# data[].attributes.headline
NEET Youth in the Aftermath of the Crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
NEET Youth in the Aftermath of the Crisis

# data[].attributes.body
This report summarises and gives clear findings on the NEET population around the world and how Young People were one of the groups hit hardest by the Global Financial Crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OECD iLibrary | NEET Youth in the Aftermath of the Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This paper presents an overview of the situation of youth in OECD countries since the onset of the financial crisis focusing primarily on describing the characteristics and living conditions of youth not in employment, education or training (the 'NEETs').

# data[].attributes.body
This article summarises the factors that have influenced the change in the education to work transition, as well as other transitions and challenges Young People face today.

# data[].attributes.body
An article that gives another opinion on a way to reduce the number of unemployed young people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than one-third of unemployed people are aged 15 to 24, a critical period in their lives. luxorphoto/Shutterstock

Australia came out of the global financial crisis better than most industrialised countries, but did not escape altogether. With a weaker economy, the unemployment rate rose from about 4% to 6% between 2008 and 2009. It has remained around that level since then, and the longer unemployment remains at this level, the greater the costs it imposes on those affected.

The young are particularly disadvantaged by the current unemployment rate. This is not unexpected, as the young always fare worst in downturns.

Slowing economic activity reduces the rate of creation of new jobs. At any point in time, the young, who are making the transition from education to work, account for a disproportionate share of job seekers. Therefore, they are also most affected by the declining availability of jobs.

In May 2012, the rate of unemployment for 15 to 19-year-olds was 18.8%; and for the broader group of 15 to 24-year-olds it was 13.1%. This compares to an unemployment rate of 5.8% for the population aged 15 to 64 years.

Long-term unemployment also becomes a more severe problem as the economic downturn lengthens. Of those 15 to 24-year-olds who were unemployed in May 2012, more than 25% had been unemployed for 12 months and longer.

These numbers have attracted growing attention to the labour market problems facing young Australians today. The main point of discussion has been how to assist the young unemployed and those who will make their transition to the labour market in coming years to obtain employment.

Focus on help, not blame

It is important to recognise that the main influence on their employment prospects is outside their control. This is the rate of economic growth. It determines the pace at which jobs are created, and therefore the unemployment rate. Recent research I have done shows that virtually all of the increase in Australia's rate of unemployment since the start of 2008 can be explained by slower economic growth.

Once the rate of economic growth becomes sufficient to generate a higher rate of job creation, it is young job seekers who will benefit most. Being the largest share of job searchers, they will get the largest share of the new jobs. Therefore, the employment rate of the young will increase, and their unemployment rate will decrease by more than for the rest of the population.

The best way for a government to reduce youth unemployment then is to keep economic growth as high as possible. The other main way to improve labour market outcomes for the young unemployed is through targeted programs that make them "job ready" and create pathways to employment. Programs that provide these services to the young unemployed can increase their opportunities to move into work when extra jobs become available.

There is, however, a problem. Having programs targeted to improve outcomes for the young unemployed sounds good in theory, but the practice has been more difficult. Designing programs that work has been a major challenge.

It is this challenge, and the challenge of long-term unemployment more generally, that was taken up this month by the Social Ventures Australia (SVA) "Employment Dialogue". With the theme "Building better futures for those experiencing long-term unemployment", the event brought together representatives of leading welfare agencies, service providers for the unemployed, major business groups, as well as SVA members.

At a time when the federal government's best idea is to go back to the failed model of Work for the Dole, the discussion at the Employment Dialogue was refreshing and inspiring.

AAP/Newzulu/Tom Griffiths

Speakers from very different backgrounds provided a broad range of ideas on what would be good policy that were striking for how much they had in common. Putting these ideas together provides the possibility of a new approach to designing policies to improve labour market outcomes for the long-term unemployed as well as those about to move into the labour market.

Policies to help young workers

Here's my summary of the main ideas from the Employment Dialogue about policy design:

Assistance to the unemployed should ideally involve a job placement. This is the best pathway to long-term employment and the best context for increasing skills.

Many employers are willing to support initiatives to improve outcomes for the unemployed; for example, by providing job placements. A prerequisite for employers to offer placements is that they want workers who already have basic capabilities needed for work. They are happy to partner not-for-profits/service providers who can do the work of giving the unemployed those basic capabilities. An example profiled on the day was a partnership between Leighton Contractors and Beacon Foundation and CareerTrackers.

Not-for-profits can also successfully create job placements that improve the employment prospects of young unemployed. A leading example is the STREAT program which provides young jobless homeless youth with the training and skills for a career in the hospitality sector.

To support building relationships between business and not-for-profits or service providers it is necessary to have a local or decentralised model of assistance for the unemployed and the young who are making the transition from education to work.

Part of the local assistance to young people making the transition from education to work should be a greater role for schools and suppliers of tertiary education in providing opportunities to engage with the workplace. For example, having more information on work options allows students to make better study choices and provides greater motivation for study.

Training and obtaining a formal qualification can be an important part of improving outcomes for the unemployed, but the incentives to undertake training and the value of training are greatest when it is matched to a job placement.

All this can only happen if we have government funding that supports a decentralised model of assistance to the young unemployed. Any funding model should require that specified outcomes be achieved, but must also allow greater flexibility and less bureaucracy than current government schemes.

The government funding model should recognise that "you get what you pay for". Some young unemployed have a substantial level of disadvantage, which will require significant spending for them to acquire basic capabilities for employment. Therefore, it is necessary to take a long-run approach to benefit-cost in evaluating this type of spending.

It is important to make more effort to do rigorous evaluation of programs that seek to assist the unemployed, as a basis for refining our knowledge of what is most effective.

Applying these principles to the design of programs for young unemployed would be a big step forward in Australia. It would give us a good chance of, as one participant put it at the Employment Dialogue, "getting money to where it will be most effective and starting to make a difference".
See the rest of the Another Country: Youth in Australia series here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unemployment is hitting youth hard: this is what we should do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia came out of the global financial crisis better than most industrialised countries, but did not escape altogether. With a weaker economy, the unemployment rate rose from about 4% to 6% between 2008 and 2009. It has remained around that level since then, and the longer unemployment remains at this level, the greater the costs it imposes on those affected.

# data[].attributes.headline
NON CREDIBLE: Walking a well-being tightrope: young peoplein Australia.

# data[].attributes.subject
NON CREDIBLE: Walking a well-being tightrope: young peoplein Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
A report on how young people make an important impact on socioeconomic's in Australia under tough circumstances.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Are Young People Learning or Earning? 

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Are Young People Learning or Earning? 

# data[].attributes.body
Research suggests that young people who are not fully engaged in education or work (or a combination of both) are at greater risk of unemployment, cycles of low pay and employment insecurity in the longer term.

# data[].attributes.headline
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE:  Young people to lose access to unemployment benefits as part of welfare reforms.

# data[].attributes.subject
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE:  Young people to lose access to unemployment benefits as part of welfare reforms.

# data[].attributes.body
In February 2017, Coalition leader Malcolm Turnball announces Australians under the age of 25 can not receive youth start allowance or Newstart allowance unless some employment or study to qualify for such payments is met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
YOUNG people will not be able to get unemployment benefits until they turn 25 under reforms introduced by the Turnbull Government today.

The coalition has unveiled wide-ranging welfare reforms in parliament today, including changes to the Newstart program.

It hopes to stop people aged 22 to 24 getting Newstart or the Sickness allowance, and they will instead be shifted to the Youth Allowance payment.

This will reduce the amount of money that they will be able to get, costing a single person living away from home about $90 a fortnight.

They will also be required to study in order to qualify for the payments.

"The key aim of this measure is to provide incentives for young unemployed people to obtain the relevant education and training to increase employability," according to an explanatory memorandum for the bill.

However, it says Youth Allowance does allow students to earn a higher amount of money from part-time or casual work than Newstart, before this begins impacting their payments.

Students can also have up to $10,000 in the bank before their savings affect their payments.

But young people will also be forced to wait a month, and made to complete a compulsory program before they can get any payments.

The changes would be grandfathered so that 22, 23 and 24-year-olds already receiving Newstart can continue to do so.

They are part of a number of budget-saving welfare measures unveiled by the Turnbull Government today, which it hopes to get passed through parliament.
CHILD CARE CHANGES
Parents will finally get more help with childcare fees three years after the federal government first laid out its plans - as long as a new push to convince parliament is successful.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has labelled the planned changes "a very big social reform".

More than 843,000 families have children in some form of child care.

The plan to scrap the existing complex system of payments and establish a single-fee subsidy is unchanged from what the government proposed in May 2015.

But the government has rejigged the welfare cuts it plans to use to inject an extra $3 billion into childcare subsidies, in an omnibus bill it hopes will be more palatable to crossbench senators.

If the legislation passes in the first half of the year, the new childcare subsidy will start from July 2, 2018.

It would be means-and activity-tested, giving families between 85 per cent and 20 per cent rebate on childcare fees.

One key change is scrapping the existing $7500 cap on rebates for families earning less than $185,000.

Education Minister Senator Simon Birmingham said that meant an extra 90,000 families would have their fees subsidised for the entire year instead of facing several months of "a horror for budgeting" when their costs suddenly doubled.

Another 40,000 families on high incomes will have that cap lifted to $10,000 a year.

Labor childcare spokeswoman Kate Ellis complained the government had not done anything to fix problems the sector had raised regarding the activity test and uncertainty for indigenous and rural care services.

However, key crossbench senator Nick Xenophon said the reworking of the cuts was a step in the right direction and the childcare package was improved.
CHANGES TO PARENTING PAYMENTS
To pay for the changes the government will phase out Family Tax Benefit A end-of-year supplements but increase fortnightly payments by about $20.

"I suspect even Labor might have a look at this bill because it does all of the things that Australian families are crying out to have," Social Services Minister Christian Porter told reporters.

But Labor has said it will not support cuts to family tax benefits.

"We think the government is going to hurt millions of Australian families with these cuts," Opposition families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin told reporters in Canberra.

Families on FTB A would be $200 worse off for each eligible child, and those on FTB B would be $350 a year worse off as a family.

An earlier move to scrap end-of-year payments for Family Tax Benefits A and B to pay for the child care measures was blocked in the upper house.

The government has now agreed to increase fortnightly family tax benefit payments by about $20 to compensate families for the loss of their annual supplement.
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE
The 70,000 new parents who have a child each year, may have to consider going back to work earlier with the government wanting to cut paid parental leave payments.

Currently the government provides 18 weeks' leave paid at the minimum wage ($11,826) to new parents earning less than $150,000, and this is on top of any leave provided by their employers.

Last year the Turnbull Government tried to change this so that parents could only use government payments to top-up their work leave to a maximum of 18 weeks. It has now boosted this to 20 weeks.

It means that a new mother who gets 10 weeks of leave from her employer, will only be able to get an extra 10 weeks paid by the government for a maximum of 20 weeks leave.

The changes will not start until nine months after the bill passed, so women who are already pregnant don't miss out.
CHANGES TO THE PENSION
Seniors living overseas would have their aged pensions cut off after six weeks, down from 26 weeks

New pensioners will also lose the right to get the $14-a-fortnight energy supplement.

Those who started receiving it before 20 September 2016, will still get the payments but those who got it on that date or afterwards, will only get the payment until 19 September 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Young people will be forced to study to get welfare payments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
YOUNG people will not be able to get unemployment benefits until they turn 25 under reforms introduced by the Turnbull Government today. The coalition has unveiled wide-ranging welfare reforms in parliament today, including changes to the Newstart program.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Youth unemployment statistics: a quick guide.

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Youth unemployment statistics: a quick guide.

# data[].attributes.body
A parliamentary document created monthly regarding  unemployed Australian young people via data recorded by the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated 9 December 2015

PDF version [ 475KB]

Penny Vandenbroek
Statistics and Mapping Section

Introduction

This guide provides a brief overview of youth unemployment, an introduction to the key concepts and terminology used, and lists relevant data sources. This is one in a series of statistical quick guides related to labour statistics, designed to provide a basic understanding of the Australian labour market data. Other guides include labour force, unemployment and employment, which are available from the Parliamentary Library website.

In the labour force framework, unemployed people form part of the currently active population, who, along with the employed, constitute the labour force. Young unemployed people are a sub-set of the unemployed (see diagram below).
Labour force framework
Source: ABS, Labour Statistics: Concepts, sources and methods, 2013, cat. no. 6102.0.55.001

Who are unemployed people?

The International Labour Organization (ILO) describes unemployed people as those who are: without work; currently available for work; and deliberately seeking work. The concept of 'without work' is used to distinguish unemployed people from the employed.

How is youth unemployment measured?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducts a monthly Labour Force Survey. This household survey is designed to produce key estimates of unemployment (and employment) from a sample of approximately 56,000 people. The survey's definition of unemployment closely aligns with international standards and guidelines.

Unemployed persons are defined as all persons aged 15 years and over who were not employed during the reference week and:
* had actively looked for work and were available to work (in the reference week), or
* were waiting to start a new job.
Young unemployed people are those classified as unemployed according to the above definition and aged 15 to 24 years.

More information on the measurement of unemployment is available from the ABS.

Young unemployed

Young unemployed people are a sub-set of the unemployed. Age groupings are applied to people classified as unemployed to form the population of interest. Youth unemployment generally refers to people aged 15 to 24 years, but may apply to any age cohort within this span. Depending on the schooling structure and retention of young people in education, the age group of interest may vary. For example, where young people usually look for full-time work after completing high school, the unemployment rate of those aged 15 to 19 years is likely to be useful. However, where young people generally stay on at school, completing further studies and then seek full-time work, the unemployment rate of those aged 20 to 24 years may be more useful. For comparisons of youth unemployment between countries, the ILO generally uses unemployed people aged 15 to 24 years.

Young people may undertake a complex range of work and study arrangements, making them a difficult segment of the labour market to analyse. Young people studying part-time may combine their studies with some work (generally part-time), and others may be studying full-time and not working at all (nor actively looking for work). However, the seeking of full-time work by a young person typically indicates that they want to start a career, to gain on-the-job training and to achieve some form of independence.

What are the key measures?

The number of young unemployed people (head count)

Each month the ABS estimates the total number of unemployed people, releasing trend, seasonally adjusted and original data. Graph 1 (on the next page) shows changes in the number of unemployed people aged 15 to 24 years from the start of the data series until the most recent period. Data for people aged 15 to 19 years is also available (see Labour Force, detailed - electronic delivery, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001).

The level of youth unemployment is subject to fluctuations throughout the year, particularly around peak times of education commencement or conclusion. Trend and seasonally adjusted estimates aim to account for these types of variations. If original estimates are to be used, care should be taken when analysing any month-to-month, or period-to-period changes.
1. Young unemployed people (15 to 24 years) - trend
Source: ABS, Labour force, September 2015, cat. no. 6202.0

Youth unemployment rate

The rate is the number of young unemployed people expressed as a proportion of the labour force (in the same age group). This measure is applied in the same way as the general unemployment rate. The rate is subject to some criticism, being thought of as too simplistic to reflect the complex work/study situations that often apply to young people. Altshuler, Hill, Philpott, Matlack and others suggest that the use of the rate can lead to misinterpretation of the state of young people's unemployment as it does not account for the high proportion of people currently in education or training. Those studying, who are not working nor actively seeking work, are excluded from the labour force. It is therefore suggested that the youth unemployment ratio be used as an alternate or additional measure (see the next segment).
2. Youth unemployment rate (15 to 24 years) - trend
Source: ABS, Labour force, September 2015, cat. no. 6202.0

Youth unemployment ratio

The ratio is the number of young unemployed people expressed as a proportion of the civilian population (in the same age group). The ratio differs from the rate as it accounts for the whole population of young people not solely those in the labour force (i.e. employed or unemployed). The ratio helps to provide an indication of young peoples' unemployment experiences, which are often complicated by transitions into and out of education and work. Graph 3 provides the youth unemployment ratio for people aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years from the start of the data series until the most recent period.
3. Youth unemployment ratio - original
Source: ABS, Labour force, detailed - electronic delivery, September 2015, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001

Extended measures of youth unemployment

Specific criteria can be applied to the youth population to account for their different job seeking, work and study scenarios. Extended measures of youth unemployment can be created using the following types of variables:

'full-time' (e.g. looking for full-time work or working full-time) and

'educational attendance' (e.g. studying full-time or part-time, or not studying at all).

Youth full-time unemployment rate

This measure is the number of young unemployed people looking for full-time work as a proportion of the youth full-time labour force (in the same age group). The labour force therefore excludes young people who are looking for part-time work and those who are employed part-time.

Youth unemployment/fully active ratio

A useful variable for assessing estimates of youth unemployment is 'educational attendance'. This variable indicates a person's involvement in study or training, and can be combined with their labour force status to analyse a variety of study/work scenarios. In this instance, educational attendance is used to identify young people who study full-time or part-time, so that an adjustment can be made to both the unemployed and labour force populations. The ratio is, therefore, the number of unemployed youth who are not studying full-time as a proportion of the youth labour force plus those who are studying full-time. Original data are available each month from the ABS for young age groups, see 'Sources of ABS labour force data on young people'.

Other measures

Ratio of youth-to-adult unemployment rates

This measure is the difference between the youth unemployment rate and the adult unemployment rate. The youth population is people aged 15 to 24 years, and adults are those aged 25 years and over. The ILO suggests that where the unemployment rates are closer together (e.g. a ratio of 2), unemployment is generally considered to be a problem for the whole population. Where the ratio is 3.5 or higher, young people are thought to be disproportionately impacted by unemployment. In Australia, over the past 10 years the ratio has varied from 2.7 to 3.1, and in 2014-15 was sitting at 2.9 (annual average). Cross country comparisons are available from the ILO in Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM), 8th edition, Chapter 10 - Youth unemployment.

Share of unemployed youth in total unemployment

This measure expresses the number of young unemployed as a proportion of all unemployed people. It can be used to provide an indication of the degree to which unemployment is a youth-specific problem, rather than a general problem. It is generally used as part of a suite of indicators, rather than as a stand-alone measure.
Graph 4 provides young unemployed people (15 to 24 years) as a proportion of total unemployed (15 years and over) from the start of the data series until the most recent period. Data for people aged 15 to 19 years is also available (seeLabour Force, detailed - electronic delivery, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001).
4. Unemployed youth (15 to 24 years) as a proportion of total unemployed - original
Source: ABS, Labour force, detailed - electronic delivery, September 2015, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001

Sources of ABS labour force data on young people

Unless otherwise noted, estimates are for the original series.

Labour force, cat. no. 6202.0, time series spreadsheets:

13. Labour force status for 15-24 year olds by sex - trend, seasonally adjusted and original

15. Labour force status for 15-24 year olds by educational attendance (full-time) and sex

16. Labour force status for 15-24 year olds by state, territory and educational attendance (full-time)

17. Labour force status for 15-19 year olds by sex - trend, seasonally adjusted and original.

Labour force, detailed - electronic delivery, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001, time series spreadsheets:

01. Labour force status by age, social marital status and sex

03. Labour force status for 15-24 year olds by age, educational attendance (full-time) and sex and by state, territory and educational attendance (full-time).

Data cubes providing more detailed estimates by age, include:

LM1. Labour force status by age, greater capital city and rest of state (ASGS), marital status and sex

LM3. Labour force status for 15-24 year olds by age, educational attendance (full-time), sex and year left school

LM5. Labour force status by age, major country group (subcontinent) of birth (SACC), sex, state and territory

UM3. Unemployed persons by age and duration of job search

RM1. Labour force status by age, labour market region (ASGS) and sex.

Regional data

Regional estimates of unemployment by age are released by the ABS in Labour force, detailed - electronic delivery, cat. no. 6291.0.55.001, see Data Cube RM1. This release provides data for the smallest geographic areas available (excluding the Census). Data is from the original (unadjusted) series and due to the small sample sizes the sampling errors with some estimates may be quite high.

Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4)

Statistical Area Level 4 regions are designed for the dissemination of labour force estimates and to reflect labour markets within each state and territory. They cover 87 spatial areas across Australia. For more information see Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 1 - Main structure and Greater capital city statistical areas, July 2011, cat. no. 1270.0.55.001 (Main Structure > Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4)).

The Parliamentary Library's Small Area Labour Market Data webpage provides estimates of unemployment and employment for the total labour force (15 years and over) and youth labour force (15 to 24 years) by ABS labour market regions.

Other data sources

The ABS is also responsible for collecting and disseminating results from the five-yearly Census of Population and Housing. The Basic Community Profile series provides selected labour force data for small statistical areas (e.g. Commonwealth and State Electoral Divisions), including male and female unemployment rates, and whether a person was looking for full-time or part-time work. Estimates are available by age groups, including 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years. Note: data relating to Commonwealth Electoral Divisions in Victoria and South Australia reflect the boundaries at the time of the 2010 Federal Election. For more information see ABS,Statistical Geography Fact Sheet, Commonwealth and State Electoral Divisions.

The Department of Social Services publishes information on Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients in the publication Labour market and related payments monthly profile. Table 1 provides time series figures for Youth Allowance recipients by type of payment (e.g. full-time students, apprentices) and Table 6 provides figures for short-term and long-term job seekers receiving Newstart Allowance by age and sex. Note that the figures vary to those released by the ABS due to differing methodologies in calculating 'unemployed' persons.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library's Central Entry Point for referral.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Youth unemployment statistics: a quick guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 9 December 2015 PDF version [ 475KB] Penny Vandenbroek Statistics and Mapping Section This guide provides a brief overview of youth unemployment, an introduction to the key concepts and terminology used, and lists relevant data sources. This is one in a series of statistical quick guides related to labour statistics, designed to provide a basic understanding of the Australian labour market data.

# data[].attributes.headline
CERDIBLE: Face the Facts - Youth Income Support

# data[].attributes.subject
CERDIBLE: Face the Facts - Youth Income Support

# data[].attributes.body
This briefing report highlights some of the key concerns and challenges faced by young people receiving and looking to receive income support as well as gives insight on unemployment amongst young people.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

# data[].attributes.body
A new legislation by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnball was today (April 18th, 2017) announced to protect more Australian jobs, but still allowing the genuine shortage of skilled workforce employment to still occur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On 18 April 2017, the Government announced that the Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457 visa) will be abolished and replaced with the completely new Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa in March 2018.

The TSS visa programme will be comprised of a Short-Term stream of up to two years and a Medium-Term stream of up to four years and will support businesses in addressing genuine skill shortages in their workforce and will contain a number of safeguards which prioritise Australian workers.

This new visa is part of the Government's significant reform package to strengthen the integrity and quality of Australia's temporary and permanent employer sponsored skilled migration programmes.

Key reforms include:

Introducing the temporary skill shortage visa with new requirements, including but not limited to:

new, more targeted occupation lists which better align with skill needs in the Australian labour market

a requirement for visa applicants to have at least two years' work experience in their skilled occupation

a minimum market salary rate which ensures that overseas workers cannot be engaged to undercut Australian workers

mandatory labour market testing, unless an international obligation applies,

capacity for only one onshore visa renewal under the Short-Term stream

capacity for visa renewal onshore and a permanent residence pathway after three years under the Medium-Term stream

the permanent residence eligibility period will be extended from two to three years

a non-discriminatory workforce test to ensure employers are not actively discriminating against Australian workers

strengthened requirement for employers to contribute to training Australian workers

the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will collect Tax File Numbers and data will be matched with the Australian Tax Office's records, and

mandatory penal clearance certificates to be provided.

Tightening eligibility requirements for employer sponsored permanent skilled visas, including but not limited to:

tightened English language requirements

a requirement for visa applicants to have at least three years' work experience

applicants must be under the maximum age requirement of 45 at the time of application

strengthened requirement for employers to contribute to training Australian workers, and

employers must pay the Australian market salary rate and meet the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold¹.

Concessions for regional Australia will continue to be available:

Employers in regional Australia will continue to have access to occupations under the temporary and permanent visas, to reflect their skills needs.

Existing permanent visa concessions for regional Australia, such as waiving the nomination fee and providing age exemptions for certain occupations, will be retained. Consideration will be given to expanding the occupations in regional Australia that are exempt from the age requirement.

Significantly condensing the occupation lists used for skilled migration visas, including the subclass 457 visa, from 19 April 2017.

The implementation of these reforms will begin immediately and will be completed in March 2018.

Further information on reforms is available:

Further information on different aspects of the reforms will be published in due course.

1 Set at $53,900 as at 12 April 2016.

​ ​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abolition and replacement of the 457 visa - Government reforms to employer sponsored skilled migration visas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 18 April 2017, the Government announced that the Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457 visa) will be abolished and replaced with the completely new Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa in March 2018.

# data[].attributes.headline
NON CREDIBLE: Youth unemployment crisis ... or entitlement crisis?

# data[].attributes.subject
NON CREDIBLE: Youth unemployment crisis ... or entitlement crisis?

# data[].attributes.body
Rachael Sharman is a lecturer and researcher in psychology, specialising in child/adolescent development explores the unrealistic and bizarre expectations young people in Australia face when seeking employment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted September 04, 2014 15:33:42

What I'm seeing time after time is a percentage of young people who remain unemployed (and perhaps unemployable) due to bizarre and unrealistic expectations, writes Rachael Sharman.
There has been an alarming rise in youth unemployment, as the Brotherhood of St Laurence recently highlighted: it seems clear to me that something genuinely troubling is going on in the training of our young people which is seeing them ill-prepared for work in the real world.

For the last few years I have been running career advice seminars for psychology students at the University of the Sunshine Coast, as well as developing an "industry liaison" relationship with employers in the region. So I am very strongly plugged into both the employee and employer side of this "jobs crisis".

I am also the mother of four teenagers, two of whom secured their first jobs during the last year. We live in a small town with a population of around 8,000 and no real public transport - a town in which jobs aren't easy to come by.

The first teenager took one week to get his job as a dish pig and delivery boy at a local restaurant, by answering a notice in their window. Within a couple of months he was getting extra shifts and positive feedback about his reliability and work ethic.

His secret? He turned up, and did his job.

The second teenager took longer (three months) to nail her first job, as she was constrained by not having a car licence. After submitting about 20 resumes around town (getting knockbacks or no response), and attending one unsuccessful interview, she was finally recommended by a friend to a restaurant owner. Within a few weeks, she was offered more work and awarded an unsolicited pay rise.

Her secret? She turned up, and did her job.

In a telling encounter during my daughter's first week, the owner commended her for taking the initiative to "sweep up" during downtime, adding that "most of the other waitresses would sit down and start texting".

I think you can see where this is going...

My son has since secured a valuable trade apprenticeship - after answering an ad in the paper. It's not easy: it's hard physical labour, and he's sometimes required to wake up at 3:50am in order to be on site at 5am.

Despite trade apprenticeships allegedly being as rare as hen's teeth, my son's workmates commented that he was the 3rd apprentice they'd tried in as many weeks. The first, a mature age man, worked diligently for one week, received his pay and then never came back - no phone call, no contact, nothing. The second, a recent school leaver, was said to have "an attitude problem" which his workplace was willing to forgive; but he also felt inclined to set his own starting and finishing times, and evidently wasn't able to commit to the eight-hour day suggested by his boss.

I hear these sorts of anecdotes repeated from many different sources over and over again. The snapshot of youth unemployment by the Brotherhood of St Laurence specifically pointed to these "soft skills" as a priority for youth employment training:

Employers have identified that young job seekers are often not job-ready. They need employees who are reliable, willing to learn and able to fit into the workplace.

What I'm seeing time after time is a percentage of young people who remain wholly unemployed (and perhaps unemployable) due to bizarre and unrealistic expectations, fortunately exceeded by a larger proportion of young people who are holding down a variety of jobs, taking on multiple roles, or doing extra shifts and overtime.

So what is the reason for this extraordinary divergence? It seems to me that one problem (and I realise there are others) is that over the last couple of decades our schooling/tertiary education systems have slowly but surely morphed into sheltered workshops giving rise to students who expect to be protected by processes that will not be replicated in the workforce and/or where dysfunctional behaviours that would be intolerable in any workplace go without consequence

This has crept into our education culture in the name of the ultimately futile pursuit of protecting "self esteem", or maintaining the absurd mantra of "you can do anything!", or for the sake of ensuring an often deeply unreasonable "reasonable adjustment".

