason I am firmly of the view that building new pathways from school to work means that we as a community have to help those who have lost their way, in essence to try and get them back on course. I do not consider that by reducing teenagers' income support the Howard government was actually trying to achieve the core objective that the Australian community expects of government—to have reasonable policies that get young people back on course. Instead, this type of legislation is more and more alienating our young people and pushing them into a wilderness of despair, a sense of a lack of hope for the future, rather than trying to develop an environment with government support mechanisms that guide our young people into the future and, basically, get them back on course.

It must therefore be recognised by this government that there will always be some young people that are simply not suited to some type of institutional learning, whether in secondary schools or TAFEs, and it is no use for the government to say to them, `We are going punish you for not being able to fit the institutional or the intellectual mould that this government believes all young people ought to fit into.'

Unfortunately, that is not the way young people develop in this day and age. They are facing many pressures, many problems, and we have to try and develop a flexible system that accounts for those young people's needs—not a doctrinaire approach based on, `If you do not do it this way, then you are out on your own and we're not going to offer any helping hand, or income support, even if you're in fairly difficult personal circumstances because of your family background, where you grew up, where you went to school, or the suburb or the region that you lived in.' That is not the way we are going to solve the problems of these young people.

As the other side of the coin, however, we have got to come to terms with the fact that some of these people are homeless and from very difficult family circumstances. Their problems need to be attended to, not only in a very compassionate way but also earlier, if we are not to inherit a much worse state of unemployment and social alienation in the future. That is what we are close to ending up with at the moment.

That is contributed to by the fact that this government, in its first 36 months, has not only reduced our capacity to get people into decent apprenticeship and training opportunities but has now sought to punish them when it comes to income support. It has worsened the situation by abolishing decent job programs for young people. It has ended the youth training initiative which formerly provided case management for some of those 15- to 17-year-olds and it has disbanded SkillShare in favour of the new, hopelessly chaotic employment services market. All of that is not helping.

I note recent reports about the fact that, when it comes to intensive assistance, some of those Job Network providers are spending nothing on training for young people. If it is good enough for the government to say to these young people, `You're not getting youth allowance'—a sense of discipline and compulsion—then it should also be good enough for this government to say to those Job Network providers, `You are getting very substantial amounts of government funds for intensive assistance. There is an obligation on you publicly to account for how you spend that money and to explain to the Australian taxpayer why, more often than not—and this includes companies such as Drake International—you are not spending on offering training opportunities to our young people.' For that reason, I argue that the government has created a disastrous situation for young people trying to cross the bridge between school and work.

I must stress that, in the light of this disastrous situation, the opposition will in principle support the bill but, because of what we believe, we will also front up to the government on its potential weaknesses. For that reason, we strongly oppose some of the measures that I have outlined in my contribution to the debate today. In essence, if you want to get young people back on course, it is the responsibility of the government to offer better than what is offered in the bill before the House today.