Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Boothby proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to create, protect and support jobs.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been an extraordinary 12 months since the last budget. We have seen four separate phases in the government’s approach to the economy. It was only 12 months ago that the budget was very much part of the war on inflation. The Treasurer was beating his chest about how big a surplus he was going to produce, and the government’s No. 1 priority was to fight inflation. Then we had a second phase, where the government promised to create jobs. In February the Prime Minister slid away from that promise and made it only that they would create, protect or support jobs. Tonight, 12 months since the last budget, we are now about to enter a new phase in which the government will say that it is a great achievement that they have kept unemployment to only one million. That is a massive failure on the part of the government, which will now have the jobs of one million Australians hanging on their record. The government will now be presiding over the largest budget deficit in modern Australian history, the largest government debt in modern Australian history and the largest number of unemployed Australians ever.

This is a government which has a great communications strategy but a very poor economic strategy, and spin will only get you so far. The problem of jobs, the problem of unemployment, is not one that has snuck up on the government. The DEEWR leading indicator of employment has been falling for 17 consecutive months, but this government was very slow to acknowledge the problem over the horizon with jobs and the problem approaching with unemployment. The record will show that the opposition were warning the government on jobs for the last 12 months, well before any government member acknowledged the problem—back in the day when the government was talking about fighting inflation and the size of the budget surplus.

Much will be made tonight of the government’s assertion that without the cash splashes of $22 billion over the last four or five months we would see an unemployment rate of 10 per cent and an extra 200,000 Australians unemployed. Just to put that in perspective, let us say there has never been a Treasury forecast that unemployment was going to be 10 per cent. The forecasts of unemployment over the last 12 months have had a life span of about two months. In other words, two months after being published it is generally very obvious that these forecasts have had to be revised—and revised upwards. The government has always been slow to acknowledge that the job situation and the unemployment situation were deteriorating much faster than their official forecasts acknowledged.

When we go back to November last year, the UEFO predicted that unemployment would hit 5.75 per cent by June this year. This increase was forecast despite a $10.4 billion stimulus package that the government claimed would create 75,000 jobs. Where are those jobs? Where are those jobs that you promised to create last October, last November and last December? Where are they? We are still waiting for them. The 75,000 jobs are yet to eventuate, and the government has now gone for another spendathon of $42 billion, including more cash payments. Regrettably, once again the jobs promised have failed to appear. After $22 billion of cash payments, there has not been a single new job created since October last year. That is $22 billion, every one of them borrowed, which will take a generation to pay back, and not a single job has been created. The latest labour force figures show no jobs created since October last year. Only 11,400 jobs have been created since September last year.

After the failure of their two cash splashes, the government decided to lower the bar, to lower expectations and to tell us, ‘Well, actually, we have done pretty well because we have kept unemployment to only one million Australians.’ That is a massive failure on the part of any Australian government. Last year we were told they were fighting inflation and creating jobs. Then they were supporting jobs. Now the achievement of the Rudd government is that they have kept unemployment to only one million Australians. That is an absolute disgrace. As we have already heard, the government spent $22 billion on cash payments—every cent borrowed—to smooth the national accounts and to try to avoid two quarters of negative growth. The government will say that all of this is the global recession. They will also say that the budget position is somehow John Howard’s fault. They would have us believe that the Prime Minister is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there are several areas where the government have made things worse and not better. The government will not say tonight how their workplace relations regime, their award modernisation and their tender for employment services have impacted on jobs.

Let us look at some of the areas where direct decisions of the government have made things worse and not better. We have already had the revelation that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, a minister in the Rudd government, has put the emotional health of the superb parrot ahead of 1,000 rural jobs—causing temporary closures in some mills. But the gold medal performance of this government has been in the area of employment services. This minister, the Minister for Employment Participation, has compounded his mistakes. He has piled mistake on blunder. Australia had 10 years experience of contracting out employment services. Through successive contracts, the Job Network had been bedded down. Unemployment fell from 7.7 per cent in May 1998 to below five per cent in 2006 and until this year. Rather than continue with an employment services model which reduced unemployment—and which worked—the Labor government made a decision to have a big-bang change in employment services at the worst possible time. Tendering out 100 per cent of employment services has not been done since 2000. The last time it was done, there were nine months when employment services were not running at 100 per cent efficiency.

