Youth2Work Program

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:02): l seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Industry and Skills.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: On 30 June this year, a crucial jobs program that provided life-changing help to youth who had fallen through the cracks was forced to shut its doors after the state government again chose to cease funding an organisation making a contribution to the lives of vulnerable South Australians.

The Youth2Work program provided specialised job readiness training in the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island for vulnerable jobseekers aged between 17 and 24. These are young people who have fallen, or who are at risk of falling, through the gaps in the system, the ones who have made poor decisions. Some have already experienced the justice system and others are homeless. A high percentage come from multigenerational unemployed families. They are not work ready when they commence the program but they have a desire to break the cycle of unemployment and socio-economic disadvantage.

This program, which has a record of success and a queue of young people ready to become engaged, is now in danger of again disconnecting and disappearing. The scrapping of the Youth2Work program is a blow to some of the most vulnerable individuals in our community who need our help. My questions are:

1. Will the Minister for Industry and Skills review his decision to cut funding to the Youth2Work program? If not, why not?

2. Why was funding cut in the first place, when it is obvious to everyone how vital a service the operation provided in changing the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our community?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:04): I am happy to answer, in part, that question. If the minister can provide, on notice, further answers or explanation, I will bring those further answers back to the house. The first point I would make is that for a range of programs—and I will need to check the detail of this one—where the criticism was made that the incoming government had cut the program, the criticism was in fact incorrect. That is, a range of programs that were in the industry and skills area, about which the minister has had questions, were actually programs which, under the former Labor government, were funded to a certain period—30 June in many cases—and there was not a single dollar provided for continued funding. The decision to—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: But you would have done the budget; you would have handed down the budget by then.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We can hear the bleating from the opposition benches because we know we have hit a very sore point. But let not the truth get in the way of a good story from the opposition. The reality is that the former government, in many of these cases—and I will check whether this was one of them—had made a conscious decision not to put an extra dollar in from 1 July. That is, they made the decision to cut the program. It is correct to say that the new government, with its new program and its new priorities, could make a decision as to what was the highest priority for them—that is, us.

In these particular areas, and I will highlight what the priorities for the new government were, we made no commitment in relation to these programs in the period leading up to the election. So there can be no criticism that we made a commitment and we broke the commitment. Indeed, if there is to be a criticism, and if this is one of those examples of programs where the former Labor government made a decision not to fund them after certain period, then the buck stops on the desk of the former Labor government, now the Labor opposition.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The new government unashamedly—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The new government, unashamedly, was elected with a priority of programs in relation to turning this economy around and to provide jobs. The priority that the new government was elected upon has two key areas which would impact on the sort of young people whom the Hon. Mr Pangallo has raised. In the first instance, we have committed, together with the federal government, $200 million to massively expand the number of traineeships and apprenticeships in South Australia.

For those young people, rather than going along to job training programs and work ready programs, what we say to them is: 'Here is $200 million over a four-year period, shared with the federal government, to create 20,800 additional traineeships and apprenticeships.' That is getting young people into training and into apprenticeships so that they can get real jobs and turn their lives around—and the lives of their families, in some cases, as well.

The second area in relation to young people is that their first preference will always be to get a job, not to go through work ready programs or training programs. If we can give young people, in particular, jobs—real jobs—then you don't have to go through the halfway house of many of these particular programs. So the new government's programs are unashamedly about driving growth and driving jobs growth in the economy—abolishing payroll tax for every small business in South Australia from 1 January next year. They are the sorts of programs the new government was elected on. They are the priorities of the new government in terms of turning the economy around.

It is a priority to put $90 million back in the pockets of struggling South Australian families from 1 July this year, so that they can spend their money on small and medium-sized businesses in South Australia, rather than putting the money into the pockets of politicians and public servants. That will help drive jobs growth in South Australia. So for the young people whom the honourable member is rightly concerned about, our priorities are, in essence, firstly, creating jobs, real jobs, that these young people can go into. Secondly, in areas like defence and the NDIS program, where there is a crying demand for trained workers to move into the national disability area, that's the area where the new government's priorities are for massive investment in traineeships and apprenticeships.

We were unashamedly elected on new priorities. They are priorities of a Liberal government. The priorities of 16 years of failed Labor governments are not the priorities of the newly elected Liberal government. People were quite clear at the March election. They had a choice between the failed programs of 16 years of Labor or the reform program of a new Liberal government along the lines that I have just indicated. They overwhelmingly threw out Labor ministers like minister Hunter and minister Maher because they had seen the results of the financial mismanagement and incompetence over 16 years. They wanted a new reform program—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: The trickle-down theory is all you've got. And it never works—it never works.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Hon. Mr Hunter, restrain yourself.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: All you can do is swear at people. That's your track record.

The PRESIDENT: Hon. Mr Ridgway, you are not helping me.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: We all finished? Treasurer, just go on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order, Mr President: I appreciate that you've been very fair and consistent, and tight on your rulings in supplementaries. I would ask you to rule on whether the Hon. Rob Lucas has had enough time to answer this question. He's been going on and on for quite some time, Mr President.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is a very fair point of order, and the Treasurer would have met the time limit had he not had all the interjections to deal with from your side of the benches. Go on, Treasurer, but not too long.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, if the interjections would only stop and allow me to conclude, I was about to wrap up my answer. All I am about to say is that members of the Labor opposition will just have to take their medicine in relation to these issues. The sins of the past are their responsibility. For example, the new government's priorities, as I've outlined, will be transferred into action either directly, as we have already done with the ESL $90 million cuts, or they will be transparent in the 4 September budget, which will be brought down by myself on behalf of the government next month.