Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of public importance, and for that reason the opposition wants to have a true debate on the future of jobs in this country.

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to conclude that this government has no interest in fighting for Australian jobs but, back when the Prime Minister was the opposition leader, it was not so easy. That was a time when the then Leader of the Opposition visited hundreds of workplaces, using workers as props—as a backdrop to his doorstops—he had his hard hat on, and he had his high-vis vest and safety glasses, and he claimed he would defend their jobs if he was ever to be elected prime minister. Well, this proved to be all talk and no action: within months of the election, this government stood back and watched the collapse of the car industry. Worse, in this place, we had a treasurer goad Holden to leave this country—and that is what Holden promptly decided to do. Toyota soon followed. With these two decisions, we will now see thousands of workers—thousands of high-skill jobs—disappear. With the departure of those iconic companies, tens of thousands of jobs are at grave risk in the automotive parts industry and beyond. Where is the Prime Minister now, given the amount of time he was willing to spend as opposition leader in workplaces around this country? He is not visiting blue-collar workers in these companies, assuring them that he will fight for their jobs. He is not visiting Holden and Toyota to assure those workers—those soon-to-be-retrenched workers—that he will find them new jobs. No, the Prime Minister has gone missing in action when it comes to providing opportunities for employment for those workers and other workers in the labour market. The fact is that the Prime Minister has no idea what it will do to those workers and their families when the car industry effectively dies. What arrogance and ignorance was on display by the Prime Minister when he talked about liberating these workers from secure employment—what more shameless approach to industry policy can there be than for a Prime Minister to suggest that the best way forward for these workers is to lose secure employment and be placed in an unemployed position or, at best, to find precarious employment in the labour market?

It is not just the car industry; the dysfunction of this government was revealed when it bungled the handling of the future of our national aviation carrier, Qantas. When Qantas announced 5,000 effective full-time jobs would be cut, the government was all over the place. When anxious Qantas workers looked to the government to fight to save their jobs, the government could only find time to fight amongst themselves. For months we saw speculation, leaking, and backgrounding—against each other—about what should happen. When Qantas tried to work with the government, it was rebuffed by the Prime Minister. One day the Treasurer would outline what Qantas needed to do to secure a debt guarantee—you could read about it on the front page of The Financial Reviewand the next day the government would walk away and say it was not possible. What was the result of this dysfunction, this ineptitude, and this callous disregard for workers? The consequence was that, under this government, thousands of Qantas jobs will go overseas—that is, pilots, cabin crew, flight attendants, engineers, maintenance workers and, quite possibly, the chair of the company, the majority of directors, and even the head office of this iconic Australian flagship company will go overseas. This government might think that is fine, but Labor knows—as most Australians know—that once skilled jobs go offshore, they do not come back. Once you lose skills in your labour market, it is very difficult to replace them. That is why we will fight to keep Qantas Australian and to keep jobs in this country.

Speaking of Qantas and job cuts, there was some devastating news today with the announcement that QantasLink flights into Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory will cease from August. This is a direct result of the closure of the alumina refinery at Gove. Where is the government now? Where is the government's plan to assist Nhulunbuy and north-east Arnhem Land, a community facing a loss of 1,200 jobs? This will destroy that community. It happened months ago—and the Prime Minister, who promised to be there in his first week as Prime Minister, has not turned up for nine months! We will see devastation in that community as a result, and there has been no response from the government and no response from the Prime Minister. This self-proclaimed Indigenous Prime Minister has turned his back on his promise to return to north-east Arnhem—like he has with so many other promises.

What of other companies announcing more than 100 job losses? Simplot, Electrolux, Caterpillar, BP, Rio Tinto, Kellogg's, BHP, Arrow Energy, Forge Group, Alcoa, Asciano, Sensis, Optus, and many, many more. No wonder the government's own department forecast that there would be 160,000 fewer jobs than the Prime Minister promised before the election. But it is not just this government's indifference to jobs and ineptitude; it is not that they do not have an industry minister—they have an industry minister, but they have no industry policy. This industry minister has not won one debate within the cabinet. The cruelty and the callous disregard for workers to be found in industry policy, or in the lack thereof, is writ large in the papers of the budget. It can be seen vividly in the cuts to apprenticeships and traineeships that the member for Cunningham will refer to in this debate. What is it about this government that it thinks it can say to the young job seekers of this country 'you need to earn or learn' while it is cutting $1 billion out of apprenticeships and traineeships? What does the government think young people can do when unemployment amongst young people hits more than 13 per cent? How can they find a job to earn when the economy is in that state?

Labor does support the principle of earning or learning, but you have to have jobs with which to earn and you have to have training places in which to learn. Without that investment and without those job opportunities, it is an absolute disgrace that this government thinks it is okay to cut income for job seekers under the age of 30 for six months. To think that young people will be able to survive for six months without any support whatsoever is ridiculous. It is not only economically ridiculous and absurd; it is socially reprehensible. What we have here is an obligation that has been placed on young people in this country to either earn or learn, and yet the opportunities will not exist in many parts of this country.

Last week I was in Devonport and Launceston, and in Devonport in northern Tasmania youth unemployment is north of 20 per cent. What does the government expect those young people to do? What we have here is a government that is willing to punish young job seekers for not finding jobs, and the way they will punish them is to rip away the only support they get from the government while they are looking for work. It just does not make any sense. It is harsh, it is mean and tricky, and it is going to ensure that we see greater social disharmony. We are going to see antisocial behaviour, we are going to see an increase in crime, we are going to see an increase in self-harm and we are going to see young people despairing in this country because they have no support whatsoever.

What is the most ludicrous part of the government's proposition? I found out last week that even though the government is choosing not to provide any support for these job seekers under the age of 30 for the first six months, they are going to oblige them to look for 40 jobs a month. There was a time when the principle of mutual obligation did apply—it started under Working Nation under the Keating government and was embraced by the Howard government—and you were provided with a modest level of income while at the same time you were required to look for work. That was continued by subsequent governments. This government is the first in living memory to tear up the compact between government and job seekers. They are tearing up the principle of mutual obligation and are expecting young people under the age of 30 to fend for themselves in a labour market where few opportunities exist in some regions of this country.

This government does not get it. The Prime Minister does not get it. They have a lot to answer for, and they should be looking after young people. (Time expired)

See this speech in context