Faced with advice that the government were required to tender out 100 per cent of employment services, they made successive blunders which compounded this problem for job seekers. First, they designed an employment services model for good times. They designed a model for high employment growth, for high job creation and for low unemployment. It was a model based on the assumption that the vast majority of job seekers would find a job themselves, with few incentives for employment service providers to help them into work. Under Labor’s original model, only 12.8 per cent of the employment services stream funding was available for 61 per cent of the job seekers classified as stream 1. Their original model was unsustainable in a climate of rising unemployment and fewer job placements. It is a much more marginal model. In their budget last year they proposed spending $300 million less on employment services. That was at a time when they anticipated having 75,000 more job seekers on the unemployment roll. There was a complete lack of early intervention for the vast majority of job seekers, especially for school leavers and those who were job ready.

Second, they compounded this problem. In designing a tender they completely disregarded past performance in placing job seekers into a job. Under the most recent contract, the star ratings measured performance. In past tenders, proven performance helped determine business share. Yet Labor have emasculated the star rating and have not yet replaced it. That is why their tender has been such a debacle; that is why proven performers have not got work. They designed a tender without giving a very strong weighting to past performance. These two blunders have resulted in the startling revelation that, as unemployment is set to take off, almost one in two job seekers will have to change their caseworkers and employment service providers over the next year—that is, 38 per cent of job seekers will be required to change their caseworker and employment service provider on 1 July. Another nine per cent will change during the transition period. In total, 47 per cent of job seekers will be forced to move to a new provider. New providers will have no access to paper case files of job seekers. Job seekers will be starting from scratch with a caseworker who has no knowledge of their history, abilities or limitations. This is a clear example—in fact it is the most striking example—of where the government’s own policies have made things worse.

On top of this, the Labor government are actively destroying jobs. The Job Services Australia tender alone has resulted in more job losses than there were with Pacific Brands, with the government failing still to concede exactly how many employment services caseworkers and support staff will be out of a job come 30 June. But do not take my word for it. Frank Quinlan, the Executive Director of Catholic Social Services, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2009, asked:

How can it be in the interests of either unemployed Australians or the sector to be shutting down services and opening new ones in the midst of the greatest employment crisis in a decade?

Glenn Milne in the Australian just this week said:

Rudd should have seen this coming, and more particularly, so should his Employment Minister, Julia Gillard. Instead they appear to have been sleepwalking towards the problem. There also was another minister who apparently wasn’t reading his briefs: Brendan O’Connor, who’s responsible for employment participation. If it wasn’t imposed on him from above he stands accused of designing policy based on an economic situation he knew to be completely inappropriate to the times.

We all know that this has been an unmitigated disaster for the government.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt is under warning from question time.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only person who is in complete denial here is the Minister for Employment Participation. He has been very slow to act. He has compounded problem on problem. He came up with a model designed for the boom times at a time when unemployment is rising. He designed a tender which took no account of proven performance in placing job seekers into a job. He has now crafted a system where he believes it will be a good thing for almost one in two job seekers to be changing their caseworkers and their providers at a time when unemployment is rising at a rate that we have not seen since the early 1990s.

Just to put it in perspective, the Job Network had been running for 10 years before this minister got his hands on it. It had been bedded down. We had gone from a system of the Commonwealth Employment Service to a privatised contracted system. It had been bedded down and it was working. It was reducing unemployment and it was putting people into jobs. This minister has decided that it would be a good idea to have big-bang change with massive disruption to job seekers at a time when we will see one million Australians out of work by this time next year. (Time expired)

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The comments made by the member for Boothby in relation to the employment services are entirely and utterly wrong. I say to the chamber and those that are here that from the beginning, since the election, the government have been concerned about ensuring that we have effective employment services linking employment services to training so that we provide opportunities for Australians who are out of work.

