By Tony Nicholson
DESPITE the fact many considered it lacklustre, the federal election campaign did serve to expose an economic and social fault-line that needs to be bridged if Australia is to really thrive in the decade ahead.
Today two forces are banging together with the potential of causing real damage to our social and economic foundations.
On the one side, there's the certainty that, as our economy grows and our population ages, we're going to need more people who are able to work. As demographer Peter McDonald has pointed out, we can have a bogus argument about this, but we are better off acknowledging the reality of growth and doing something about it, rather than pretending otherwise and making problems such as skill shortages and urban congestion worse.
On the other side, there is serious concern about social disadvantage. Many of those wary of higher levels of immigration and growth are asking the reasonable questions: ''What about our own? Why are we bringing in more skilled migrants when there are still large numbers of Australians struggling to get a decent job?'' Some are also asking a more fundamental question: ''Is economic growth really worth if it means affluent Australians will get everything and disadvantaged Australians - and struggling regions within Australia - see little hope of better times?''
We must address this if we want to maximise Australia's prosperity over the next decade.
History shows we can get greater public support for immigration and nation building if we ensure we don't leave large numbers of our existing population languishing. The postwar immigration program, with its commitment to full employment, rising wages, home ownership, educational opportunity and decent welfare services, demonstrated what can be achieved.
But the answer doesn't lie in trying to recreate the economic protectionism of that era. Yet unfortunately, much of our welfare-to-work system is still shaped by the conditions of that era, insensitive to the new risks and opportunities the modern market economy presents to the disadvantaged.
That's why even after the unprecedented period of prosperity immediately before the impact of the global financial crisis we had 1.1 million Australians who were either looking for work or couldn't get enough hours. And I estimate there were about 150,000 disability-support pensioners who could have been working if the right help had been offered.
At the time, I was especially frustrated by a popular view among some economists that this was somehow ''natural'' and there was probably nothing we could do about it. I was equally disturbed by a not uncommon, yet unspoken, assumption within our own welfare sector that these people were probably not up to it in the real economy and should be protected in some kind of welfare shelter.
At the Brotherhood, we categorically reject these stereotypes and call for a new commitment to getting all Australians into the economic participation they so clearly want.
The answer to the population conundrum in part lies in a new social contract, based on the proposition that the nation will do all it possibly can to give every Australian a firm foothold in the mainstream economy. That will mean more disadvantaged Australians getting a guernsey in the world of work, in doing so easing the concerns about immigration and partially reducing the economic need for it.
Too many of these Australians not only lack the capacities needed for a skilled or semi-skilled job but also the employment-ready skills needed for any job at all. But the one thing I know from almost 30 years in assisting them is that they don't lack a desire to work.
They aspire to be part of the mainstream economic life of the nation. While our standard job-preparation and job-matching services perform well enough for many job seekers, they struggle when it comes to the highly disadvantaged job seekers. Why? Because they don't tap into their aspiration to be part of the mainstream, by creating a line of sight between their current circumstances and a decent job.
As our post-GFC economy gathers steam, sourcing employees will become a struggle not just confined to the regions directly affected by the mining boom.
Success is possible. The Brotherhood has collected evidence demonstrating where the big employment hurdles lie for the disadvantaged. The big picture is simple. As a nation, we have to invest more in getting people back to work. The five top-ranked countries in the OECD spend more than 1.15 per cent of GDP on labour-market programs compared to 0.32 per cent by Australia.
But its how the additional investment is made that is critical. The Brotherhood's research suggests success for highly disadvantaged job seekers lies in their participation in an integrated package of training, work experience and health and welfare support over a period of nine to 18 months - all tied to a job offer from an employer. We call this an intermediate labour market.
It provides people with foundational skills - such as literacy, numeracy and understanding of the world of work. It gives people the work experience, accredited training and flexible help that allows them to look after children, deal with health problems, get adequate housing and develop personal resilience.
Ultimately, it offers highly disadvantaged Australians a clear line of sight to a decent job - through a deal with an employer.
To create an intermediate labour market requires a new kind of direct collaboration between employers, welfare agencies and government funding bodies. With the forecast of labour shortages around the corner, now is the time to be forging such collaboration. We need to recognise the economic sense in sourcing our employees from the ranks of disadvantaged Australians.
Tony Nicholson is executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence.