As I did not rejoin the committee in the 41st Parliament I was unable to participate in the final presentation of this report, so I am particularly pleased to be given the opportunity to speak to the report today and to thank the member for Shortland, other members of the committee and the staff of the committee for their contributions and their assistance.
The inquiry into the long-term unemployed was a valuable experience. The evidence submitted by so many individuals, organisations and stakeholders was challenging, and the inquiry was very much an eye-opening experience for me and my colleagues. This inquiry took place at a time when all the critical issues surrounding employment in this country were being discussed and debated, so clearly the report is current and very relevant. As a result, its recommendations will be helpful to government, to the opposition and to policy-makers alike.
I agree with the comments made by the committee chair, the member for Deakin, that the report tackles some of the critical issues that relate to building both the size and the capability of Australia’s work force. Like all other members of the committee, I was concerned to hear evidence that, by the year 2030, Australia would have over 500,000 jobs with no-one to fill them. This is indeed an alarming prognosis and, if true, it means we must act immediately to address the looming work force shortage. At a time when alarm bells are being sounded about the skills shortage we are currently experiencing, it is imperative that we address these issues immediately or we will have no hope of averting a potential crisis 10 or 15 years down the track.
This report is pertinent, and its importance is also highlighted by the fact that the committee was almost unanimous in its recommendations. Of the 23 recommendations, there was unanimous support for 20, including the recommendations on apprenticeships uptake, on addressing long-term unemployment, on expanding and improving child-care assistance and services and on all but one of the recommendations relating to the disabled. These recommendations are of particular interest to me because they are of great relevance to the people I represent in the electorate of Calwell.
I have mentioned many times in this place that my electorate has a large number of residents on disability pension support. We also have a large number of young people who take up apprenticeships because we are fortunate enough to have the Kangan Batman TAFE in Broadmeadows. It should also be noted that this inquiry was undertaken in the context of an ageing population and recommendations 8 and 10 go some way to addressing the increasing issue of mature aged unemployment, which is another significant issue in my electorate.
During the hearings, what struck me most was that the evidence being given indicated a strong trend towards ageism in the work force. I remember then remarking that what the submissions were stating was consistent with what many of my mature aged constituents were telling me: there is a real sense of discrimination against you if you are seeking employment and are 40 years of age. If you are 40 and over, you have a problem getting a job if you are unfortunate enough to become unemployed. Many people reported that they were simply overlooked on the basis of their age, with their experience and skills not seeming to carry as much weight as they deserved. These reports have been backed up by figures from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which show that the majority of complaints before them, in respect of age discrimination laws, claimed discrimination in employment, with 65 per cent of those claims being lodged by men. Equally, many mature aged workers who lost their jobs were low skilled and had virtually no chance of re-employment despite being keen and often desperate to be employed. Given that most of these mature unemployed are simply too young to be out of the work force, it is clear that we need to re-skill this work force and provide incentives to stimulate employment recruitment.
Similar problems are faced by the disabled, by Indigenous Australians, sole parents, migrants and the long-term unemployed with a lack of employer interest in giving them a go. If this year’s budget is about increasing work force participation then addressing all areas of disadvantage and hurdles becomes imperative. It is vital that, if the Welfare to Work reform is to be successful, it must tackle and look at employer attitudes and practices and see what can be done to alleviate impediments on that level.
Twenty of the recommendations in this report have received unanimous agreement and should be acted upon immediately by the government. The remaining three recommendations, however, have not received unanimous support with opposition members producing a dissenting report covering recommendations 1, 9 and 14 because these committee members have substantial concerns about these recommendations. As my colleague, the member for Gorton, has already stated:
Our concerns about these three recommendations go to the negative effect we believe they will have on industrial relations in this country.
As a former member of the committee, I also cannot support these three recommendations. I stand with the dissenting report of the opposition members for the following reasons.
I would like to address recommendation 1 at this point. It concerns award simplification by reducing the amount of allowable matters and encouraging greater workplace customisation to suit industry and regional conditions. Along with opposition members of the committee, I do not support this recommendation because it does not reflect the evidence received by the committee, nor is there any evidence to support the assertion that reducing allowable matters in federal awards would improve work force participation. The evidence received by the committee did, however, suggest that improving award provisions by including provisions such as paid parental leave or job sharing would, in fact, increase work force participation. In accordance with that evidence, I support the proposed recommendation 1 in the dissenting report which recommends that the government pursue strategies to improve participation in the work force by encouraging employment conditions that are mutually beneficial, such as job sharing, permanent part-time and paid parental leave.
