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

I did ask the Assistant Minister for Employment why there was a very significant reduction in the budget forecast for Jobactive. When I add it up, it is around $400 million. It may well be the case that the contract is longer. It goes for five years and, therefore, over that time there may be increased expenditure. But there is no doubt that there have been some very significant reductions in expenditure forecast in this budget compared to last year's budget—and I really have not had an answer from the minister. Yes, it is the case that there has been a new initiative. It would appear that, unless the minister can account for the reductions somewhere else, the money that has been allocated for the initiatives as outlined by the Treasurer in the budget on budget night have been derived from taking the money from Jobactive. It is the only thing I can conclude. I did provide an opportunity for the minister to explain the shortfall and he has failed to do so.

What I need to put on the record but also ask directly of the government, through this minister, is this: if the government is confident that these initiatives are so likely to lead to success and if indeed Jobactive is better than the preceding contract with the employment service providers, why is it the case that the government's own forecast is for unemployment to rise over the next financial year to a 14-year high?

It would seem to me, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric of the government, including the minister in the last half an hour, that if in fact the unemployment rate is to hit 6.5 per cent in the next financial year, it demands an answer. This government has decided to call this budget the jobs and families budget. For families with a single income of $60,000 a year, it is cutting their income by up to $6,000 a year in family tax benefits. It is calling it a jobs budget, yet jobs are going to be fewer insofar as the proportion of people looking for work because unemployment is rising, according to the budget's own figures. It seems to me, therefore, that something has gone awry here. The government is expecting higher unemployment. The fact is that the measures that have been referred to by the minister are not going to lead to the benefits because there is not going to be a reduction. We are going to see, at the very least, a six in front of the unemployment rate. Six per cent or higher is way too high for this country. Given those figures we really need to hear some answers as to why there has been that failure and why the government is forecasting failure in the area of unemployment.

The other thing I should note, given one of the previous speakers mentioned plumbers and apprenticeships, is that there has been a significant reduction in investment in apprenticeships and training by this government. Indeed, last year's budget saw a reduction. It may be difficult for the minister to answer this because it does not go directly to and might be incidental to his portfolio. I think he should take an interest because it is to do with tools for apprentices. There was an initiative that allowed for tools for tradies to be paid for so they were properly equipped. That was removed and, of course, what was put in its stead was a loan arrangement where young people could enter into loans and go into debt in order to finish their apprenticeships.

I wonder whether the minister would like to comment on how successful that is going, because the last time I spoke to some of the training providers they said that that has not been very well received, there is a very low take-up rate and it has not led to improved completion rates for tradespeople. So notwithstanding the rhetoric not of the minister but of a previous speaker about apprenticeships, it seems to me important for the minister perhaps to reflect upon whether it was wise of the government to remove the payment for tools for apprentices and put in its stead a loan arrangement which has not been taken up by apprentices and is not therefore creating the opportunities to see greater completion rates for apprentices in the trades. That is something else that we would like an answer to. (Time expired)

See this speech in context