What we do know about the previous government is that they relied of course almost entirely upon the mining boom to ensure success in the economy, and not least of all, success or alleged success with the Job Network system. I will happily say now that they made efforts in the earlier terms to bring about some reforms. Whether I liked them or not, some reformist zeal seemed to exist early on when the government was in its first term or two. But in the last number of parliamentary terms the previous government gave up on reform altogether. It hoped that the mining boom that was providing enormous cash flows into the coffers of Treasury could paper over the cracks of policy deficiency and of the implementation of those policies.

We saw a Job Network system that was broken. It was fragmented and not providing the support that out-of-work Australians required. That is why there is a stark statistic, that even in the best of times and even with the mining boom at its height we did not see a decline in the very long-term unemployed amongst the unemployment figures. We saw a failure by the previous government to listen to the sector that said there were not sufficient employment services for people, there were not personalised services for particular job seekers, and there was not sufficient training for those people. It failed to listen to the sector, to employment providers, to employers or to not-for-profit organisations and others that said we needed to make sure that those services were linked to training in areas of skilled need so that employers could fill existing vacancies. We knew that was a major problem because everybody, other than the previous government, told us so. So we set about fundamentally reforming the services to make sure that we provided the best possible service for each and every Australian out of work who wanted to find work. That is what we sought to do.

We now have in this country from 1 July employment services entitled Job Services Australia to provide better access to services than is the case under the Job Network system. For example, there will be 2,000 sites across the country, more than 200 more sites under Job Services Australia than under the Job Network system. Because the approach is an integrated one, we will ensure that those job seekers who walk through those doors to be assisted can access services in one place—not wait, not have to be pushed from pillar to post from one provider to another—to get work experience, job search techniques and other forms of assistance. We have integrated the services and, in doing that, we have linked up those services to the massive training agenda of this government. This government is spending $2 billion on the Productivity Places Program, which will allow for the rollout of 711,000 jobs. Three hundred and nine thousand of those training places will be dedicated to those job seekers.

What we do know—and the previous speaker in this debate failed to mention it—is that the previous government did nothing to assist job seekers in the area of training. If you want to look at the concerns that were raised through the consultations we had, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you will find that the biggest concern that employers had was to do with training. VECCI described training under the previous government’s system as Mickey Mouse courses.

In 15 minutes, apart from the most oblique reference, the previous speaker did not mention the global recession once. Sure, I understand that there is a bit of politicking going on across the table and they do not want to talk about a whole range of things, but how could anybody expect to be treated seriously when he can go on for 15 minutes talking about employment and about the issues confronting workers and employers in this country and not mention the global recession once? It is the biggest elephant that has been in any room for a very long time and he failed to mention it.

I will go back to some of the other issues he raised with respect to Job Services in a moment, but I think we should go back to what this government have done since October last year to protect the interests of Australian workers and indeed the Australian economy. We have acted to stabilise Australian financial markets, including providing a government guarantee to depositors in Australian banks, building societies and credit unions to maintain confidence at home that we have seen shattered abroad, with the result that our major four banks remain, as we all know, among the strongest in the world. Second, last October we took early action to provide stimulus in the form of the $10.4 billion economic stimulus package, which is providing support for carers, pensioners, veterans and families doing it tough. That provided not only support for those people who were struggling but also much-needed stimulus for our economy, including the retail sector. If you were to compare the retail sector figures in this country with figures from comparable economies you would see that as a result of that stimulus package there has been a significant benefit that has supported jobs. Indeed, only this month we have seen improvements in retail figures. There was a slight dip last month but again an improvement. Why? Because the government is acting quickly to provide support to the economy.