Worse still, this is underpinned by a very real threat to teaching organisations of legal sanctions, if we dare to apply consequences to students for poor progress or dysfunctional behaviours

Has it occurred to anyone else that providing a bubble-wrapped, illusory education environment really isn't fair? That what is actually happening is we are withholding from students the opportunity to reflect upon and change their counter-productive attitudes/behaviours? Or to reassess their capabilities and redirect their efforts to a more suitable career course?

No wonder we have an increasing proportion of young people who find nothing but resentment and despair when they leave school/TAFE/university with the correct bit of paper, but a total inability to effectively apply it.
Dr Rachael Sharman is a lecturer and researcher in psychology, specialising in child/adolescent development. View her full profile here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Youth unemployment crisis ... or entitlement crisis?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted September 04, 2014 15:33:42 What I'm seeing time after time is a percentage of young people who remain unemployed (and perhaps unemployable) due to bizarre and unrealistic expectations, writes Rachael Sharman.

# data[].attributes.body
The Guardians, Greg Jericho's informative piece on how young people are not giving up on  employment, despite high unemployment rates. Arguing more young people are either in the workforce or gaining an education than ever before, making the Coalition’s ‘earn or learn’ crackdown unnecessary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The unemployment figures released last week by the Bureau of Statistics showed that youth unemployment at 20% is now as high as it has been since June 1997. However, as bad as that figure is, the causes of the high rate are quite surprising.

They suggest that young people are responding to the weak employment situation not by giving up, but by continuing to look for work and continuing with their education while doing so. Without any compulsion by government, youth are either earning or learning in greater numbers than ever before.

The youth unemployment rate invariably rises or falls faster than the overall number of unemployed. Since 1978, the unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds rises or falls on average each year by around one percentage point more than the total:

And yet over the past 12 months, while the total unemployment rate has risen 0.4 percentage points from 5.9% to 6.3%, the youth unemployment rate has skyrocketed 3.5 percentage points from 16.5% to 20%.

The difference in speed of the increase between the two rates is now second only to the eight-month period at the start of the 1990 recession, when young workers were laid off by the truckload and youth unemployment soared to a record high of 25% by the middle of 1992.

So an abnormally fast rising youth unemployment rate is certainly cause for concern. This concern is heightened when we consider that while the annual employment for 20 to 24-year-olds has improved in the past 12 months, for 15 to 19-year-olds it has stayed dismally negative:

The falling employment is most clearly observed among full-time youth workers. Male full-time employment fell 4.7% in the past 12 months, while female full-time work collapsed by 13.6%. Part-time work remains flat. At least it is not falling, but there is nothing to get very excited about:

And yet, when we look at the youth labour force figures there is actually some small degree of optimism because the percentage of youth in the labour force - either working or trying to get work - has actually increased in the past year.

When we say that youth unemployment is 20%, of course that doesn't mean 20% of all youth are unemployed - just that 20% of 15 to 19 years in the labour force are unemployed.

Only 54% of 15 to 19-year-olds are in the workforce, the rest either are studying and not bothering to look for work, or are neither studying nor looking for work. This latter group is one that does not fit into the picture of the current line of thinking - where the government (and the ALP for that matter) would have you believe a youth must either be "earning or learning".

The 2014 budget also suggested that job seekers under 30 applying for Newstart or Youth Allowance, who have not been previously employed, would face a six-month waiting period of no income support, depending on their work history.

This measure has been unable to pass the Senate and the new social services minister, Scott Morrison, seems to have sensibly dumped that policy. Using such sticks to try and force youth to either get a job or stay in education are really just measures designed to look tough on bludgers rather than an effective employment policy.

The data shows there are more youth than ever before either in the labour force or in education, and history also shows that the key to getting more youth employed is the same as all other age groups - stronger economic growth.

In December, just a record low 3.99% of 15 to 19-year-olds were not in either the labour force or in education; and a record high 92.6% who were either working or learning or doing both:

And it is here that we start to see why the youth unemployment rate has soared in the past year and why it is not such a bad thing. Many youth both work and attend education places of some kind - whether high school, or TAFE, university or another tertiary institution.

Back in 1992 when youth unemployment hit 25%, just 17.7% of youth were both working and attending education; now that figure is up to 27.6%. By contrast, back then 24.5% of youth were only working, compared with 16.2% of youth now:

Interestingly, after a decade where the levels of 15 to 19-year-olds only working, or both working and learning remained quite stable, after the GFC the proportion who were only working collapsed.

And if we look closer at each category of youth either in or out of the labour market an unusual change occurred over the past year.

As the number of youth in employment fell over the past 12 months, not surprisingly the proportion of youth working fell, but surprisingly the proportion of youth who were unemployed, but not in education also fell.

Throughout 2011 to midway through 2013, around 45% of youth unemployed were not in education, and yet over the past 12 months the number of youth unemployed who also aren't in education has actually fallen by around 16%. In that same time the number of unemployed youth who are in education has risen 11%.

This has led to the participation rate of youth actually rising in the past 12 months from 52.7% to 54% - in stark contrast with the total participation rate which has stayed flat.

Thus youth, rather than viewing the weak job market and giving up on job hunting, are continuing to try, but are more than ever before staying in (or returning to) education while doing so. This allows them to continue building up their skills which will help them get work when the economy picks up:

Usually when the economy is weak we see an increase in the number of people giving up on looking for work - but that is not happening at the moment with the youth.

Despite the weak employment growth the participation rate of youth is increasing. Furthermore, while they're trying to get work, more and more of them are either staying in or returning to education. The youth are already earning and learning - and doing so without the government needing to force them to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Young Australians are not giving up on work, despite high unemployment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unemployment figures released last week by the Bureau of Statistics showed that youth unemployment at 20% is now as high as it has been since June 1997. However, as bad as that figure is, the causes of the high rate are quite surprising.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: Australian social trends. Underutilised Labour: Unemployment trends and patterns 

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: Australian social trends. Underutilised Labour: Unemployment trends and patterns 

# data[].attributes.body
A Report created by the ABS (Australian Beauru of Statistics) regarding all Australian Unemployment rates over the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Underutilised Labour: Unemployment trends and patterns Between August 1966 and August 2000 the number of unemployed Australians increased from 90,300 to 596,000. Employment is the major source of income for most Australian households, and brings with it opportunities to utilise and develop skills and to expand social networks.

# data[].attributes.headline
NON CREDIBLE: We need a NEET and tidy solution to these bludgers

# data[].attributes.subject
NON CREDIBLE: We need a NEET and tidy solution to these bludgers

# data[].attributes.body
This online news article which provided no credible statistical evidence focuses on how 40% of Australian young people are dole bludgers. This is a far cry from the truth and is a classic case of moral panic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IT'S neat being a NEET. Sure there are the Centrelink queues and the battered old Barina to put up with but at least you don't have that pesky little thing the rest of us have to deal with every day: Work.

A NEET, for anyone who's not a NEET freak, is a young person not in employment, education or training. And Australia has 580,000 of them.

Many - 41 per cent, to be fair - are looking for work and can't find it. The real worry is that virtually the same number - 40 per cent - say they "would not like a job".

And perhaps most mysterious of all is the 19 per cent who say they would like a job but aren't looking. Presumably they are waiting for one to fall out of the sky. Something in NASA perhaps?

If this sounds like a joke, then it is an expensive one.

At a time when most Australians are working harder than ever for flatlining wages, our taxes are paying for people to watch TV and play computer games - two apparently popular pastimes among NEET males, according to the OECD report revealed by The Daily Telegraph today.

Yes, there are many young people struggling, particularly mums who can't afford childcare or find a job that gives them enough flexibility to look after the kids, but their cause is harmed, not helped, by the vast numbers that confirm the stereotype of the bludging bloke at home on the couch with a remote control in one hand and a joystick in the other.

It is also dangerous for us as a nation. Australia has a major debt problem and Budget deficits stretching as far as the eye can see, largely due to spiralling health, education and welfare costs. We are also on the precipice of a transitioning economy as the mining boom subsides and we look for other areas to keep our country ticking over.

Who is going to find the next big boom to carry us through the 21st century? It certainly doesn't look like it'll be one of these guys.

You don't need to work for NASA to know that a slowing or stagnant economy means less money in government coffers and that means fewer services for everybody, not to mention a crackdown on the Centrelink cash so prized by the NEETS themselves.

Maybe it's not so neat being a NEET after all.

SETTING AN EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW

THERE is little that the Australian intelligentsia revels in more than condemning us as a racist inhumane country that is the embarrassment of the civilised world. (We should use the caveat so-called "Australian" and so-called "intelligentsia".)

It will therefore be interesting to see what they make of the meeting between their once-darling Malcolm Turnbull and their progressive champion Barack Obama when the two leaders discuss national security and border control this weekend.

Already Turnbull is invoking John Howard when he says that nation states have the right to decide who enters their country. As Obama's successor fights an election over border control he will no doubt be listening carefully.

And already Turnbull's predecessor Tony Abbott has gone from left-wing laughing stock to international exemplar when Europe adopted his "stop the boats" policy almost chapter and verse.

People in the real world know that hard problems require hard solutions. Compassion needs order, not chaos. And terrorism needs steel, not sympathy.

Intelligent leaders, conservative or progressive, are coming to realise that in this, Australia leads the way. It's enough to make an inner-city socialist choke on their chardonnay.

YOU ARE HERE...IN THIS MESSS

FOR a long time Central Station has been Sydney's dirty little joke: Not quite central but certainly dirty.

Its magnificent sandstone artifice, complete with soaring clock tower, belies the often grubby and low-rent fixtures within. It is certainly no Grand Central. And yet it should be. Central is the nexus that ties our city and our state together.

This should be Sydney's great matrix, a bustling hub for commuters and visitors and tourists alike. A place that is fast and functional enough to keep our metropolis moving while also offering travellers a bold and exciting welcome befitting a world city. A centre of transit that also is a destination in itself.

We would never let the Opera House or Harbour Bridge fall into such decrepitude. So why tolerate the gateway to Sydney for so many hundreds of thousands of people being a shabby incoherent mess?

Sydney is the true centre of Australia and our Central Station should broadcast that message in no uncertain terms: You are here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national aeronautics and space administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why NEETs pose a real danger to Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IT'S neat being a NEET. Sure there are the Centrelink queues and the battered old Barina to put up with but at least you don't have that pesky little thing the rest of us have to deal with every day: Work.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: Australian Youth : Social and Cultural issues

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: Australian Youth : Social and Cultural issues

# data[].attributes.body
Explanations of stages of transition.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: How young people with parental support are staying at home longer.

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: How young people with parental support are staying at home longer.

# data[].attributes.body
During the past decade the issue of young people leaving home has been a  public debate and the subject of much research. This journal article focuses on homeless children, street kids, the underclass and youth crime.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: Income Support for Children and Young People.

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: Income Support for Children and Young People.

# data[].attributes.body
The rights and understandings of wages in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a society with a mixed economy like that of Australia, people's incomes are the single most important factor determining their material standards of living and, arguably, also their capacities to participate fully in society. The distribution of income is fundamental to the distribution of wellbeing as are, correspondingly, measures to redistribute income through income support. The purpose of this chapter is to consider children's and young people's rights to income support. Implicitly, the issue of children's and young people's rights to income support is also a question of their rights to a certain standard of living in terms of the things that money can buy.

What rights to income support do children and young people have in Australia? A first level at which to address this question could be through reference to the growing literature on comparative welfare state analysis, where a frequent point of distinction is the nature of rights to income support. Thus, Esping-Andersen (1990), in a seminal work, distinguished three broad types of welfare state regimes. The first type, the 'liberal' welfare state, is characterised by means-tested and modest levels of assistance with entitlements depending on demonstrated need. Esping-Andersen (1990) argued that these systems 'do not properly extend citizen rights' (pAS). The second type, the 'corporatist' welfare state adds a contractual element of social insurance, with rights conditional on labour market attachment and social security contributions. Thirdly, the 'social democratic' regime was identified with a basis in universal rights of citizenship. Under this type, entitlements depend on being a citizen or long-term resident, rather than on need or labour market history.

Esping-Andersen located Australia in the first of these three types and, while this view has been qualified and elaborated by a number of Australian researchers, it does provide the flavour of the Australian income support system. To go beyond this broad context, however, we really need to consider the nature of the main income support programs with relevance to children and young people, and this is the approach adopted in this chapter. Before embarking on an account of these programs, two preliminary steps are to define the scope of this review and to assess the contribution of any broad statements about the rights embodied in the Australian income support system.

The scope of income support

A necessary starting point is to determine what is meant by income support. A narrow definition of income support might only include cash payments from government, such as pensions and allowances. But does this mean that, if a cash payment for a particular good or service is replaced by a direct subsidy which reduces the price of that good or service, then the subsidy should no longer be counted as income support even though its effect is broadly unchanged? Housing assistance in Australia provides a good example. The cash rent assistance paid by the Department of Social Security is clearly income support, but are the subsidised rents paid by public housing tenants also income support? They have the same effect of increasing the amount of income left for other purposes after paying for housing costs and so should be seen similarly.

The trouble with this argument for an expanded definition of income support is that it is difficult to know where to stop. The logic can be extended so that the provision by government of any good or service where the user pays less than its cost can be seen as a form of income support. For example, do we want to include road funding, with the transport benefits that it entails, as a form of income support? For some purposes we might, but here such broad infrastructural support is excluded. In this chapter, the focus is on cash income support though the scope is extended to the provision of selected subsidised services where they have clear connections with elements of cash income support, and the chapter also covers relevant elements of the regulation of market incomes.

In Australia's federal system, primary responsibility for income support lies with the Commonwealth Government, with the major programs administered by the Department of Social Security (DSS), the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), and the Department of Human Services and Health (DHSH). The States and Territories also play important roles in the design and administration of some programs, notably in the areas of education and housing and, indeed, have some income support programs of their own. These State and Territory programs, however, are very varied and small in comparison to the Commonwealth programs, and their consideration is beyond the scope of this chapter.

The concern here is thus limited to the major Commonwealth income support programs; programs which are typically uniform in their application across the country. The provision of free primary and secondary education, while not covered in this chapter because of its treatment elsewhere in this volume, should also be recognised as a major component of income support for children.