Recommendation 9 concerns part-time and casual employment and recommends that the government examine mechanisms to remove barriers to the employment of part-time and casual employees in industrial awards and other industrial arrangements. I agree with the dissenting report in not supporting this recommendation as the evidence received by the committee highlighted that whilst there will always be a place for part-time and casual employment there are problems associated with such employment including a lack of training, an inability to save or secure a home loan as a result of being a casual employee, and difficulties balancing home and work responsibilities.
I have to agree with the member for Gorton, who makes the very valid point that Australia already has one of the most casualised work forces in the world and a large number of workers in part-time employment. Both groups are heavily represented in my electorate, and I know—because I speak with many of them—that a great number would prefer to have permanent, full-time employment.
Although I agree that there is benefit in having flexibility in the workplace that allows for increased workplace participation, this is true only to a certain extent. A great number of Australians, far from feeling that the existing flexibilities provide greater opportunities for participation, are in fact feeling a greater sense of insecurity and underemployment. As such, I do not support this recommendation. Rather, I support proposed recommendation 9 in the dissenting report, which calls upon the government to undertake a comprehensive study on the growth of casual and part-time employment and the social and economic effects of such growth, so as to identify the impact upon industry, occupations, gender and age groups and to identify the adverse social impact on employees and their families.
Recommendation 14 concerns disability support pension recipients and recommends that the government introduce increased work capacity provisions in determining eligibility for those in receipt of the disability support pension. We have seen this recommendation incorporated in this year’s federal budget. However, opposition members did not support the recommendation when included in the report, and we do not support the budget provisions which implement the recommendation. Much of the evidence presented to the committee indicated how difficult it was for people with disabilities to gain employment, largely due to the perceived attitude of employers that people with disabilities were not preferred. They were often seen as a burden, with employers often not prepared to pay for the adjustments required in the workplace. Generally, there seemed to be an attitude that people with disabilities were not worthy of long-term investment.
Within my electorate are many examples of companies giving disabled employees a fair go, and these organisations include Brite Industries and a local employer, Mr Gary Marshall, whom I have spoken about in this place. He virtually makes it his business to employ people who are most at risk, and most of his work force is made up of people with some form of disability, people with long-term unemployment or mature age workers, who, as the member for Shortland said, when given an opportunity are able to perform tasks efficiently and successfully. It is being given the opportunity that is the problem. There is ample evidence to suggest that there is discrimination in the workplace against people with disabilities and the mature unemployed, in particular.
I talk to Job Network providers, such as Distinctive Options, that specialise in finding placements for people with disabilities, and they have an incredible number of problems convincing employers that their clients are worthy of being given a go. So there is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that it is very difficult for these cohort groups to find employment or to be given an opportunity. I talk to many of these people in my electorate, and they always raise the difficulties of perception and discrimination that they have. It is a real shame, given that in particular the mature aged unemployed have a wealth of experience and potential which, at this stage, remains untapped and needs to be harnessed if we are to avert a skills shortage—the 500,000 jobs with no-one to fill them—by the year 2030.
I raise my concerns about the prospects of a large number of people in the Australian work force who are out there ready, willing and able to work should they be given an opportunity, and I reiterate that we need to concentrate very much on employer attitudes. There are recommendations in the report that go some way towards providing encouragement for employers to take on what are, I guess, perceived to be the less desirable unemployed, but I think we are going to require more than just incentives; we are going to require a stick as well as a carrot.
If we are going to be successful in the Welfare to Work policy that the Treasurer trumpeted loudly in this year’s budget, and if we are going to arrest the skills shortage and give Australians an opportunity to participate in the work force, we need to be mindful of the fact that employers have a great responsibility to do their part and not to pick and choose as they see fit. After having gone through that inquiry, it is very obvious to me that that was one of the greatest problems, one of the greatest obstacles, in the way of a lot of people getting meaningful and long-term employment.
In conclusion, I do agree with the dissenting report that was put forward by my colleagues. I support proposed recommendations 14 and 14A in the dissenting report, which recommend that a broader and more comprehensive study be undertaken and that the 30-hour per week work test for disability support pensioners be retained, given the difficulties I have outlined that people with disabilities have in gaining employment and then, as the member for Shortland said, in being able to maintain it.
I would like to finish by saying that throughout this inquiry all committee members agreed that paid employment is important in reducing social disadvantage and improving Australian living standards and all members agreed on 20 of the 23 recommendations. What is now needed is for the government to take up the initiatives put forward in this report and to implement the recommendations which were agreed upon unanimously. I thoroughly recommend that the government also adopt the additional recommendations from within the dissenting report. As I said earlier, I think that the report comes at a critical time in the history of employment and the work force in this country. It makes some very sound and sensible recommendations—recommendations that I believe will go a long way to assisting with improving work force participation. In particular, the report goes a long way to assisting those people who happen to be in groups that at present are disadvantaged in the work force to be given a fair go and an opportunity to improve their livelihoods and build upon their aspirations for themselves and their families.
