Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government’s budget for 2009-10 should be seen from two different points. Firstly, from the big picture view, the budget is squarely focused on the issue of employment, both maintaining levels of employment in the face of the global economic crisis and creating new jobs through spending on public works and improvements to our existing education, health and public housing assets. It is the most ambitious program of public spending in our history, coming at a time when the private sector is in a slump caused by the near collapse of private credit worldwide and the loss of business and consumer confidence that goes with it. As a budget which focuses on employment, it makes no apology for giving much-needed assistance to the working people of Australia. Of all the things that a population can expect from a government, the economic base to maximise employment opportunities is our most crucial need.

From the other point of view, the budget must also ensure that the sacrifices made during hard economic times are not borne by one section of the population alone. We cannot ignore the needs of the victims of this recession, those women and those men who will lose their jobs or their small businesses. We need to see the consequences for individuals and families in the same way that we see the losses of victims of natural disasters. We saw with the recent Victorian bushfires that Australians opened their hearts and their wallets to assist the victims of that disaster. We cannot ignore the plight of those whose lives are thrown into turmoil by the loss of livelihood and income. At this time of crisis, we should also reflect on the priorities of government and how to best direct resources to get our nation back on the path to prosperity—to prosperity for all.

To come back to the big picture, from the opposition we have had nothing but wailing about the debt that we are passing on to our children and our grandchildren. I feel that that is a lot of rot. In the electorate of Fowler, when parents and grandparents worry about their children and grandchildren it is about whether they will keep their job or whether they will be able to find a job. With adult unemployment over 10 per cent and teenage unemployment over 40 per cent in my electorate of Fowler, I know what they are most concerned about.

This is where there is a stark contrast between Labor and the coalition parties. I very much doubt that parents and grandparents in Fowler lie awake at night worrying that their children will pay higher taxes in 10 years time, but I do know that the prospect of losing your job is a very real fear here and now. The opposition’s wailing about the deficit is not only out of touch with the needs of the electorate; it is also out of touch with economic reality. I would be the last person to lecture the House on economic theory, but I will borrow the words of Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. Following the budget Ross Gittins wrote:

… the primary reason for the budget’s rapid transformation from large surplus to huge deficit is the economy’s descent into recession, which has greatly reduced the tax revenue the Government now expects to receive.

He went on to say:

The recession would also be worsening the budget balance by greatly increasing the number of people to whom the Government has to pay the dole.

So the first point to note is that the budget balance deteriorates automatically whenever the economy goes into recession. It happens without the Government lifting a finger.

The next thing to note is that, though this sounds like a bad thing … the deterioration in the budget balance is a good thing.

Why? Because it helps to stabilise the economy. At the very time when households and businesses start spending less—and thus threatening jobs—the government starts spending a lot more than it’s extracting from the economy in taxation.

So when the private sector contracts, the public sector expands, thus reducing the decline in the economy and so limiting (but not eliminating) the rise in unemployment.

But the opposition can only wail about debt. They have no concern for the working people of Australia and even less for those likely to lose their jobs in this recession.

But, while I can fully agree with the government’s macroeconomic strategy, I am left with the last line of my quote from Ross Gittins:

… reducing the decline in the economy and so limiting (but not eliminating) the rise in unemployment.

It is in this area that I find some aspects of the budget disappointing. While the Treasurer has acknowledged that we will see a significant increase in the number of unemployed, as many as 350,000, the budget is short on details for measures to assist those out of work as a result of the recession. There was no increase in the level of benefit paid to job seekers, only an allowance for those undertaking training. But in most cases this could be expected to be spent on additional living costs associated with that training.

We have a long way to go before we have policies in place, such as those in Scandinavian countries, which see redundant workers placed in appropriate retraining and job placement programs from the day they finish work. Unemployment should be a transition from one job or career to another, not a stressful period of uncertainty and depression. Even under new job assistance contracts we can expect the outcomes for newly retrenched workers to be mixed and a long way short of what is needed by those who have lost a livelihood as a result of the recession.

As far as the government’s infrastructure program is concerned, I have to ask the question of whether its programs are targeted as well as they could be. It is too easy to overlook the objective of maximising the employment potential of many projects. It is hard to see how a textile worker retrenched from Bonds at Wentworthville could be employed in the planning and design of Sydney’s West Metro or how one retrenched from Bonds at Cessnock could get a job driving a bulldozer on the Hunter Expressway project. It reminds me of the story about the World Bank planning a development project in a Central African republic. They decided to build a road between two major towns. The World Bank engineer said it would be a simple job for a couple of Caterpillar D9s. As there was a big problem of local unemployment, the local official said, ‘Why not use 1,000 men with shovels?’ to which a social worker added, ‘Why not a million men with teaspoons?’ I think the moral of the story is that we have to get the balance right between building infrastructure and creating jobs. We cannot just count the number of jobs; we have to look at what both gives us useful assets and maximises job opportunities.

