Australia's great job snob: Employers are failing to fill thousands of low-skilled roles due to 'lack of interest'

Thousands of Australian employers are desperately trying to fill low-skilled roles that no one wants - as politicians continue to push to increase the dole.

One in two employers are struggling to hire workers, with potential employees displaying a 'lack of interest' and presenting themselves without adequate qualifications, according to the Department of Employment.

The research found recruitment was deemed difficult across all states and territories and 60 per cent of employers noted difficulties hiring for low-skilled labour, The Australian reported.

The revelations come during heightened political discussion about raising the $277-a-week Newstart payment.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said there are jobs out there 'for those who want them' and she aims to get every job-seeking Australian into a position.

'We have an economy of opportunity and employers are screaming out for workers who are eager for a job. 

'Our focus will always be to get people off welfare and into work. Taxpayers expect nothing less. The Morrison government strongly believes that the best form of welfare is a job.'

Across the nation, recruitment struggles have risen by seven per cent since the year earlier.

To cope with the pressures, the research found employers have begun to lower their requirements and focus on training.

They've also tended to cover vacancies by changing staff arrangement or by hiring contractors - as well as re-advertising positions.

In 2018, employers in technicians and trades cited labour pains at 63 per cent, while employers seeking a manager had 56 per cent difficulty.

James Pearson, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, said the latest figures highlight that more needs to be done to address the lack of job-readiness.  

'Businesses need skilled workers, and more Australians need jobs. Businesses look to work with government, and education and training providers, to help deliver that outcome,' he said.

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said welfare dependency among working-age Australians is at the lowest level in 30 years. 

Over the past four years, 230,000 people had dropped off being dependent on welfare payments.

'If you want to get people off welfare into work, you have got to make sure your welfare system is supporting people to get onto work,' Mr Morrison said.

'Under this government, we are running a welfare system, which is a hand up ... not out.'

SOURCE  






Eastman has the last laugh

I followed the case from the outset and always thought that the evidence to convict him was just not there.  He was a bit of a weirdo and it was that plus police tunnel vision which got him convicted

A former Treasury official will soon outline the damages caused to him for wrongfully spending 19 years behind bars for murder.

David Eastman's official compensation bid for the wrongful imprisonment is edging closer, with his legal team ironing out details on Monday ahead of the September 30 hearing.

The 73-year-old will file a statement of damages by August 26, with the ACT government given a fortnight to respond.

Mr Eastman was found not guilty last year of murdering federal police assistant commissioner Colin Winchester in 1989.

He had pleaded not guilty to the shooting murder in 1993, but was sentenced to life in jail in 1995.

Mr Eastman's conviction was quashed in 2014 over concerns with the original evidence, leading to a new trial last year where he was cleared.

The compensation claim is widely expected to net Mr Eastman millions of dollars.

Rather than compensation, the ACT government is considering to offer Mr Eastman an "act of grace" payment, which is discretionary and would be signed off by the territory's treasurer Andrew Barr.

Lawyers for the ACT described such a payment as being made due to "moral obligation, not legal".

The case is listed for further directions at the ACT Supreme Court on September 9.

In 2009, the WA government issued a $3.25 million ex -gratia payment after Andrew Mallard spent 12 years in jail for a wrongful murder conviction.

SOURCE  






The Forgotten Freedom No More

As a think tanker, I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a fact grubber and barrow pusher who is necessarily consumed by the nuts and bolts of key public policy debates.

So it has been a real pleasure to co-edit (with my colleague Rob Forsyth) the forthcoming CIS book, The Forgotten Freedom No More: Protecting Religious Freedom in Australia.

We have brought together a distinguished group of Australian writers and thinkers to offer their views on what should be done about this increasingly important issue.

It has been a joy to spend some time ‘in the minds’ of eminent scholars such as Henry Ergas, Patrick Parkinson, and Stephen Chavura — to name just three.

Reading their work has enriched my understanding of why properly protecting religious freedom is crucial to the future of Australia as a tolerant liberal democracy and genuine civil society.

As readers will also discover when the book is published, each of the different contributors is sympathetic to promoting religious liberty in Australia, while approaching the issue from varied viewpoints and experience.

Some have been asked to offer a general legal and academic analysis of the problem as they see it with suggested ways forward, while others have been asked to provide a more personal perspective based on their ‘lived experience’.

Sceptical secular readers will learn how important religious freedom is to allow deeply-held spiritual convictions to animate individual identity across their social, professional, and civic spheres of action and purpose.

We expect that this collection will not just be informative but helpful to readers of all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs.

This is crucial. For not only is greater mutual understanding across cultural and social divides important to help stimulate parliamentary action on religious freedom.

This is also the heart of the overall objective of protecting religious freedom: which is to allow all Australians, irrespective of their faith, to live harmoniously together, united in mutual respect for the rights of all.

SOURCE  






Leftist homosexual is ‘sick of the sexism in politics’

Underlying all his complaints is a refusal to confront the  differences between men and women.  Men and women are treated differently because they ARE different in important ways

Neil Pharaoh

The biggest double standard in politics is sexism. On all sides of politics, the way we treat women differently to men astounds me. And this is coming from a man who has been involved in politics.

If you got through that far in this opinion piece, you will either be quietly agreeing or telling me I don’t believe in “merit”; if the latter, stop reading now.

Why is it when a male is stiff as a board, monotone and boring that we call him “statesmanlike”, yet when a female is she is “detached, cold and ruthless”? Why is it that men don’t get asked about who will look after the children, yet women do?

