81/ 4
PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT TUESDAY, 20-JANUARY, 1981
PRIME MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY BARRY CASSIDY, ABC TV
CANBERRA Cassidy
Prime Minister, how would it benefit 16 and 17 year olds to have,
the unemployment benefit denied to them?
Prime Minister
I think a lot of -the publicity of the last few days has
completely missed the point; missed the point that there is a
realproblem. and What we try and do about it. The Schools
Commission Report on the schooling for 15 and 16 year olds and.
I have a copy of this Report here indicates very plainly that
many of our secondary schools are concentrating on academic
training for that small proportion of young* Australians who are
going to go direct to a&-tertiary institution.. They point out
that is about 15 per cent of the kids at school. Now, this
Schools Commission Report is saying in very plain terms that
many of Australia's schools and maybe all I think they say
of Australia's schools are failing a proportion of young Australians.
Now, quite plainly, the 50,000 young'Australians under 18' who are'
on the dole, they have left school early, they have not been able
to get a job, must be heavily amongst those whom the Schools
Commission says Australia's schools are failing. We want to
establish the circumstances in which schools or-training
institutions will offer courses which suit the talents and
capacities of these young Australians, so they will not feel school
feeling disillusioned with school and they will not have to feel
disillusioned with the whole society by having the only thing that
society can offer them under present circumstances and that
is the dole.. Now, none of this is a substitute for expanding
the number of jobs for a growing economy. We are working at that
( 9 and will continue to do so, but there are many young Australians
at risk. They are the ones that th school system is failing
We want to try and establish with the States the kind of courses
that will enable them to develop their own talents, their own
aptitudes, in a constructive way. If you could establish the
circumstance in which for every young Australian man and woman
in the 16 and 17 year old age bracket, you can say " but there is
a course available that would suit them, that will enable them
to get a useful -job after they -have Left school or after they
have finished formal -training at some sort of technical college"_..
If there is a course available for them that will enable them to
do that, and if that helps them to get a job afterwards, is that
not much better than having them leave school at the age of
and just getting unemployment benefits? There is another question
here also, because we recognise that people keeping people in
full time education a bit longer might put hardship on some low
income families. There is already a secondary allowance scheme
that is designed to encourage or to help low income families
with their children in the last two years of secondary schooling.
I in fact was the Education Minister who introduced that allowance
first, 10 or so years ago. / 2
2
Prime Minister ( continued)
But we are looking at the relevance of that and what else
might need to be done if people are going to stay in full time
education or training longer, and if that is going to involve
increased hardship to low income families. We are looking at
that as part of this overall question. Surely what we are
seeking to do is much better for young Australian men and women
than leaving school at the age of 15 and going on the dole.
Cassidy These;..:' courses though, presumably can be provided without
taking away the dole from some
Prime Minister
Yes, but if the courses are there, and if that leads to work,
the unemployment benefit ceases to be necessary in its own right.
But, that is way down the track. The debate has concentrated on
the unemployment benefit issue when really the debate should have
concentrated on;' why do these people leave school early' why do
they find it difficult to get a job above all, and what ought
society and Governments do about it.
Cassidy
Are you surprised though that it has become an emotive subject?
Prime Minister
I was very disappointed with the way some people have just
spoken about unemployment benefits as though there were a decisi. on
to knock off unemployment benefits and as though that was the
only decision had in fact been made, because when you have a
Schools Commission Report saying quite plainly that today's schools
are failing the majority of young Australians because the
schools are orientated towards academic tertiary training and
that is n-t--wVat is going'to happen to most young Au-straliansfthen
surely Governments should be expected to do something about it.
Cassidy It won't mean, Prime Minister will it, that we will simplyhave
a better educated unemployed?
Prime Minister
No I do not believe so, because and I am not trying to
underestimate the difficulty of people getting work but a lot
of young people leave school and do move smoothly into a'job, we
know that. We also know there are 50,000 or a bit more under-18:
who are on unemployment benefits. i can think of nothing more
disillusioning for a young Australian. Let us just go through
what has happened to him or ' to her for a moment. / 3
-3
Prime Minister( continued)
The sort of person being described by the-Schools Commission
Report has not done well at school, and the Schools Commission
Report is making the point that I think I* did about a ' year a . go
somewhere; ' that it is the school really that has failed the
student because there are not courses that suit that particular
student's capacities. So, the person has not fitted in too well
at school, has not been particularly excited, has not been able
to develop his or her talents at school, leaves school and because
his talents and inclinations have not been properly developed
and trained in the-kind of courses that would have suited thatperson,
finds it harder than many others to.-get-a-job, and then
becomes doubly disillusioned because he or she is riot able to
get a job. That is the sort of circumstance that must be
occurring to a lot of these people in the 15 to 16, 17 year old
age bracket. -I do not underestimate the role-of the economy,.
of the need for an expanding economy, of more jobs overall.
of course that is the other side of the coin. But if these
young Australians are to be given a fair chance in whatever
economy we are able to establish, surely we owe them something
better than a school system that, the Schools Commission says has
failed them and then the dole. Now, that-is what the Government
is after,. doing something about.
Cassidy So Prime Minister, you are' speaking in terms that it could be
a reality then, that in fact you may. be taking away the dole
from the 16 and 17 year olds.
Prime Minister
No. Look, again, one of the very real questions not just
before Governments because we have thrown this whole position
out into the open for debate, and I think we were right to expect
that it will be debated calmly and on its merits and on the basis3
of what is in fact best for young Australians in the 16 to 17
year old age group. If you have got the circumstances where
they-have got adequate training at school or at a technical college,
one or the other, we have a completely open mind about it, but.
at least training that is suited to their needs so that they will
be better equipped to move into the workforce and.! get a job that
will be constructive and rewarding to them.. Now, let us take
a 16 year old. He cannot get an immediate job. The option of
training is available to him, training which the best vocational
guidance indicates is suited to his talents and to his inclinations,
if that training is available would you, as a member of society,
want to leave him the option of just getting unemployment benefits?
I am not asking you to come to a conclusion. I am asking you to,.
with an open mind, to examine the question. If you said, well
for low income families that extra money might have been quite
important, all right, we have also said we are looking at the
system of allowances that is available to low income families
so that kids do not have to be penalised because of that. ./ 4
-4
Cassidy if there was a guarantee though that he could be provided
with work at the end of that extra two years education, perhaps
then it might be more acceptable.
Prime Minister
But at -the end of that extra two years he would be 18,
wouldn't he.
That's right.
Prime Minister
At the end of that extra two years he would be 18, and that
is not up for examination, it is the under 18s. The matter is
for examination, and all I would ask is that everyone, when th ' ey
are coming to look at this particular question, really what
is in the best interests of young Australians; the school
system that,. not. Malcolm Fraser but the Schools Commission is
not meeting the needs of a great majority of young Australians..
Do something about that. They have better training, better
education, so that the talents of these Australians who are in a
sense pushed aside by the system can be given a fair chance in
this society. Now if we can do that and achieve that in
co-operation with the States, if you can have an adequate system
of allowances to help low income families so that they are not
put to greater hardship over those extra couple of years of
schooling, then it is a real question: should the option of
unemployment benefits still be available. And we have not made
conclusions. We want a healthy, sensible debate about it and
I would only ask people to have one thought in their minds when
they are trying to come to a conclusion: what really is the
best thing for young 16 and 17 year old men and women in Australia.
What is the best thing for them? What do we owe them?
000---