In looking at some of the projects announced, I really have to look at whether the jobs required on those projects will suit the skills and experience of many who will lose their jobs in the course of this recession. This applies particularly to women. This itself raises a number of issues related to employment in this economic climate. When we think of the impact of job losses on the workforce, we probably think firstly of the male ‘breadwinner’, to use an old, old term. But, for many women, losing a job or having your hours cut is an equally disastrous outcome. Two-income families are the norm in Western Sydney. The loss of income can be very, very devastating.

I understand that major banks and some other financial institutions have developed policies which offer assistance with loan repayments to families affected by the loss of income. As with other forms of assistance offered by governments, we must ensure that women, whether as single women, sole parents, carers or partners in a two-income family, are not treated differently in access to debt assistance or retraining programs.

While I am on the subject of job creation projects, we know that the services sector has been the fastest growing sector of the economy and that women make up most of its workforce. We need to appreciate that we are building a society as well as an economy and that the materials for building a just, fair and prosperous society are more than concrete and steel; we need to build the skills of our people as well. That is one form of infrastructure that maximises employment opportunities.

Having raised those concerns, I want to turn to one budget item that I regard as a disgraceful waste of public money, one which represents a continued attack on the rights of a group of Australian workers. Under the portfolio of the Minister of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations we have an appropriation of $33,446,000 for the office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Some of us, especially on the Labor side, recall that at the time of the last election Labor promised to allow the ABCC to continue until 2010 and that a review would be conducted, and I for one would have expected this budget item to be much reduced because it is for only half a year. We have of course had the Wilcox review, which recommended the extension of the ABCC for some time, but what staggers me about the ABCC is the size of its funding. It is more than $33 million a year. I am sure it is great at job creation for union-bashing lawyers, but that is one group of workers I would like to see retrenched.

The ABCC is limited to building and construction industry workplaces, but its budget is almost half that of the former Office of the Workplace Ombudsman, who was responsible for all other Commonwealth workplace laws. Comparing the ABCC with Comcare, the government’s workplace safety and rehabilitation body, which gets $5 million this year, the ABCC gets six times as much. Here we have a situation where on average one construction or mining worker dies from a workplace injury every week, but this government spends six times as much on union witch-hunts as it does on workplace safety for its employees. It is when you put the appropriation for the ABCC into context by comparing it with other government agencies that you see that it is a very well fed monster. If you compare the ABCC’s appropriation with agencies in the Attorney-General’s portfolio, you see that it receives more than twice the $13 million allocation to the Australian Human Rights Commission, more than the $28 million going to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and more than twice the $16 million appropriated to the High Court of Australia, the body whose responsibility is ‘to interpret and uphold the Australian Constitution and perform the functions of the ultimate appellate court in Australia’.

If you look at the appropriation of the Australian Crime Commission, it receives $95 million and is responsible for reducing the impact of serious and organised crime in Australia, yet the ABCC gets more than one-third of the amount that goes to fighting serious and organised crime in Australia. I am sure that all Australians can sleep safe in their beds knowing that the government spends so much on chasing a few union members while drug rings and bikie gangs can run riot in our community. But looking at the real concerns of ordinary Australians, in the face of losses of more than $30 billion by 200,000 Australian investors and the collapse of companies like Storm Financial, Great Southern and Timbercorp, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission will spend an extra $20 million this year chasing corporate crooks. That is $33 million to chase building workers and $20 million to chase real criminals in business suits.

How does the ABCC’s appropriation compare with the total appropriation for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority? It gets $23 million, $10 million less than the ABCC. Just what are the priorities of this government—protecting the savings of ordinary Australians or threatening building workers? It is like the Keystone Cops going after the wrong guy. And what is that $33 million worth to the Australian economy and improving productivity? It should be working wonders, because the ABCC gets only a million dollars less than the Productivity Commission.

But, to really understand how much is wasted on the ABCC, we should compare its appropriation to the salaries of members of this House. The ABCC gets more than the combined base salaries of all 150 members of this House as well as the 76 senators, and what has the ABCC achieved? That is a question that will have to be answered. If I could send a memo to the razor gang working on next year’s budget, it would say to save the people of Australia $33 million and axe the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

On one final point in my response to this budget I must express my concern with the proposed increase in the age of eligibility for the age pension from 65 years to 67. I can recall a time when we looked at reducing the age of retirement to 55 years. My greatest concern, especially for the working families that I represent in Fowler, is for those workers in industries which require physical endurance. It is not uncommon to find workers unfit to continue many years before the present retirement age. For many the result is that they spend their years prior to retirement on a disability pension. And we must remember that for women we are increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65; I have already noted a number of issues arising from this change. I would expect that the planned increase in the pension age would be preceded by an inquiry into work and life issues and ways of ensuring that all Australians are able to plan a rewarding working life as well as enjoy a healthy and varied lifestyle.

In closing, overall this is a budget that provides for the working men and women of Australia. It does focus on jobs, which is critical. Time will definitely tell if the expected increase in unemployment has its effect.

See this speech in context