Broad statements of rights

Are there any broad general statements of the rights to income support provided in Australian policy, or any specific statements of rights to income support applicable to children and young people? The legislative basis for the main forms of cash income support, the Social Security Act 1991, does not include any broad statement of the rights to income support, but is introduced in more functional terms. Thus, the Act begins with the short title of 'an Act to provide for the payment of certain pensions, benefits and allowances, and for related purposes' before launching into the minutiae of eligibility requirements, entitlements and administration for particular payments.

Perhaps the publicly stated objectives of the main policy development and service delivery departments can tell us something. The 'Departmental Charter' of the Department of Social Security (DSS 1994b, p.1) is 'to deliver social security entitlements with fairness, courtesy and efficiency'. The objective of the Children's Services Program in the Department of Human Services and Health (DHSH 1994, p.183) is 'to assist families with dependent children to participate in the workforce and the general community, by ensuring that child care is affordable for low and middle income families and by improving the supply and quality of child care'. The 'objective' of the Education Assistance and Income Support program within the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET 1994a, p.175) is 'to promote equality of educational opportunity by improving access to, participation and retention in and completion of education through the. provision of financial assistance'.

These are laudable objectives, but they are not statements concerning the rights of children and young people to income support. Closer examination of departmental objectives and guidelines does reveal mentions of rights, though in the context of administration rather than policy design. This is, nevertheless, an important dimension of rights to which we will return later.

Another place to look for statements of rights is in the annual social justice strategy statements which have been released by the Commonwealth Government since 1988. The first such statement defined social justice as comprising the following principles:

'a fair distribution of economic resources;

equal access to essential services such as housing, health care and education;

equal rights in civil, legal and industrial affairs; and

the opportunity for participation by all in personal development, community life and decision making.' (Commonwealth of Australia 1988, p.i)

Further elaboration can be found in the 1992 statement:

'The Strategy is based on an affirmation of individual rights and of collective responsibility for community wellbeing. It recognises that all Australians have basic rights and entitlements, and all benefit from government programs at some stages of their lives.
Social justice is about quality of life. It is about choices and opportunities as different points in a person's life are reached. It is about entitlement to education, health care, and affordable housing; about the right of families to receive assistance and the aged to receive services; and about the right for people in crisis or facing difficult periods such as marriage breakup or unemployment or homelessness to receive special support.' (Commonwealth of Australia 1992, p.1)

Particular attention has been paid to youth in social justice terms. The 1989-90 Budget Statement, 'Towards Social Justice for Young Australians', sets out Commonwealth Government achievements and priorities against a review of youth policy announced in 1988. The review was undertaken against a background of the four principles of social justice listed above, with the objective: 'to ensure that all young people are given fairer and more equal access to opportunities and assistance which enhance their future employment prospects and provide an effective springboard into active, satisfying adult lives' (Commonwealth of Australia 1989, pA). The specific aims of the review were to:

'maintain the current thrust of the Government's Youth Strategy of enhancing education, training and employment opportunities while developing additional measures to ensure that those missing out have better access to these opportunities; * address the needs of particularly disadvantaged young people by providing them with access to secure accommodation, health services, and an adequate system of income support, and the need to integrate these with appropriate education and labour market assistance; and * take account of the respective roles of government, young people and their families and local communities in addressing these problems.' (Commonwealth of Australia 1989, pA)

More recently, Commonwealth and State and Territory youth ministers have endorsed a statement of principles and objectives of youth policy (Australian and New Zealand Youth Ministers 1993). The introduction to the document acknowledges Australia's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) and defines young people as those aged from 12 to 25 years inclusive. The agreed principles of youth policy, basically the social justice principles mentioned above, are followed by objectives in particular areas of policy. The objective of youth income support is: 'To promote an adequate, equitable and accessible system of income support which:

maximises participation by all young people in education, training or employment; and * encourages young people who have left school early and/or are unemployed, homeless, or without the support of parents, to undertake further education, training and/or employment.' (Australian and New Zealand Youth Ministers 1993, pp.14-15)

These statements provide a flavour of the nature of income support for children and young people. Although they do not provide a developed basis for rights to income support, they do provide some principles and objectives (with acknowledged roots in the Convention) against which practice may be evaluated.

Program entitlements

To get a clear picture of the rights to income support for children and young people in practice, we need to look at the actual programs. Who is entitled to what? In considering existing programs, the confines of this chapter mean that the account is necessarily broad. It is neither possible to describe every program, nor to present all the details and provisions of any program. Rather, the aim is to provide an account of the general conditions of eligibility and entitlements under the main income support programs which apply to children and young people. A description of current entitlements alone would, however, give only part of the picture. Over the past 10 years or so, the income support system has been subject to much change and more has been foreshadowed. Accordingly, recent and prospective developments are also described.

A fundamental distinction in programs of income support for children and young people is the matter of the persons to whom assistance is directed. Cash payments are not, of course, handed to 2-yearolds for them to then spend as they wish. Much of the income support for children and young people is directed instead to parents or legal guardians. This chapter covers both entitlements for children and young people, and entitlements for parents in respect of children and young people.

The point at which income support shifts from indirect payment to parents to direct payment to young people is, as will be seen, an important and recurring issue, and a corresponding distinction is made in the account of entitlements which follows. The next section describes entitlements over the early years up to around the age of 16 years, when income support is primarily provided indirectly to parents, with the following section then covering the transition to direct entitlements. The material is drawn together in the final part of the chapter which addresses questions about the nature of the rights in the system of income support for children and young people.

Entitlements over the early years

The discussion of entitlements in the early years of life begins with the main cash income support programs provided under the Social Security Act 1991 (DSS 1995a). There are two distinct types of payment. Firstly, there are a number of payments designed to contribute to meeting the living costs of children. These are generally referred to as Family Payments. Secondly, there are payments which support people who are caring for dependent children. Policy on child maintenance is included here in the first section. The description then moves to assistance with particular costs of children: child care, health and housing. To gain an impression of the relative magnitudes of different payments and of means-testing arrangements, it is necessary to refer to dollar amounts. Rather than sprinkle these through the discussion, they are collected together in Table 1 for ease of comparison.

Cash income support for children

Three key features of the Australian social security system are: the provision of payments on a categorical basis; means testing; and the funding from consolidated revenue. Eligibility for payments is defined in terms of whether certain characteristics of the individual or family fall into defined categories, and the amount of payment is then determined according to the level of other income received and assets held by the individual or family. This type of targeted and selective system can be contrasted with social insurance systems common in European countries, where entitlements are at least partly related to previous contributions; with universal systems, where there is no targeting; and with guaranteed minimum income systems, where low income alone is the basis for entitlements. The presence of dependent children is one important qualification for receiving income support in the Australian system. This qualification provides a type of income support which has the quality of a guaranteed minimum income system; at least with respect to the needs of children.

Notes: (a) Amounts refer to August 1995 unless otherwise indicated
(b) pw = per week; pfn = per fortnight; pa = per annum
(c) Assuming full-time care in service charging standard rate

Family Payments

Cash income support to contribute to the additional costs of children is provided firstly through Basic Family Payment to all families with an annual taxable income of up to about $60,000 to $70,000, depending on the number of dependent children. This amounts to eligibility in respect of around 85 per cent of dependent children. For families relying on social security payments, or with similarly low private incomes, there is a further entitlement to cash assistance through Additional Family Payment, the level of which is related to both the number and age of dependent children. Around 25 per cent of dependent children receive this higher level of income support. Besides these two main payments, other elements of the Family Payments system provide additional income support for children in particular circumstances, such as Child Disability Allowance and Guardian Allowance for sole parents. All these payments are to the child's parent or legal guardian.

Changes in the Family Payments system over the past ten years have resulted in a substantial real increase in their value and tighter targeting; the latter feature often held up as necessary to achieve the former, given constraints on budget outlays. The increases in value date from the 1987 Family Package, which followed Prime Minister Hawke's commitment prior to the 1987 federal election that no Australian child would need to be living in poverty by 1990. These increases were accompanied by the introduction of automatic indexation and benchmark relativities to use in setting the level of Basic and Additional Family Payment.

The benchmarks set the sum of Basic Family Payment and Additional Family Payment at a level equal to 15 per cent of the married rate of pension for a child under 13 years, and 20 per cent of the married rate for a 13 to 15-year-old child. These relativities, including the introduction of the age distinction, were set with reference to research on the costs of children; technically, research into equivalence scales. The key question is about the amount of income needed to meet the costs of children. Research is unable to produce a definitive answer, though one aspect of the debate is of particular interest here. There is an argument held by some that the presence of children requires no compensation to parents through income support, on the grounds that having children is usually a matter of choice and that parents are compensated by other non-material rewards of having children. The counter viewpoint is that, even so, children have rights as individuals to a basic material standard of living irrespective of the non-material benefits they bring to their parents.

Tighter targeting saw the introduction in 1987 of means-testing of Basic Family Payment (or Family Allowance as it was then known), which up until then was a universal payment for families with dependent children. Tighter targeting has also led to a narrowing of the definition of an eligible child. Basically, a 'family payment child' is a dependent child under 16 years, or a secondary student who is not receiving an education allowance up until the end of the year in which they turn 18.

In 1993 there was a major restructuring of the way in which the components of family payments were paid. Previously paid separately from each other, or together with pension or benefit payments, the payments were combined into a single integrated Family Payment. The new arrangements were designed to simplify the system of payments for children, to make it easier for families to apply for assistance, and to increase the take-up of assistance. In addition, all child payments were now directed to the primary carers of children, usually mothers. The integration has, however, also had the effect of highlighting complexities and anomalies in the system of child payments. The Commonwealth Government has stated its intention to review the system of child payments. Some changes to this effect were announced in the 1995-96 Commonwealth Budget, while there is also at present a broader climate of moves toward greater simplicity in the social security system (Baldwin 1995).

Child Support Scheme

Another important development motivated by a concern with the low incomes of some families with children, particularly sole parent families, was the introduction of the Child Support Scheme in 1988. The Scheme was a response to the widespread recognition by the mid- 1980s that the majority of non-residential parents were not making regular maintenance payments. Where payments were made they were generally very low, and court-ordered maintenance was proving difficult to enforce. In broad terms, income maintenance of the children of separated parents had become a matter of public provision by taxpayers rather than of private provision by parents.

In contrast, the Child Support Scheme is clear affirmation of the view that parents remain financially responsible for their children even after separation, its primary objective being 'to improve financial support for children of separated parents by obtaining from non-custodial parents, contributions to the support of their children in accordance with their capacity to pay' (DSS 1994b, p.202). The Scheme seeks to do this through two key elements: a formula for setting the amount of maintenance to be paid; and a mechanism for payment involving powers to have maintenance payments withdrawn from wages and salaries or from bank accounts of the non-resident parent.

The machinery and legislation of the Child Support Scheme is very complex. There has been intense monitoring and review of the legislation since the introduction of the Scheme, which is probably to be expected with the implementation of a completely new policy in a particularly sensitive area. A useful account of the intricacies, as well as the development of the Scheme, can be found in the final report of the evaluation of the Scheme conducted by the Child Support Evaluation Advisory Group (1992). The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (1993) reports on the difficulties that these intricacies, coupled with administrative problems, have presented. The Scheme has certainly had some teething troubles, though the Child Support Evaluation Advisory Group (1992, pp.iii-iv) noted a significant shift in debate relating to the Scheme away from arguments about principles, now widely accepted, to disagreement about details. Evaluations of the Scheme have shown both an increase in the number of children covered by child support agreements and an increase in the average value of child support.

Cash income support for adults caring for children

The payments described above are designed to defray the direct costs of children. The other type of income support for children through social security payments is indirect, being income support for adults on the grounds that they are caring for children.

Sole Parent Pension

One longstanding such payment has been the Sole Parent Pension for sole parents who are supporting at least one child under 16 years or a student child aged 16-24 years who receives Child Disability Allowance. A major change to the Sole Parent Pension occurred in 1987 when the age limit for a qualifying child was reduced to 16 years. Previously, it had also been payable to sole parents whose youngest child was a dependent full-time student aged 16-24 years. The Sole Parent Pension is subject to the same income and assets tests as other social security pensions.

Parenting Allowance

Caring for children thus qualifies a sole parent for income support and, from July 1995, this qualification has been extended to members of low income couples, with the introduction of Parenting Allowance. This, however, is not so much a new entitlement as the residual of an entitlement being withdrawn. A major reform of the social security system announced in the 1994 White Paper on Employment and Growth (Keating 1994a, 1994b) was a shift towards individual entitlements for members of couples. Prior to July 1995, the partners of recipients of pensions and allowances were also generally entitled to income support purely by dint of being a partner, even if they would not qualify for any payment in their own right. This ceased.

'It would not be fair, however, to require all married women to search for work. Older women will receive a partner allowance, which will be paid directly to them. It would also not be fair to require women. caring for children to search for work, if they would prefer not to leave their children and work full-time. In recognition of the care they do provide, these women will be paid a Parenting Allowance.' (Keating 1994a, p.l5)

Parenting Allowance has been paid since July 1995 to the partners of income support recipients or low-income earners who are the primary carers of children under 16 years. The maximum rate of Parenting Allowance does not differ from the rate which would otherwise have been paid to the partners of income support recipients, though changes to income-testing arrangements for couples announced at the same time have meant that actual entitlements have increased for some and coverage has been extended to low-income earners. Thus, there is now explicit recognition that caring for children is a legitimate ground for income support for the primary carer in both one-parent and two-parent families. This basis for income support will be further strengthened with the introduction of a new Maternity Allowance in February 1996.

Maternity Allowance

That few women in Australia are entitled to paid maternity leave, has been the subject of increasing debate since the 1970s. An account of the debate, together with details of relevant international conventions, is provided by the National Women's Consultative Council (1993). The National Women's Consultative Council elaborated the arguments for paid maternity leave and discussed a number of options for funding a paid maternity leave system, while the National Council for the International Year of the Family (1994) proposed an infant parenting allowance to apply whether or not the parent had been in paid work.