The sexism in politics has reached epic proportions.

On the Labor side, this week we saw the settlement between Emma Husar MP and Buzzfeed. Let’s revisit the situation: unproven allegations, six-week media cycle against Emma, no proof, Emma forced to not recontest her seat, political career over, nothing ever proven — female.

Take her circumstance versus Greg Barber MLC, where a bullying claim led to a settlement of $56,000 (that is your taxes paying for a bullying settlement for a MP), and he was still able to continue as a MP, even after the “hairy-legged feminist, power pussies” comments (coupled with his “men’s room” to boot).

So why can an allegation kill a female MP’s career, but not a male? Even when the male has settlement payments for bullying on the taxpayer funded books? Not to mention Barnaby and his affair — all proven, yet none lost their career. Emma? She is gone.

Let’s look a bit deeper at sexist comments directed at women; Fiona Scott being called “sex appeal” during the Lindsay 2013 campaign, which then clouded her time in office — meaning everywhere she went, the “sex appeal” comment remained. Now, what man has had such an equivalent comment levelled at him? And has it stuck? Exactly. Silence.

Sarah Hanson-Young, in court commentary: “Mr. Leyonhjelm called me a hypocrite because I have sex with men,” said the Greens senator during cross-examination over Leyonhjelm’s comments about her in the media following a debate in the Senate last year.

“What’s sexist about that?” Leyonhjelm’s barrister, Tony Morris, QC, replied. “He wouldn’t say it to a man,” she replied. Again, double standards of behaviour.

Globally women’s participation in parliament is a tad above 24 per cent, yet accounted for only 8 per cent of national leaders and 2 per cent of presidents’ posts. In Australia, Labor has 47 per cent and Liberals 23 per cent after the last Federal election.

We all know the story of how Julia Gillard was taunted with tag lines like “ditch the witch” and described as “barren” as well as many other names. Name for me a male who has got equivalent levels of vitriol in public debate and discussion.

Julie Bishop — an amazingly capable, talented woman — looked over for Scomo and Dutton. Jane Prentice: lost preselection to a former male staffer, Julian Simmonds.

Ann Sudamalis: again another male, Grant Schultz (whose bullying complaint and review has still not announced its findings).

On Labors ledger, Lauren Palmer lost preselection to James Martin in Hasluck, and Lyndal Howlison in NSW for Brian Owler. Time and time again we walk past more capable and qualified women for men — it can’t continue.

Even Bronwyn Bishop and the helicopter affairs stinks of double standard, when a number of male politicians have undertaken similar activities without consequence — Bronwyn had to go after a helicopter flight to a Liberal Party Fundraiser. Yet Tony Abbott charged taxpayers over $3000 to attend the birthday party of Santo Santoro without consequences.

That’s right, a birthday party. Again, one standard for women another for men.

Susan Ley had to resign from a role over a taxpayer funded trip to the Gold Coast to purchase an apartment, something she admitted was within guidelines but failed the pub test. Yet Darren Chester did EXACTLY the same thing for an apartment purchase in Melbourne and yet no consequences for him, no resignation or role reduction. I mean, can the hypocrisy be any more obvious?

I can’t tell you the number of times in Labor preselection that I have seen amazingly qualified women looked over for men — let alone discussed it with friends who are Members of the Liberal Party and say they are continually disadvantaged during preselection.

Margaret Fitzherbert (Liberal) undertook professional polling on this issue and found 38 per cent of Liberal preselections think it is OK to ask a women who will look after her children if she is elected into parliament. A question which she rightly says has no right answers (not focused enough on family and too focused on career etc). And in the private sector, that question is illegal.

And don’t let the Greens Party claim moral high ground; the majority of their Federal leadership is also white men.

And while Labor is better on Parliamentary benches, peel back the curtain to the backrooms of power and you will find the “powerbrokers” behind the politicians is usually a room full of men.

Look to the number of single mums we have around Cabinet tables in Australia? None that I know of, for I have seen when a single mum wasn’t supported to sit in Cabinet because a Leader won’t assist with a reduction in portfolios, or offer other support to keep her in the Cabinet. I am sorry, but I want my taxpayer dollars to fund a full-time nanny just so we can have a single mum (or dad) in Cabinet. That is the Australia I want to live in.

Ironically, in the 2019 election there is one seat which was won by Labor. Labor won’t learn the lesson in it though. That is: that Fiona Phillips MP won Gilmore, and she had never worked as a staffer or advisor, was a local through and through, had deep strong roots to the community, and was a female running against a male. Coincidence? I think not.

I have personally alleged sexism within the Labor Party against a certain Parliamentarian — an accusation which after an internal investigation was found to be legitimate and accurate — only to be personally disadvantaged and brought before the disputes committee of the Labor Party for “disloyalty” and “bringing the party into disrepute” (for calling out sexism against a Parliamentarian). How is that for double standards?

If a male bystander receives a harsher penalty for calling out sexism than the person who was independently found to have been sexist, there is an issue. (Oh, and he got away with a simple written apology to the victim, not made public of course).

What I have learned from the many amazing women I have seen survive in politics, who try and try again and again, is that even those who never get preselected, those who don’t sit on parliamentary benches, have overcome so much more and are often so much more connected to the community than the men who succeeded them.

We need to change the discussion. We as men need to start calling this for what it is, whether Liberal, Labor or other. It is sexism and it needs to change.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here