With the federal budget just two weeks away, you would expect Joe Hockey would be talking about the jobless.

Photo: Mark Graham/Bloomberg

It’s curious how little attention unemployment has been getting compared with other federal government challenges like tax policy, debt and deficit.

The number of people looking for a job has now been over three quarters of a million for the past nine months – it’s 18 years since Australia had that many people out of work. Last month’s count of the unemployed – 768,600 in trend terms – was 60 per cent more than before the global financial crisis.

With numbers like that and the federal budget just two weeks away, you’d expect Joe Hockey would be talking a lot about the jobless. But in five lengthy media doorstops, interviews and Q&A sessions by the Treasurer last week he was not asked one question about unemployment. The transcripts for those interviews run to more than 7000 words but the word “unemployment” was only uttered once.

While the rate of unemployment has edged down to 6.1 per cent after reaching a 12-year high of 6.4 per cent a few months ago, there are troubling trends in the job numbers. The rate of long-term unemployment – when people have been out of work for a year or more – has been increasing at a faster pace than the total unemployment rate. Data released by the Department of Social Services last week showed the number of long-term job seekers receiving the Newstart allowance surged by 11.2 per cent to 275,725 in the year to March and has touched decade highs over the past few months.

The Fairfax-Lateral Economics Index of Australia’s Well-being has underscored the growing economic and social damage caused by long-term joblessness. In the December quarter alone the national wellbeing cost of long-term unemployment joblessness reached $1 billion. “This problem should be showing up on the dashboard much more than it is,” says the index’s creator and leading economist Dr Nicholas Gruen.

Another challenge largely ignored in the pre-budget debate is that young people are faring worst of all in the jobs market. The unemployment rate among 15 to 19-year-olds hit 20 per cent earlier this year – a level not seen since the mid-1990s. An index produced by the Brotherhood of St Laurence showing the probability of young people finding a job has fallen markedly in the past year. For teenagers, the job probability index is at levels not seen since the deep recession of the early 1990s.

It’s little wonder that the latest Ipsos Mind and Mood report, which has been tracking social attitudes and sentiment in Australia for 35 years, found job security was the biggest worry of those surveyed. The focus group discussions revealed a widespread perception that no one was safe from mass redundancies. It’s a reminder of how much unemployment matters to households.

Over the past four decades Australia’s economic policy guardians at the Federal Treasury and the Reserve Bank have traditionally had to deal with short sharp rises in unemployment. The conventional response has been to slash interest rates and allow the budget balance to worsen as dole payments rise and tax revenue falls. These “automatic stabilisers” play an important role in cushioning the economic blow. Analysis released by the International Monetary Fund this month shows the effective use of automatic stabilisers is of great benefit to economies and leads to higher medium-term growth.

But this phase of rising unemployment has been different as traditional tools for managing unemployment don’t seem to get the same traction. The jobless rate has slowly racheted higher as the economy lumbers at a below trend rate of growth in the aftermath of the mining boom. The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates eight times since 2011 to historic lows and yet the unemployment rate has continued to creep up. The bank’s governor, Glenn Stevens, has warned that the power of interest rates to “summon up additional growth in demand could, at these levels of interest rates, be less than it was in the past”.

Despite all the Abbott government’s tough talk on the need to deal with debt and deficit, its policy response to the upward trend in unemployment has also been quite conventional. Last year’s federal budget scheduled the toughest fiscal repairs to take place years into the future when, hopefully, the economy is stronger.

Hockey has indicated he will allow the “automatic stabilisers” to keep working. Last week he said the government would not cut spending to “chase down” the big revenue write-downs caused by falling commodity prices and that next month’s budget would “support jobs”. “We’ve got to ensure that the work of the Reserve Bank is not at odds with the work of the government, and vice versa,” he said last Thursday. “You can’t have your foot on the budgetary brake and at the same time have the governor of the Reserve Bank with his foot on the accelerator. It sends a mixed message.”

What if this conventional policy response doesn’t work and the dole queues grow longer?

That would leave Hockey with two options unlikely to be very popular with his Coalition colleagues. He could spend more on things like infrastructure projects in a bid to boost employment – although that would push the budget deeper into deficit. The other alternative is structural reforms to make the labour market more flexible, something sure to anger a lot of voters.

The Treasurer must be relieved he’s not being quizzed more about unemployment.

Source:  SMH

Every unemployed person has a story, and they need the Premier’s help. Photo: Gabriele Charotte

Revelations that 41,000 people applied for 1250 jobs in one big federal government department shows a hint of the heartache unemployment is now causing in the wider community.

And it’s the issue that Annastacia Palaszczuk in Queensland and Tony Abbott in Canberra should be most worried about.

Their ability to turn it around should also be the yardstick by which we measure their success.

The state’s seasonally adjusted jobless rate now sits at 6.6 per cent. In percentage terms, it might not sound much – but it equates to 164,000 Queenslanders.

That is 164,000 people in this state who are both unemployed and actively looking for work.

And here’s the rub. It does NOT include those who have given up looking for a job. Nor does it include those who have been able to nab one or two hours a week.

Indeed, that latter group is considered “employed”.

Nationally it’s a similar story, with 768,600 people unemployed and actively looking for work.

And if that’s not a genuine cause for alarm for our political leaders, they will never understand the lives of their voting masters.

Numbers can often hide the hardship that lurks behind them. A father who loses his job means his child is withdrawn from tennis lessons.

A mother who can’t find work can mean the family defaults on a mortgage.

A teenager, who spends months searching for a job, can give up and fall into an unemployment black hole, that is now not measured at all.

A university graduate who cannot find a job as a teacher might follow the same course, or choose another path. Either way, their learning is lost to those classes they would front in other circumstances.

Those stories are playing out each day in the community without making headlines, and that makes them easy stories to ignore.

But each job loss causes a ripple beyond one family, putting a strain on relationships, networks and charities.

And it makes a mockery of those calls for us all to work until old age steals our last breath.

How many companies are genuinely committed to employing someone over 50, despite a resume packed with experience? Hardly any.

How many of those workers laid off in recent years, after years or even decades of loyal service, have the confidence to apply for a job? Not as many as you might think.

What happens when the applicant, despite their best effort, gets their 16th knock back? Ask a welfare agency.

That’s the social impact behind our jobless rate, and it’s an impact that always builds silently, until it explodes as a voter revolt at the poll, or as a welfare crisis, which costs enormous amounts of taxpayer money.

Annastacia Palaszczuk marked job creation as her government’s number one priority ahead of the January election.

She avoided targets, like her predecessor, choosing to announce that a Cabinet subcommittee would be charged with leading a local jobs boost.

That could be an important first step, but we need to hear the “jobs, jobs, jobs” mantra that filled her campaign speeches before the election more now she’s in charge.

This time, it’s Annastacia Palaszczuk’s job that depends on it.

Source:  The Brisbane Times

Workplace injuries are set to rise as a result of the expected increase in the number of people working past the age of 65, raising concern about cuts to workers’ compensation schemes around the country and pressure on welfare services, lawyers warn.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance said the federal government’s intergenerational report predicted the proportion of workers older than 65 will grow from 12.9 per cent to 17.3 per cent by 2051. The former Labor government raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 by 2023 and federal Treasurer Joe Hockey has said Generation X Australians might have to keep working until they are 70.

ALA national president Andrew Stone said cuts in benefits to injured workers through state-based workers’ compensation schemes around the country, particularly in NSW, could have long-term consequences for a rapidly ageing workforce.

“If the government expects people to work longer, where does it expect that these people will receive support if they are injured?” Mr Stone said.

“An ageing worker is more likely to suffer a non-serious workplace injury and fall into a lower category of coverage, potentially receiving less support or even being denied workers’ compensation medical and income benefits.

“This is particularly the case in heavy industries, where it will be physically difficult for people to work longer, as well as in less physically demanding workplaces.”

The increased risk meant a long-term vision was needed to support injured workers, Mr Stone said.

The introduction of a no-fault National Injury Insurance Scheme meant state-based workers compensation schemes were being reviewed, he said.

“Eligibility criteria for the [National Disability Insurance Scheme] and [National Injury Insurance Scheme] will likely mean that people injured at work would be unable to access these schemes for support to a significant degree.

“If these people are also denied access to workers’ compensation, it will mean that their only means of support could be under the Disability Support Pension, Centrelink or Medicare. This has already been seen in NSW.

“It is important that governments resist such pressures to raise thresholds, reduce caps and remove lump-sum commutations as a short-term fix.”

The intergenerational report suggested the proportion of taxpayers was declining as part of the ageing population, he said. By 2055, the number of people aged between 15 to 64 would be only 2.7 times greater than the number aged 65, compared to 4.5 times greater today.

“The choices that state and territory governments make now about how they fund the NIIS could have resounding impacts when considering a long-term vision for how we care for older Australians in decades to come.

“If states take the easy option and simply raise damage thresholds now to pay for no-fault catastrophic insurance, the damage will be extensive.”

A spokeswoman for WorkCover said the system was designed to be fair and affordable and to assist injured workers to return to work. She said WorkCover was looking at the demographic trends and workplace impacts of an ageing workforce.

People injured after they reach retirement age are currently entitled to weekly payments for 12 months after an injury that leaves unable to work.

Seriously injured workers with more than 30 per cent whole person permanent impairment receive medical treatment rehabilitation and support benefits related to their injury for life.

“The workers’ compensation scheme’s chief purpose is to support injured workers to return to work by encouraging employers to make alternative duties or changes in duties to help their recovery in the workplace. This approach is more important for older workers, as their place of employment is often their key social and community outlet,” the spokeswoman said.

Source:  SMH