This momentum towards provision of universal paid maternity leave took on a more concrete character when the terms of the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), known as Accord Mark 7, were announced in 1994. These included agreement to give consideration in the 1995-96 Budget to the introduction of 'a maternity allowance paid through the Social Security system, in the spirit of ILO Convention 103 (Maternity Protection)' (Keating 1994c). The introduction of Maternity Allowance from February 1996 was subsequently announced, with provision for an income-tested one-off payment from the Department of Social Security (DSS) of $816 to mothers of newborn children. The family income ceiling will be the same as that for Basic Family Payment; that is, with entitlement cutting out at annual incomes of around $60,000 to $70,000, depending on the particular circumstances.

Assistance with child care costs

Income support to defray the costs of child care is an area of policy which has experienced rapid development and expansion over the past 10 years, driven particularly by the growing recognition of the value of quality child care and as a lagged response to the increasing rate of married women's labour force participation. A useful account of developments has been compiled by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (1993). The involvement of the Commonwealth Government in child care assistance was marked by the Child Care Act 1972, which remains the relevant legislation though has failed to keep pace with the extensive policy developments in the area. Alongside other legislation administered by the Department of Health and Community Services, the Act is currently the subject of review, with a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission having been recently tabled.

Childcare Assistance

From the early 1980s, the emphasis of income support for child care shifted from provider subsidies towards means-tested fee relief - Childcare Assistance - for the users of formal child care services. Targeting of assistance accordingly shifted from being determined by the priority-of-access guidelines, which governed access to subsidised child care places, to a greater reliance on parental income. Childcare Assistance is means-tested with the level of assistance reducing to the point where no assistance is provided at an income level similar to that where Basic Family Payment cuts out. The expansion of assistance with the costs of child care has been accomplished by a tremendous increase in the number of subsidised places, extending assistance to a wider range of types of care, and by extending eligibility for Childcare Assistance in 1990 to users of private child care centres. Increasing attention is now being given to the quality of child care, through the implementation of national standards under the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System.

Childcare Cash Rebate Scheme

From July 1994, however, the targeting and, indeed, the fundamental nature of assistance with the costs of child care changed. That date saw the introduction of the Childcare Cash Rebate Scheme, a rebate for work-related child care expenses for the parents of dependent children under the age of 13 years. The rebate operates on top of Childcare Assistance, is payable through Medicare offices, and is payable in respect of a range of child care providers as long as they are registered with the Health Insurance Commission. Of greatest significance, the Childcare Cash Rebate Scheme involves no means-testing; it is a universal cash payment for the families of children using approved child care services for work-related purposes. This scheme is quite remarkable in view of a decade which has seen progressively greater means-tested targeting of government cash benefits. The logic behind this apparent divergence from the trend was that 'all families are entitled, in the Government's view, to claim some recompense for the cost of work-related childcare' (Keating 1993, p.81).

Basic Parenting Allowance

The expanding diversity, as well as scale, of income support related to child care was also indicated by the transformation of a tax rebate into the Home Child Care Allowance in 1994. The Dependent Spouse Rebate had been a contentious element of the income tax system, though criticism was moderated from the mid-1980s when a higher level of rebate was paid where there were dependent children, and the rebate came to be seen as partial recognition for unpaid child care in' the home. This view was strengthened by the Commonwealth Government's 1993 decision to cash-out the Dependent Spouse Rebate for families with dependent children and replace it with a new payment to be called the Home Child Care Allowance. The level of the payment would change little, with the value of the shift seen to lie rather in payment directly and frequently to the primary carer of children, instead of annually to the main earner. The initiative was presented as a counterpart to the Childcare Cash Rebate, which had been announced a few months earlier:

'We need to recognise that women's childcare needs are neither uniform or identical. There are new patterns and choices in women's lives today. Many women are choosing to stay home while their children are young, although most will return to the paid workforce at some time in the future. Policy needs to recognise and respond to these patterns ... Women at home and caring for children are entitled to proper acknowledgment and respect, and some practical assistance.' (Australian Labor Party 1993, p.30)

Home Child Care Allowance was paid through the Department of Social Security as a separate payment from September 1994 until July 1995 when it was incorporated as a component of the new Parenting Allowance and became known as Basic Parenting Allowance. Couples are eligible for Basic Parenting Allowance until their youngest child turns 16, with the payment income-tested only with regard to the claimant's income.

Health

There are three other major areas in which assistance with other particular costs of children is available. These are the areas of health, housing and education. Medicare has been a major element of the Australian income support system since 1984, with its universal entitlement to free health care being particularly beneficial to families around the time of a child's birth and during infancy. Medicare provides free health care in the sense that the user need not pay, with funding instead on an income-related basis through the Medicare Levy in the tax system. The presence of dependent children has some effect on the amount of Levy payable as it enters into specification of the income thresholds below which only a reduced levy is payable.

Medicare does not, however, cover all costs related to health care. Additional assistance is provided through the health care card system for the recipients of social security pensions and benefits and their families. Still, one notable gap in assistance has been dental treatment. Most dental treatment is not covered by Medicare and, despite the availability to concession card holders of free dental treatment at certain public dental hospitals and school dental services, the availability of affordable and accessible dental care has been a particular source of hardship for low-income people. In response, a new Commonwealth Dental Health Program was introduced in 1994, which provides Commonwealth funds to the States and Territories to allow expansion of dental services for concession card holders.

Housing

Assistance with housing costs cannot be ignored as a contribution to the standard of living of children. With a few very particular exceptions, however (for example, homeless youth), provisions are made to the child's parents.

Rent Assistance

Assistance with housing costs is provided through two main meanstested income support programs: Rent Assistance, which is paid to private renters/boarders as a supplement to other social security payments; and rent rebates provided by the State and Territory housing authorities. Both programs take into account the presence and number of dependent children in the determination of entitlements. Substantial increases in the value of Rent Assistance have been a feature of social security developments since the late 1980s, and this has particularly been the case for families with dependent children. Over the period from 1989 to 1991, when the major increases in Rent Assistance were phased in, the structure of the payment was given an important child-related element and the maximum rates of Rent Assistance payable now depend on the number of dependent children.

Public rental

Other than Rent Assistance, the principal mechanism for the provision of direct housing assistance in Australia is the periodically renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, with the current 1989 Agreement given legislative authority by the Housing Assistance Act 1989, The primary principle of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is 'to ensure that every person has access to secure, adequate and appropriate housing at a price within his/her capacity to pay' (DCSH 1990,p4).

Public rental housing, with subsidised rents, is one of the main types of assistance provided under the Agreement. While the details vary from one authority to another, the presence of dependent children enters into means-testing for access to public rental housing. The presence of dependent children also affects rent-setting insofar as only a proportion of income from Family Payments is taken into account. This provision arose from a tussle between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories upon the increase in child payments in the late 1980s. While the States and Territories were reluctant to give special exemption from their rent-setting formulae to these increases, the Commonwealth largely prevailed with its position that the purpose of the increases was income support for children and this should not be diluted by automatic rent increases.

National benchmark of housing affordability

There are moves at present to establish a more coherent and uniform system of housing assistance; for example, by ensuring greater equity between those who are assisted through public rental housing and those who receive Rent Assistance. One particular initiative, stemming from the work of the National Housing Strategy, is the Government's consideration of establishing a national benchmark of housing affordability by the year 2000, with the suggestion that assistance would be provided to low-income people paying more than 20 per cent of their income on rent (Commonwealth of Australia 1992, p.39). A single benchmark of this type would, however, discriminate against larger households, notably those with children, and it is accordingly hoped that any such national benchmark will be a more elaborate and sensitive device.

The transition to independent incomes

The minimum school-leaving age in Australia is generally 15 years (16 years in Tasmania), signalling the point at which young people embark on other activities; particularly, post-compulsory education, paid employment, training or job search. It is the sixteenth birthday, however, which marks the shift in most forms of income support from indirect support through parents to direct support to the young person. The distinction, however, is not clear cut. The fact that young people aged 16 years and over are not considered to be dependent children may mean that they are no longer perceived as children, but it does not necessarily mean that they are no longer perceived to be dependent. On the other hand, there are some provisions for direct income support to young people under 16 years; notably provisions for young homeless people.

The nature of income support for young people is closely linked to their activities. It is accordingly useful to provide some context to the subsequent discussion by considering the extent to which young people are engaged in different activities. Schooling dominates as the principal activity up to the age of 17 years, with around half of all young people aged 18 years in some form of education or training. Paid work then increasingly becomes the dominant activity at older ages. The current pattern can be traced to successful moves since the early 1980s to increase markedly education retention rates, and to the collapse of the full-time job market for teenagers. Selected rates of payment and means test details for income support for young people are given in Table 2.

Notes: (a) pfn = per fortnight; pa = per annum
(b) Amount is higher when there are siblings who are dependent children or full-time students
(c) JSA = Job Scheme Allowance

Students

The main form of income support for students is Austudy, administered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training under the Student Assistance Act 1973. Austudy pays a living allowance to fulltime secondary and tertiary students who are either at least 16 years old or, if homeless, have reached the minimum school leaving age. Key features of the scheme include the structure of payments, which is related to age and living arrangements, and the means-testing arrangements (Table 2). Austudy is targeted, being described as 'a program of financial support for financially disadvantaged students taking full-time studies to enable them to continue their secondary and tertiary education' (DEET 1993, p.134).

Maximum Austudy rates for those aged 18 years or over are higher than for 16 to 17 -year-o lds, and within each age group the rates are higher for students deemed to be Independent, or needing to live away from home (Away From Home rate), than for others (Standard rate). Independent status is mainly determined on the basis of a demonstrated work history during three of the past four years, though it is automatic upon the student turning 22. 'This age threshold is, of course, considerably higher than 18 years, the legal age of adulthood for most purposes. It is, however, lower than the age which applied up until 1992; the 1992-93 Commonwealth Budget included the announcement of a progressive lowering of the age for automatic Independent status from the then 25 years to 22 years in 1995.

This liberalisation, however, is to be partly reversed from 1996 following the announcement in the 1995-96 Commonwealth Budget that 20 to 24-year-old students living at home would be paid $20 per week less than their counterparts living away from home. The rationale for this amendment rested on the perceived benefits of parental support for those students living at home. Once again, full automatic independent status will not be conferred upon students until they reach the age of 25 years.

Besides the grounds of age and work history, students can also qualify for the Independent rate of Austudy on the basis of homelessness. Lack of a parental home provides grounds for Independent status when the student is either an orphan, a refugee with no parents in Australia and no long-term support, or when parents, for reasons such as imprisonment or mental incapacitation, cannot provide a home, care or support. Otherwise, students can qualify for the Homeless rate if they 'can prove that [they] can't live at home because conditions there threaten [their] physical or psychological health. This includes things like serious domestic violence, sexual harassment, . extreme family breakdown or other exceptional circumstances' (DEET & NUS 1994, p.26).

All Austudy payments are means-tested. Largely as a result of this, only about 40 per cent of full-time students actually receive Austudy (Chapman 1992, p.62). All payments are subject to a test against the personal income and assets of the applicant. Students receiving the Standard or Away From Home rates of Austudy are also subject to parental means tests. This parental income test is quite stringent and is the most powerful element of the Austudy means tests. Another important aspect of Austudy is the method of payment. Generally, the living allowance is paid directly to the applicant. However in 1987, the situation for under-18-year-olds living at home was altered. From 1987, parents of secondary students under 18 years and living at home could choose to have the Austudy allowance paid to themselves rather than to the student. Since 1994, Austudy allowances for this group of students are only paid to their parents.

As part of a major review of Austudy, the Chapman report (Chapman 1992) considered loans schemes as alternatives to the existing form of student allowances, and these were taken up in part by the Commonwealth Government with the introduction of the Austudy Supplement in 1993. The Supplement is a subsidised loan scheme with generous repayment provisions which enables part of tertiary students' grants to be traded in for a loan of double the value. This has also been available to students who would have qualified for Austudy if not for the parental income test in cases where family income is less than $50,000. The effect of the Supplement has thus been twofold: it has increased the amount, and extended the coverage, of income support available to students. The latter effect, however, will diminish from 1996, as it was announced in the 1995-96 Commonwealth Budget that no new Supplement loans would be provided from 1996 to students who do not otherwise qualify for Austudy.

A similar subsidised loan scheme exists for the payment of tertiary fees which were partly reintroduced in 1989 in the form of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Under HECS, tertiary students contribute to the costs of their higher education by paying about a fifth of the average cost of a place. HECS can be paid in two ways: either up-front, in which case a 25 per cent discount applies, or as an income-contingent loan. Some tertiary students are exempt from HECS; most notably, TAFE students.

Young unemployed people

Young people aged 16 to 17 years, and 15-year-olds in certain circumstances who are unemployed and available and looking for work, are eligible for income support in the form of Youth Training Allowance, which is administered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training under the Student Assistance (Youth Training Allowance) Amendment Act 1994 and paid through the agency of the Department of Social Security. Those aged 18 years or over are eligible for unemployment allowances paid by the Department of Social Security under the Social Security Act 1991. There are two types of payment: Job Search Allowance, for people who have been unemployed for less than 12 months; and Newstart Allowance, for people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. In most respects, there is no difference between these two payments which, together with Youth Training Allowance, will be referred to below using the general term of unemployment allowances.

Compliance requirements are a central element of income support for the unemployed. An unemployed person's continued receipt of allowance is dependent on their lodgement each fortnight of a statement detailing their efforts to find work or to improve their employment prospects. Receipt of Youth Training Allowance is conditional on the young person continuing to undertake approved education, training or job search activities. Job Search Allowance recipients need to satisfy the 'activity test', which requires that the recipient is actively looking for suitable paid work, is willing to undertake suitable paid work, and complies with any request from the Department of Social Security or from the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) to undertake suitable paid work or to participate in training. Under Newstart Allowance, the activity test is in effect replaced by the Newstart activity agreement, which is negotiated between the unemployed person and the CES and sets out the activities to be undertaken in order to improve the unemployed person's employment prospects. The activity agreement is designed to allow assistance to be tailored to the individual needs of long-term unemployed people.

A fundamental and explicit aspect of these compliance requirements is the concept of 'reciprocal obligations'. Thus, income support and other assistance for the unemployed is not provided as of right, but is conditional on the unemployed person fulfilling specified obligations regarding job search and improvement of their employment prospects. If the unemployed person fulfils these obligations, then the Government will fulfil its obligations to provide income support and other forms of assistance. If the unemployed person does not fulfil their side of the bargain, then they are subject to penalties. Penalties are imposed in the form of periods of non-payment.

