Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

47
In January 1979, variations were made to the types of employer to whom the subsidy
could apply. The State and Commonwealth government could now apply for SYETP for
employees, as well as private sector employers. Special rates applied to the
Commonwealth government, who received the full wage cost in SYETP subsidy. State
and private sector employers received the flat subsidy rate. 21 However, in August 1981
the State governments ceased to be eligible for SYETP subsidies. The States again
became eligible in 1983.
In February 1981 ‘extended-SYETP’ was introduced. The eligibility for this required
longer unemployment, and employers received a doubly long subsidy period of 34 weeks,
with the subsidy paid at a higher rate. Those unemployed and away from full-time
education for at least 8 of the last 12 months were eligible for ‘extended-SYETP’, and
employers got A$80 per week for the first 17 weeks, then A$55 for the next 17 weeks.
This was equivalent to 60 per cent and then 41 per cent of the average junior award pay
rate for the applicable ages (BLMR (1984) p160 Table 4.14). The standard rate of
SYETP was commensurate with the second phase of extended SYETP.
The SYETP rates were again changed in August 1982. The standard rate of SYETP and
the second phase of extended-SYETP rose to $75, while the initial phase rate of
extended-SYETP rose to $100 per week. The procedure for SYETP subsidies was also
loosened at this time. Whereas before the Commonwealth Employment Service office
was the prime intermediary, in August 1982 the young unemployed were given the right
to make direct contact with employers. This was seen as a “liberalization of
administrative procedures” (Smith (1984a): 20), whereby jobseekers could get a card
indicating their eligibility for the subsidy, which they could present to prospective
employers. Aside from this change, it was always a requirement of SYETP that the
participant was registered with the CES, and the length of registration determined
21 Sloan (1985) p114 pointed out that any overview of the operation of SYETP, and any labour market
program, was likely to underestimate the important interaction between State and Federal government roles
in funding in Australia. This aspect of expenditure can be seen here in the different treatment State and
Commonwealth employees received at differing times in the history of SYETP.