Unemployment allowances for young people looking for work have a similar payment structure to Austudy (Table 2), though the criteria for Independent status are less stringent and the full adult rate is paid from the age of 21 years. Parental means-testing only applies to 16 to 17-year-olds and only to part of the payment. To receive the Independent rate of Job Search Allowance, an 18 to 20-year-old needs only to live away from parents. An under-18-year-old needs to fulfil the following three conditions: to live away from parent(s) and to have done so continuously for at least 18 weeks; to have been unemployed or in work for at least 13 weeks while living away from parent(s); and to receive no regular financial support from parents.

Clearly, independence, in terms of access to adult and Independent rates of payment and the application of parental means tests, is viewed quite differently in the income support provisions for young students and for unemployed young people. The system of unemployment allowances embodies a more liberal view, though it should be noted that the consequent greater generosity is partly countered by the application of harsher personal income tests for the young unemployed than for students (Table 2).

The structure of payments for the young unemployed has not, however, always been like this and accounts of its evolution (King & Payne 1993; Wilson 1992) highlight considerations which have come into play in setting the terms of youth income support. Considerations of adequacy and the financial needs of people in different circumstances have been conditioned by a number of factors which have been variously persuasive at different times. These have included: perceived work incentives and a concern to maintain relativities with the wage system; budgetary restraint; the lowering of the age of majority and the federal voting age to 18 years in the early 1970s; a concern through the Common Allowance Structure to avoid incentive effects regarding whether young people are in education, training or are looking for work; concerns about incentives to leave home and views about parental responsibilities for financial support.

Particularly important changes for young people were made in 1988 when parental means-testing for young people under 18 years was introduced, together with the requirement that school leavers would have to wait 13 weeks before becoming eligible for Job Search Allowance, compared to six weeks under previous arrangements. This new regime for those under 18 was heralded with the claim that it 'removes the financial incentive for young people to leave the education system ... [it] gives a positive message to those who leave school - either find work or undertake training' (Commonwealth of Australia 1987, p.6). It was also widely interpreted as evidence of a government view that the primary responsibility for the financial support of young people rested with parents.

The main force steering recent changes to the system of unemployment allowances has been the gradual move towards an 'active employment strategy'; that is, a philosophy that the provision of income support for the unemployed should be tied to labour market assistance, rather than the passive provision of income support alone. This move dates from the Social Security Review (Cass 1988), with an early nominal step in the purging of the term Unemployment Benefits from the social security lexicon in 1991; renaming it with the more positive connotations of Job Search Allowance and Newstart Allowance, with the Newstart activity agreement typifying the nature of the active employment strategy. Changes in this direction were accelerated by initiatives announced in the 1994 White Paper on Employment and Growth (Keating 1994a, 1994b).

The single theme running through the 1994 White Paper on Employment and Growth (Keating 1994a, 1994b) was skills enhancement. A highly skilled labour force was seen as the key to future economic growth, and the acquisition of skills by individuals was seen as the key to their success in the labour market. The White Paper announced major reforms to labour market assistance, education and training and income support. The acceleration of reforms in vocational education and training, the considerable expansion of entry-level training places, and changes to the provisions of unemployment allowances, are of particular relevance to young people.

Job Compact

The changes to income support for unemployed people were very much in the direction of the active employment strategy, involving the closer integration of income support and labour market assistance. The centrepiece of the reforms to labour market assistance was the Job Compact, a package of measures for people 18 years and over who have been receiving an unemployment allowance for 18 months or more.

The Compact includes individual case management, and provision of a job for from six to twelve months, sometimes combined with training. In the spirit of reciprocal obligations, the other side of this enhanced assistance was stiffened penalties for those who declined to take up the jobs offered. Other general changes to unemployment assistance included some modifications to the income test and a broadening of the activities in which people can take part without losing eligibility for an unemployment allowance; in particular, voluntary work, training and the development of self-employment initiatives.

Youth Training Initiative

For young unemployed people aged less than 18 years, the White Paper announced the introduction of the Youth Training Initiative from January 1995, involving intensive case management, an expansion of vocational and training places for young people, and a new form of income support.

'The Youth Training Initiative (YTO will send a strong signal to young people about the importance of being in education or training. The YTI will make sure that help will be provided at an early stage in the unemployment cycle to assist young people into worthwhile education, training or work opportunities.' (Keating 1994b, p.95)

Intensive case management is designed to provide young unemployed people with the assistance of a specific case manager in finding a suitable work, training or education placement. In general, case management begins 13 weeks after the young person registers as unemployed. Earlier assistance is provided for people in high-risk groups. The Initiative further undertook to provide a labour market or vocational training place and job search assistance for all those still unemployed six months after registering.

The other strand of the Youth Training Initiative was a new form of income support. This is the Youth Training Allowance, which replaced Job Search Allowance for young people aged less than 18 years from January 1995, with the intention to 'encourage young people to undertake education and training' (Keating 1994b, p.96). It included 'a greater reciprocal obligation for recipients to undertake approved education, training, work experience or job search activities' (Keating 1994b, p.96). This greater reciprocal obligation occurred through Youth Training Allowance becoming subject to the same increased penalties for non-compliance mentioned above.

Young people in training and employment

There is a range of labour market programs administered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training which provide income support in a variety of ways for young people in training and/or employment (DEET 1994b). The main form of direct income support is Formal Training Assistance, which provides a basic level of payment equivalent to the corresponding amount of unemployment allowance. Another and indirect form of income support occurs in those labour market programs which involve subsidies or rebates to employers, such as the wage-subsidy program JobStart. In effect, the Government is paying a component of the award wages for people in these programs.

Government involvement in the setting of award wages is another way in which policy affects the incomes of young people. There are important changes underway here, such as the phasing out of agerelated wages and the introduction of national training wages. Most workers in Australia are entitled to legal rates of pay prescribed in awards and determinations of Commonwealth and State or Territory industrial tribunals or in collective agreements registered with the tribunals. These awards generally specify less than adult wage rates for young people. There are a considerable number of awards with much variation among them and no standard age-related structure. A typical structure pays 15-year-olds, 40 per cent of the adult rate; 16-year-olds, 50 per cent; 17-year-olds, 60 per cent; and so on up to 21-year-olds, who receive the adult rate.

Mounting arguments that wage levels should, rather than being agerelated, be based on skills or competencies, which better describe the value of the worker, have culminated in provisions of the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993. The Act outlaws age discrimination in wage agreements, with age-related elements in all awards to be removed within three years from June 1994. Does this mean that young workers will henceforth receive the equivalent of adult wages irrespective of their age? The answer here would be 'yes', if they have somehow acquired the skills commensurate with those of an adult worker. But because such skills take a number of years to acquire, they will continue to receive lower wages under a competency-based structure.

In line with the move towards a competency-based wage structure, is the establishment of a National Training Wage structure, which is integral to the operation of the Job Compact announced in the 1994 White Paper. The National Training Wage is protected by the award system and applies where employers provide recognised training under the Job Compact and other programs. Training wages did already exist for young people, but these varied with industry-specific rates and had been seen as confusing and were often inconsistent with other rates in an award. They were also age-based.

The new National Training Wage, with equal application to adults and young people, involves a structure of rates based on the level of secondary schooling achieved, additional experience and training, time since leaving school, the level of skill associated with the work and training, the period of training undertaken and the type of labour market scheme. Upon its introduction, the lowest weekly training wage of $125 applied to someone who left school at Year 10 or earlier, had no further experience, and was undertaking training for 50 per cent of the time. The highest training wage, $333 per week, applied to someone who had completed Year 12, had three years oflabour market experience, and was acquiring trade-related skills.

Other grounds for income support

Besides unemployment allowances, at the age of around 16 years, young people may become eligible for other means-tested income support payments from the Department of Social Security. The main grounds for qualification are sickness, disability, or having a dependent child, although there is also a discretionary payment in the form of a Special Benefit, which is of particular important to young people.

Eligibility for Sickness Allowance generally applies from the age of 16 years, with similar provisions to those for unemployment allowances. The Disability Support Pension is available to eligible young people aged 16 and over, with this pension paid at the same rates as unemployment allowances though with an additional Youth Disability Supplement equivalent to the value of the Child Disability Allowance. Special Benefit, a discretionary payment for people in severe financial need, has particular relevance for homeless young people under 16 years who do not qualify for any other income support payment because of their age. Thus, almost 1600 of the 26,000 recipients of Special Benefit at June 1994 were aged under 16 years, with a further 600 aged 16-17 years. Most of these people were receiving a Homeless rate of payment (DSS 1994a).

A young person's qualification for Sole Parent Pension is simply sole parenthood; there are no age restrictions. Having a dependent child, whether the young person has a partner or not, satisfies the eligibility requirements for the various family payments described earlier. Furthermore, young people receiving a social security allowance who have a dependent child are exempt from parental meanstesting and receive payment at the full adult rate, irrespective of their age or living arrangements. Being married, including de facto partnerships, is another basis for exemption from parental means tests and also automatically qualifies a young person for the equivalent of the Independent or Away From Home rate of a social security allowance.

Assistance with particular costs

All Australian residents are entitled to Medicare benefits. Age is immaterial. Age does, however, have some significance in the Medicare system in terms of young people's rights to medical privacy. A parent is entitled to any information about their child's medical consultations if the child is listed on the parent's Medicare card. Only when a young person turns 15 are they generally entitled to their own Medicare card.

With regard to assistance with housing costs, it is only recently that young people receiving social security payments have acquired the same entitlements to Rent Assistance as have other social security recipients. Coverage was progressively extended after 1986, and particularly since 1992. There has, however, been no general counterpart paid as a supplement to Austudy, though students receiving Austudy at the Homeless rate were granted eligibility for Rent Assistance from January 1995.

Even where Rent Assistance is received, however, many young people living away from home confront considerable problems in finding affordable and suitable accommodation. In response, the Commonwealth Government in 1993 announced the development of a National Youth Housing Strategy over two years. Work on the Strategy is currently underway, with the broad objective to 'set clear goals and objectives and a plan of action to improve the housing options for independent young people on low incomes'. The interrelationship between housing and income support for young people is one of the particular matters to be addressed in the development of the Strategy (Maas 1995).

The nature of the rights to income support

Having described the main elements of income support entitlements for children and young people, we turn to consider the question of the nature and extent of the rights that exist in this system of entitlements, before focusing on four broad areas where the specification or exercise of these rights leaves something to be desired.

What sort of rights are these?

If we take the view that rights are entitlements which are bestowed universally and without any obligation on the part of the recipient, then there are really only two elements of the income support system for children and young people which would be considered rights. These are Medicare and the provision of free primary and secondary education. In contrast, most elements of the Australian income support system for children and young people can be termed conditional rights, with the conditions reflecting the categorical and targeted nature of the system.

If someone can demonstrate their eligibility for a payment and also, in most cases, that their private income and assets do not disqualify them from receiving assistance, then they have a right to receive their entitlement. It is a right, not a privilege. Such an interpretation of the rights in the income support system is illustrated by the approach to social security payments taken by the Welfare Rights Centre (1994) in its handbook.

'A basic philosophy underpinning the Handbook is that the social security system is based on rights, entitlements, responsibilities and obligations which should be clearly stated and legally enforceable. Social security payments are not made as an act of charity to individuals whom the bureaucracy considers to be worthy of assistance.' (p.l)

Put another way, the income support system is replete with 'reciprocal obligations' to varying degrees. These range from the continuing and considerable obligations which apply to the recipients of unemployment allowances to far less demanding requirements for some other payments. This form of income support has been described by Perry (1995) as approaching what she termed a 'conditional minimum income' model where means-tested assistance is provided according to need and subject to reciprocal obligations, and where residents have 'a right to protection against poverty, provided they met these conditions' (p42).

This model is contrasted with a 'basic income' model where residents have 'a right to a minimum payment, regardless of circumstances or means' and a 'guaranteed minimum income' model where residents have 'a right to protection against poverty' (Perry 1995, pp.38-41). The essence of the rights in the Australian social security system is their conditional nature, though it is still possible to describe parts of the system, such as payments to families with dependent children, as amounting to a guaranteed minimum income.

As the preceding sections have sought to illustrate, there is a detailed legislative policy basis for these conditional rights to income support specifying entitlements and the conditions which need to be fulfilled in order to receive them; the detail, in part, reflects the small place for discretion in the income support system. There is also a legislative basis to the manner in which income support is delivered and the Social Security Act 1991, for example, includes a section on principles of administration. These include matters such as the provision of advice and information, delivery of services in a 'fair, courteous, prompt and cost-efficient manner', special attention to the needs of disadvantaged groups, and the need to be responsive to Aboriginality and to cultural and linguistic diversity. Despite the largely mechanistic nature of the income support system and the attention to administrative procedures, questions of entitlement do still arise. In such cases, there are legislated rights of appeal to independent bodies such as the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Student Assistance Review Tribunal.

Taken together, various conditional rights give eligibility to a substantial program of income support for children and young people. It is, however, restricted largely by means-testing to provide maximum levels of assistance to low-income families. With increasing income or assets, entitlements diminish, steeply in many cases but gradually in others so that some assistance is still provided to middle-income families of children or young people. Within the confines of this targeting, there is universal assistance towards the costs of children, expanding assistance for the living costs of adults caring for children, expanding and diversifying assistance with child care costs, and childrelated forms of assistance with housing costs. For young people, the picture is of entitlements linked to activities, parental means-testing, and payments related to age and living arrangements under some programs, and to skills and competencies in others.

In reviewing these rights to income support, one approach would be to identify any gaps in the coverage: children or young people in particular circumstances who do not appear to have the entitlements of others. This approach is not, however, pursued here; partly because it demands a more detailed consideration of programs than is possible in this chapter. In this regard, it should be remembered that the above description of entitlements has covered only the basic provisions of the main programs. A number of programs, provisions and procedures designed to provide more appropriate assistance to particular groups, such as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, for example, have not been mentioned. Rather, the approach taken here is to consider the nature of the rights to income support and, in particular, five matters which have the potential to qualify the rights engendered in income support entitlements. These are issues of the take-up of entitlements; the adequacy of entitlements; the relationship to young people's transition to independence; the quality of entitlements; and parental responsibility.

The receipt of entitlements

The fact that someone has an entitlement to some form of income support does not automatically mean they will receive it. They may be unaware of the entitlement or they may be unsure about what is required by them to receive the entitlement. For example, the take-up rate for Family Income Supplement, which from 1983-87 was the smaller forerunner of Family Allowance Supplement, was notoriously low. Since that time, however, much greater effort has been made to inform people about their entitlements and how to claim them. Still, there remain concerns about the take-up of some payments; particularly payments for young homeless people. More generally, the increasing complexity of the income support system is a cause for concern.

A means-tested income support system is inherently complex, and the increased targeting in the Australian system, coupled with the rapid pace of the introduction of new payments and the transformation of other payments, has increased the complexity. It does not matter that many of the changes have been heralded as rationalisations or simplifications. Rationalisations in one area tend to throw up anomalies elsewhere with corrections then added in response. This feature of increasing complexity has been the case with income support for both children and young people. The Family Payments system is a good example; bringing a number of payments together in the pursuit of simplification has served to highlight anomalies and prompted review. While it is easy enough to get a grasp of the various elements of the income support system for children and young people, it is no mean feat to comprehend fully the detail of a single program such as the Child Support Scheme. There is a great deal of small print in the income support system.

So, what is wrong with complexity? Should it not be accepted as a sign that our largely categorical and means-tested system is designed to be sensitive to the diversity of people's circumstances? To an extent, yes. But there is a trade-off in terms of the ease with which people negotiate their way through the income support system. Even if people are aware of entitlements, complicated requirements for claiming can lead to delays in receipt; for example, if forms are not completed correctly, or the required documentary evidence is not furnished. Where the entitlement is small, the effort of claiming may seem too much to make it worthwhile. Complexity also increases the risk that an entitlement will be assessed incorrectly. Research at the Social Policy Research Centre (NSW) with recipients of social security payments for dependent children and young people has found instances of all these types of effect. In this research, even with assistance from the Department of Social Security, it has proved very difficult to ascertain exactly what the entitlements of some people are in certain particular circumstances.

While it is believed that, in the vast majority of cases, people receive their income support entitlements for children and young people, this is of little consolation to those who do not. Increasing complexity in the income support system makes it more difficult to meet the goal that all people receive their entitlements to income support. Accordingly, the attention currently being given to this question (Baldwin 1995; Perry 1995) is most welcome.

Adequacy of entitlements

A conditional right to an income support entitlement says nothing about the level of that entitlement in terms of some standard of adequacy. Instead, the income support system partially relies on relativities in the setting of rates. Thus, a target for the rate of pension is 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, and the combined level of Additional Family Payment and Basic Family Payment is broadly set with reference to relativities with the married rate of pension: 15 per cent for children 12 years and under, and 20 per cent for 13 to 15-yearolds. Relativities are largely maintained through the automatic indexation of virtually all income support payments and most meanstest thresholds and ceilings.

One of the difficulties in addressing questions of adequacy in the income support system is that there is no single standard for an adequate income. One might appeal to a measure such as the Henderson Poverty Line (Henderson 1975) but the result may be no more than an interminable debate about some aspect of the measure, such as the relative weight given to the costs of children. The Department of Social Security is' currently reviewing the use of benchmarks of adequacy in setting its payments. Research being undertaken for the review promises to improve greatly our ability to assess the adequacy of payments (DSS 1995b).

In the meantime, this problem can be partly avoided by focusing on the relativities in the system rather than the absolute amounts. For example, if it is right that a 21-year-old unemployed person receives a given amount, is it right that a 20-year-old should receive a certain amount less? Pursuing this logic, we can conclude unambiguously that many payments for young people in the income support system provide less than adequate assistance according to the standards of the income support system itself.

Why are the Independent and Homeless rates of payment less than the adult rates, given that financial independence is presumed? The reason is that the rates are depressed because of concerns about the effects on work incentives and on incentives to leave home. Adequacy has been explicitly compromised. Another basis for concern with the adequacy of payments for young people arises where a low level of payment presumes financial support from parents. Where parents are either unwilling or unable to provide such support, then the level of assistance will be inadequate. This is an issue with broader connotations concerning the transition to adulthood.

Parental support and the transition to adulthood

While the fundamental reasons for providing income support for children and adults may be the same, the ways in which cash income support is delivered are quite different. For the former it is through the intermediary of an adult, while for the latter it is direct. The manner of payment reflects a certain view of financial responsibility and dependency, and thus indirect payment for young children is uncontroversial.

However, the manner of payment becomes an important issue for young people in terms of their financial dependence. Not only the manner of payment, but also the use of parental means-testing and the setting of rates which presume a degree of parental support, raise similar issues concerning dependency. Youth income support policy has important implications for the relationship between young people and their parents, and the transition from dependency to adulthood.

So, how does the Australian income support system view young people in terms of financial dependence or independence. In a confused manner, is the short answer. Students, if living at home, are seen as financially dependent on parents up to the age of 22 and, if they are secondary students less than 18 years old living at home, they are also now seen as financially irresponsible. Unemployed young people living at home, on the other hand, are treated as financially independent from the age of 21 and always as financially responsible. The income support provisions can also be seen to provide an official interpretation of when it is appropriate for young people to have the option of leaving the parental home. To be paid accordingly, a young unemployed person needs to provide no justification for leaving home from the age of 18, while a student needs to provide justification up to the age of 22.

Why do these differences exist? Is it believed that students' transition to adulthood should be a slower process than that for young people in the workforce? Rather, it seems that the implications for young people's independence take a lower precedence with policymakers than other considerations in the setting of youth income support entitlements. Besides the anomalies in treatment, a number of commentators have expressed concern at the incremental shift in provisions towards decreasing financial independence for young people on the grounds that it will hinder their development to responsible adulthood, and at the stringency of criteria for Homeless and Independent rates of payment which may force some young people to remain in the parental home when this may well be inappropriate. There has been no response to such criticisms in terms of a coherent view about the relationship between the income support system and young people's transition to independence.

Entitlements to quality

The fourth general potential shortcoming identified here in regard to rights to income support for families, children and young people, concerns the quality of subsidised services and relates specifically to those elements of income support designed to provide assistance with particular costs. In a sense, it is another perspective on the issues of the adequacy and take-up of entitlements.

The extreme case is where someone enjoys an entitlement to a service, but cannot realise that entitlement because of a shortfall in supply. Assistance with the costs of formal child care is a clear example. Despite the considerable growth in the supply of child care places, there are often long waiting lists and the demand for workrelated child care places is not expected to be met before 2000-01 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 1993, p.133). Similarly, there are long lists of eligible applicants waiting for public rental housing and the income support benefits it entails. In such cases, an entitlement is hollow and can hardly be described as a right. Even where a service is provided, the value of an entitlement can be heavily compromised if it is of poor quality or if access is difficult. A system of free health care is all well and good if services are accessible and if necessary treatment can be received without unreasonable delay.

The provision of Rent Assistance might make housing costs affordable by some measure, but what is the quality of that housing? Is it appropriate for families with children or for young people? Or is it only affordable because of its low quality in terms of location and access to services, or some other facet? This is bringing us back to the question of the adequacy of entitlements; the need to consider what the entitlements mean for the standard of living.

Parental responsibilities

Besides its role in young people's transition to adulthood, parental responsibility plays a vital role in income support for dependent children. While the presence of dependent children is one important trigger for entitlements to income support, the children themselves do not enjoy these rights. Instead, their presence bestows rights upon parents or guardians.

There are thus two links in the mechanism through which income support policy seeks to direct assistance to meet the material needs of young children: a conditional right to income support for parents (guardians); and an implicit responsibility on parents to translate this assistance into benefits for the child. Both links need to be secure if income support entitlements for dependent children are to be effective, though the state does not generally intervene directly in the link of parental responsibility. So, how best to ensure that support for children which is paid to parents does in fact flow on to those children?

At the outset, it should be recognised that the vast majority of parents are more than willing to see income support for dependent children actually benefit their children; indeed, some make arguably undue sacrifices for their children. When they do not, it is believed, this has more to do with constraint than with choice. This points to what is probably the most effective way for the full value of income support to reach children; to ensure that the level of income support for parents is adequate. If such support is not forthcoming, then parents' unmet needs may well impose demands on those components of income support designed for children. This point thus relates back to the issue of adequacy discussed above. Otherwise, an undoubtedly valuable development over recent years has been the increasing direction of income support in respect of dependent children to the primary caregiver in a family. The introduction of Parenting Allowance is a recent example of this development.

Enhancing rights to income support

Rights to income support in Australia are essentially conditional rights. Entitlements are largely dependent on people being in certain identified categories of need, on incomes and assets and, increasingly, on meeting reciprocal obligations. Bearing in mind this qualification to the nature of these rights, three different types of income support rights for young children and young people can be identified. These cover: income support to defray the costs of dependent children; income support for people caring for dependent children; and income support for young people.

A number of issues which may qualify the value of these rights have also been identified and we can focus first on three issues which are common to income support in general. These are: the coverage of assistance; the adequacy of assistance; and the take-up of assistance.

The account of income support programs described a range of programs directed at each of these categories. While the overall impression of broad coverage of these programs is fair, it should also be recognised that there are some gaps in coverage. For example, most recipients of students allowances, unlike their unemployed counterparts, do not enjoy an entitlement to Rent Assistance. If one was able to look in more detail at the programs, some other gaps in coverage would emerge. Clearly, to enhance the value of rights to income support, gaps in coverage, inadequate levels of assistance and shortfalls in the takeup of entitlements need to be continually sought out and addressed.

Certain steps are at present being taken to address some of these matters. There are, for example: moves to simplify the Family Payments system; investigations into benchmarks of adequacy; the attention being paid to the quality of child care; and the work of the National Youth HOUSing Strategy. Attention to aspects of take-up and quality is particularly noteworthy as it is all too easy to become complacent because an entitlement exists on paper without regard to the issues of take-up and quality. One further step which needs to be added to those already in train is some serious attention to the adequacy of payments for young people. In particular, there appears now to be an opportunity to redress the clear inadequacies which exist with some payments that are explicitly set at low levels because of concerns with work incentives. If there is faith in the strengthened reciprocal obligations, then these should be enough to eliminate undesirable work incentive effects. There is no need for two big sticks. At the same time, to the extent that the age-related structure of payments for young people reflects relativities with an age-related wage system, changes in the wage system away from an age-related basis are a cause for reconsideration.

Apart from the issues of coverage, adequacy and take-up, which apply to income support in general, there are two specific challenges to policy which are peculiar to income support rights for children and young people. Both revolve around the relationships between three parties: children or young people; parents or guardians; and the state. The first challenge concerns the provision of effective income support to dependent children through the medium of parents. Notwithstanding any concerns about the coverage, adequacy and take-up of payments, this challenge appears to have been largely met.

However, policy has not been equally successful with the second challenge, which concerns the transition from childhood to adulthood and from dependence to independence. The picture of rights and responsibilities which emerges from consideration of income support policy in this area is replete with inconsistencies as should be expected from a seemingly often ad hoc process of policy development. What is overdue here is systematic reform of this area of income support policy, including clear regard to the interactions between income support and young people's transitions to independence, and a clear and consistent basis in rights and responsibilities.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (1993), Australia's Welfare 1993: Services and Assistance, AGPS, Canberra.

Australian Labor Party (1993), Australian Labor Party Policy Document: 1993 Federal Election, ALP, Canberra.

Australian and New Zealand Youth Ministers (1993), A National Youth Policy: A Statement of Principles and Objectives, AGPS, Canberra.

Baldwin, P. (1995), Beyond the Safety Net: The Future of Social Security, Minister for Social Security, Canberra.

Cass, B. (1988), 'Income support for the unemployed in Australia: Towards a more active system', Issues Paper Social Security Review, no,4, AGPS, Canberra.

Chapman, B. (1992), Austudy: Towards a More Flexible Approach. An Options Paper, AGPS, Canberra.

Child Support Evaluation Advisory Group (1992), Child Support in Australia, final report of the evaluation of the Child Support Scheme, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1992), Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice Strategy 1992-93, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1989), Towards Social Justice for Young Australians: 1989-90 Budget Statement, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1988), Towards a Fairer Australia: Social Justice under tabor. A Summary, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1987), 1987--88 Budget: Initial Measures, May 1987, Canberra.

DCSH (1990), Guide to the 1989 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA), Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, Canberra.

DEET (1994a), Annual Report 1993-94, AGPS, Canberra.

DEET (1994b), Programs 1994-95: Department of Employment, Education and Training, AGPS, Canberra.

DEET (1993), Annual Report 1992-93, AGPS, Canberra.

DEET & NUS (1994), AUSTUDY '95: A Guide to Student Finance, Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training and National Union of Students, Canberra/Melbourne.

DHSH (1994), Annual Report 1993-94, AGPS, Canberra.

DSS (1995a), Information Handbook: A Guide to Payments and Services 1995, Commonwealth Department of Social Security, Canberra.

DSS (1995b), Developing a Framework for Benchmarks of Adequacy for Social Security Payments, Policy Discussion Paper no.6, AGPS for Department of Social Security, Canberra.

DSS (1994a), Statistical Overview ofDSS Clients: June 1994, Department of Social Security, Canberra. .

DSS (1994b), Annual Report 1993-94, AGPS, Canberra.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Henderson, R. (1975), Poverty in Australia: First Main Report, vol.1 AGPS, April.

Keating, P. (1994a), Working Nation: The White Paper on Employment and Growth, AGPS, Canberra.

Keating, P. (1994b), Working Nation: Policies and Programs, AGPS, Canberra.

Keating, P. (1994c), 'Statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon. P.]. Keating MP. Agreement with the ACTU to Implement Accord Mark 7', 1 June. Income Support for Children and Young People 257

Keating, P. (1993), Investing in the Nation, Statement by the Prime Minister, 9 February.

King, A. & Payne, T. (1993), Living Conditions and Costs of the Young Unemployed, Social Policy Research Centre Reports and Proceedings No.llO, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Maas, F. (1995), Surviving Not Thriving, National Youth Housing Strategy Discussion Paper, Department of Housing and Regional Development, Canberra.

National Council for the International Year of the Family (1994), The Heart of the Matter: Families at the Centre of Public Policy, AGPS, Canberra.

National Women's Consultative Council (1993), Paid Maternity Leave: A Discussion Paper on Paid Maternity Leave in Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (1993), Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues: Inquiry into the Child Support Scheme, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Canberra.

Perry, ]. (1995), A Common Payment? Simplifying Income Support for People of Workforce Age, Policy Discussion Paper No. 7, Department of Social Security, Canberra.

United Nations General Assembly (1989), The Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 20 November 1989.

Welfare Rights Centre (1994), The Independent Social Security Handbook, 2nd edn, Pluto Press Australia, Sydney.

Wilson, K. (1992), 'Income support for young people: Issues of adequacy, cost of living and parental support', Social Security Journal, Autumn, pp.49-60.

Aknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges research assistance provided by Marilyn McHugh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9. Income support for children and young people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a society with a mixed economy like that of Australia, people's incomes are the single most important factor determining their material standards of living and, arguably, also their capacities to participate fully in society. The distribution of income is fundamental to the distribution of wellbeing as are, correspondingly, measures to redistribute income through income support.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE: Youth unemployment costing Australia $11.3bn

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE: Youth unemployment costing Australia $11.3bn

# data[].attributes.body
A new report card from the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) highlights the unique challenges faced by Australia’s young people and the economic cost of them being left behind.

“A lack of investment from government means young Australians today are facing a very real possibility that their generation will be the first to be worse off than their parents,”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new report card from the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) highlights the unique challenges faced by Australia's young people and the economic cost of them being left behind.

The latest update to FYA's report Renewing Australia's Promise shows that if youth unemployment and underemployment were brought in line with the rest of the population, it would generate up to $11.3bn additional GDP for Australia.

FYA CEO Jan Owen AM said the report card shows very little has changed since it was first released in 2014 owing to a lack of action from government.

"A lack of investment from government means young Australians today are facing a very real possibility that their generation will be the first to be worse off than their parents," Ms Owen said.

"This report card shows us that while young people are doing well in some areas, they face a number of escalating challenges that are unique to their generation.

"They are also paying much more for their education than previous generations, yet this is not properly preparing them for work.

"Further, their pay packets have received smaller increases than older age groups and they're are also taking on more debt to buy a house and are bearing the costs of an ageing population."

The Foundation for Young Australians is calling on all political parties to invest in the next generation by placing young people at the heart of economic policy and equipping them to drive social and economic progress in Australia for decades to come.

"Australia's young people are the engine that will drive future prosperity. They're hungry for the chance to create a better world," Ms Owen said.

"The recent spike in young people enrolling to vote shows us that they are engaged in the political process and do want to have a say on issues that impact them.

"Leaders from all parties need to start listening to them and take action to equip young people for the challenges they face. We need to ensure they are ready to take Australia and the world forward.

"Policies around young people are too often considered in isolation and placed at the edge of public policy.

"Before this story gets worse, our nation's leaders must commit to investing in the next generation by placing young people at the center of economic policy."

The Foundation for Young Australians has developed an election platform which provides clear steps that can be taken by government to begin their investment in young people.

This includes a national enterprise skills strategy, development of a coordinated national ecosystem to back young entrepreneurs and creation of regional hubs for youth-led economic development.
ENDS To read a copy of Renewing Australia's Promise: 2016 Report Card click here. FYA's election platform can be read here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Press Release: Youth unemployment and underemployment costing Australia $11.3bn | FYA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report card from the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) highlights the unique challenges faced by Australia's young people and the economic cost of them being left behind. The latest update to FYA's report Renewing Australia's Promise shows that if youth unemployment and underemployment were brought in line with the rest of the population, it would generate up to $11.3bn additional GDP for Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
This clever You-tube video created by young people is presenting a classic example of Moral Panic. The Daily Telegraph wrote an article labeling all teens were dole bludgers, though they were only focusing on 2 teenage girls in particular from Western Sydney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZvpP96--nw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's front page warns of a new breed of young bludgers who apparently love playing video games and eating maccas. ... and little else. We found out what's up with kidz today. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SBS2Australia Twitter: https://twitter.com/thefeedsbs Insta: https://instagram.com/sbs2australia Tumblr: http://thefeedsbs.tumblr.com/

# data[].attributes.headline
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Youth Income Support in Australia 

# data[].attributes.subject
CREDIBLE SOURCE: Youth Income Support in Australia 

# data[].attributes.body
Today it is taking young people 4-5years after high school to find and settle into permanent full-time employment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Youth income support in Australia - ACYS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Australian Government, through its social security system, makes payments to eligible students and jobseekers in accordance with the government's commitments under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see boxed text on p.14).

# data[].attributes.headline
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE: Why are Aussie students still struggling to make ends meet? 

# data[].attributes.subject
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE: Why are Aussie students still struggling to make ends meet? 

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great article that shows how students struggle to meet the costs of living week-to-week while studying full time.  It also shows how little financial support they get from the government to help cover these costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're old enough to be responsible for yourself but still young enough to not have too many responsibilities. Which means you're old enough to have to pay for yourself but too young to be earning decent money.

If you're a student in a capital city (especially Melbourne or Sydney) and you're living away from the family home, it can be quite hard to make ends meet. There are horror stories of students subsisting on canned tuna or couch-surfing on their friends' couches, which would officially make them homeless.

But there are also the middle-of-the-road scenarios typical of many students. On the surface, they don't seem to have it too tough - they go out to eat some nights, they live close to school and they're not begging for their dinner.

But the hand-to-mouth nature of how so many students live should give Australia pause about how the next generation will be able to save for their future, or how they will buy a home as property prices continue to climb and an affordability crisis rains down.

Take Sasha (surname withheld), for example, who is in her early 20s and studying in Melbourne. Her family lives in Queensland, so she doesn't have the luxury of saving money by bunking with the parental units.

Her weekly expenses are:

- Rent in a sharehouse in an inner-city suburb - $200

- Groceries - $60

- Eating out and entertainment - $120

- Car repayment - $70

- Lay-by payment for flights for upcoming trip - $50

- Bills (gas, water, electricity and internet) - $40

Total: $540 a week

On top of that, there are also random expenses such as textbooks twice a year that cost hundreds of dollars, software subscriptions necessary for her course, car registration and insurance, and expenses you can't predict such as car repairs.

Sasha said she usually earns between $550 a week to $700 a week from her bar job. The higher end of that scale is if she's lucky enough to pick up a weekend or public holiday shift which pays penalty rates. For her, getting paid penalty rates is the only time she's able to put some money aside for future projects.

Sasha also receives payments from Centrelink. The maximum payable amount to a student over 18 but under 25, living away from home, is $426.80 a fortnight, which isn't even half of Sasha's weekly expenses. That Centrelink payment also starts to reduce by 50 per cent if you earn more than $214 a week. Essentially, you can't earn even close to a living wage and still be supplemented by Youth Allowance.

To receive the full payment and still earn less than the reduction threshold equates to an income of $427 a week - not really enough to live on in a capital city if you have to pay rent. And you can completely forget about saving any money.

Which is why, like many students, Sasha has had or is looking for a cash-in-hand job. She said: "[The Centrelink payment levels and conditions] is not realistic in Melbourne or Sydney, which is why everyone cheats the system. There's no way I would be able to survive on that. A lot of my friends look for jobs that are cash-in-hand.

"When you work those jobs, you don't get penalty rates or the workplace protections if anything happens. But you just accept it and do what you have to do to survive."

While it's true that everyone has the kind of expenses uni students have, most adults are not held back by not being able to work reasonable hours because of study commitments. There are students in demanding courses who have contact hours that are the equivalent of full-time work while even those who may only have 10 hours of class time can end up with timetables that rule out the bulk of their week for anything else.

And because uni students are young people who have little experience or qualifications for industries that pay a decent wage, they have to work a lot of hours in low-paying jobs to earn enough to survive on. This is also not taking into account unpaid internships that many students do.

This can have the consequence of spending so much time working to live that their studies may end up suffering. Studies that are supposed to prepare students for their future careers, and for which they're taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

Sasha has classes most mornings so can only work at night or on the weekend. Her current job sees her working from the afternoon until 10pm about five times a week. But this means she'll get home from work with almost no time to study. And she had to get up early the next day to be back in class.

She concedes that she's lucky to have her mum to rely on, whereas many students don't. Sasha's mum pays her mobile phone bill and they're currently talking about her mum paying for part of her rent to ease the load.

"As much as we don't have any money and you struggle, you have enough to have a decent life," she said. "I still have some money for socialising but that's part of being young and having those experiences. Even if that means when there's a tight week, you eat a lot noodles and Weetbix."

Marcus Hinneberg from the Bendigo Student Association said many students are finding it hard to juggle work and school. He also said that most students are currently more focused on saving for short term goals such as end-of-year holidays than on long term plans such as home ownership.

ME Bank research found that only 27 per cent of students keep records of their monthly expenses while 54 per cent of students don't consistently set a budget.

The idea is that if you don't even know how much you're spending, you can't monitor your expenses, let alone put in place measures to keep it under control.

ME Bank chief executive Jamie McPhee said students need to learn to develop a money plan and prioritise spending.

"The first step is to understand the difference between needs and wants. For example, items such as food, petrol, computers and textbooks are non-negotiable, whereas new jeans and concert tickets are discretionary items that should be carefully considered and, ideally, saved for.

"Being truthful about spending habits will help you start saving and stay out of debt. Calculating your monthly expenses will give you a clearer picture of how much discretionary income you have left to spend (or save) and will also guide you on how much should be spent on particular items."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why are Aussie students still struggling to make ends meet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You're old enough to be responsible for yourself but still young enough to not have too many responsibilities. Which means you're old enough to have to pay for yourself but too young to be earning decent money.

# data[].attributes.headline
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE: The truth behind Australia’s ‘dole bludger NEETs’ 

# data[].attributes.subject
NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE: The truth behind Australia’s ‘dole bludger NEETs’ 

# data[].attributes.body
In September 2016 The New Daily wrote this article calling out the Daily telegraph for publishing a report with little facts creating a negative impression of young people.  This article gives insights to the facts and truths behind the myth that young people are dole bludgers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week's "dole bludger" exposé is a "completely irresponsible" portrayal of Australia's youth unemployment that scapegoats victims and fails to address the underlying causes of the problem, according to advocates.

News Corp interviewed two young female 'NEETs' outside Centrelink and published their comments widely on Thursday as a news report and editorial in The Daily Telegraph, and with analysis by News.com.au.

'NEET' refers to someone who is Not in Education, Employment or Training. It usually describes an unemployed younger person who has left high school and hasn't gone on to university or TAFE.

The young women, Ashleigh, 21 and Amy, 17 of the Sydney suburb of Mt Druitt, were filmed telling a News Corp journalist they refuse to look for work and are happy to "chill" at McDonald's instead - to the glee and disgust of many readers.

Australian Unemployed Workers' Union (AUWU) president Owen Bennett said the report was "completely irresponsible" because it chose to "scapegoat the victims" rather than address the causes.

"It's completely irresponsible for any media outlet to approach the youth unemployment crisis in that way, blaming young people for a crisis that has been a systematic policy failure by governments for a long time," Mr Bennett told The New Daily.

The state of the economy is a mental health issue

"That report is a continuation of about three decades of perpetuated stigmas diverting people from the real issues that are going on in the Australian economy, which is no jobs and a completely punitive social security system."

No focus on skills shortage

The basis of the News Corp article was an OECD report released this week, which was arguably more nuanced.

The report did warn that Australian NEETs risk being "permanently left behind in the labour market"; that our 580,000 NEETs have increased by 100,000 since 2008; and that 40 per cent are inactive and unwilling to work, and 19 per cent want a job but aren't looking.

What News Corp did not mention is that Australia's NEET level is below average: 12 per cent of 15-29 year olds, versus the OECD average of 14.6 per cent. This is below New Zealand (about 20 per cent) and the US (about 15 per cent), and far below Italy and Greece (about 30 per cent).

It also failed to note that Australia's NEETs have a skills shortage problem. The rate of young Australians who are low-skilled NEETs (4 per cent) is lower than the OECD average (5.3 per cent), but higher than comparable countries like the US, Canada and South Korea.

No mention of other challenges

Foundation for Young Australians CEO Jan Owen said the News Corp report, and another published this week, overlooked the many challenges facing millennials.

Rather than sneering at the young, the nation should reform the education system to better serve them, Ms Owen told The New Daily.

"We also have to back and invest in our young people to shape the world they want to live in. We need to help them break away from the prejudices, fears and insecurities which hold them back and prevent them from building character and resilience."

A recent report by the Foundation found that:

Youth unemployment has remained stagnant since 1985;

Youth under-employment is 3.4 times higher than it was 20 years ago;

It now takes young Australians 4.7 years to transition from full-time education to full-time work; and

It now takes the average first homebuyer 15 years to save a deposit for a home loan, compared to the six years of their parents.

No mention of 'birth lottery'

Perhaps the most tragic aspect overlooked by News Corp is that family background is the biggest predictor of success - and failure.

This is often referred to as the 'lottery of birth', and has been proven in many pieces of academic research, including this 2014 study by the US Bureau of Economic Research and this 2009 paper published in the Merrill-Palmer Quarterly.

The AUWU's Mr Bennett described intergenerational poverty and unemployment as a "massive issue" among the unemployed Australians he represents.

"I'm not sure about these girls, but it wouldn't surprise me if they're from an intergenerational family of unemployment and maybe they were born into a situation where their parents struggled," Mr Bennett said.

"Confronting so many barriers, it's no surprise that people decide to take a little bit of happiness from life and do their best to survive, which is what a lot of young people are doing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The truth behind Australia's 'dole bludger NEETs' | The New Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week's "dole bludger" exposé is a "completely irresponsible" portrayal of Australia's youth unemployment that scapegoats victims and fails to address the underlying causes of the problem, according to advocates. News Corp interviewed two young female 'NEETs' outside Centrelink and published their comments widely on Thursday as a news report and editorial in The Daily Telegraph, and with analysis by News.com.au.