Beyond the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy the government early this year initiated the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to provide the support that our economy and the workers and employers in this country need. First there is support for farmers, students, parents and others who need to be given support during this time. But the bulk of the money is for ensuring that we have nation building infrastructure across the country in the areas such as education. There is also free ceiling insulation to 2.7 million Australian homes. We are also building social housing, which provides much-needed support for people on the margins who are doing it tough—the 100,000 homeless in this country. At the same time, that is providing tradies in this country, other workers in this country, with the capacity to find and keep work at a time when private capital has been contracting. The government continues to make decisions to provide the support necessary for workers and employers to ensure that this economy continues to fight its way through one of the most difficult times in economic terms for three generations. We will continue to make those decisions in responding to the global recession. In relation to the area of employment, we have made some other decisions.

The honourable member raised the issue of Job Services Australia. I have to entirely refute his assertion that it is not for these times. The model for Job Services Australia has to be for beyond one year or two years; it has to be a set of services that is flexible enough to provide for the expansion and contraction requirements of out-of-work Australians. We wanted to make sure that Job Services Australia would do well in good and in difficult times. For that reason, we have a demand driven system. For those opposite who may not understand, that means that if there are more people in need of support because they find themselves out of work through no fault of their own, they will have that support provided to them. Of course, as a result of the global recession we have ensured that we have made announcements that are consistent with Job Services Australia and that provide temporary support over the next two years. I name a number of them.

Firstly, as I said in question time today, there is $300 million for retrenched workers over the next two years that will provide immediate and personalised support for those workers so that they can find a job as quickly as possible or they can be placed into a training area so that they can acquire the skills they will need when the economy recovers. That is the first thing we have done, and we made it very clear that we were most concerned about those workers that will lose their jobs. Secondly, we have provided support and incentives to employers and to group training companies to employ apprentices. There is nothing worse than seeing an apprentice who may be halfway through his or her apprenticeship lose that trade because an employer finds it almost impossible for economic reasons to hold onto them. We have a $145 million out-of-trade apprenticeship program which will allow for employers and group training companies to provide support for the employer to employ that apprentice, and with a built-in incentive to allow that apprentice to stay until the end of their apprenticeship. That is an important measure that supports apprentices at this time.

Further to that, we are aware that there are young people who are not necessarily quite prepared for apprenticeships. That is why we have announced $30 million to provide pre-apprenticeship training to make sure that they are ready to go into a comprehensive trade course. These are some of the things we continue to do to support workers whether they be apprentices, trainees or people who have lost their jobs in recent times.

I also want to touch on the $650 million jobs fund. I have been visiting local communities with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others throughout the last month. We meet with and talk to small businesses, not-for-profit organisations, training organisations and others who want to make sure that they can find work and create jobs for people in the community. What we have set out to do with this jobs fund is to ensure that local communities that are struggling, particularly those where there is a rapid rise in unemployment or a relatively high level of unemployment, can be assisted through this jobs fund.

That jobs fund will be opened for first-round applications on 18 April, closing on 22 May. We will be asking community groups to be putting forward their ideas because we know that we have a national approach to these issues, but we also want to have a local approach. We want to get the best ideas that will create work, build schools or build social infrastructure—or preferably all three—as we go forward.

I say to the honourable member opposite that I do not accept for one moment his assertion that Jobs Services Australia is not for these times. Indeed, it was built to ensure it is for the good times and the difficult times. It is clear, from subsequent announcements made as a result of the global recession, that we can build on what is needed over a temporary period. That is consistent with Job Services Australia and that was clear as a result of the $300 million announcement.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the problem, you doofus!

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the member for Boothby is somewhat frustrated—he wants to interject now. He has not had an opportunity for the entire parliamentary term to ask me a question. That is something you have to deal with with your tactics group, Andrew. I cannot help you there. I am glad you got an MPI. I am sure it was because it was budget day that you got the MPI, but it is good to see you are at least getting up at MPIs. I would ask you to ask me a question in question time so we can actually seriously consider this matter when everyone is listening to you, Andrew, because in the end—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will refer to the member by his seat.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Boothby—I am sorry.

This is, however, a very serious issue. In the end, it is about whether, in fact, Job Network was effective or not. I would suggest the mining boom papered over the cracks at Job Network. We have listened to the sector. We have listened to employers and employment providers and we have sought to change Job Network to ensure the services are more effective and there are more sites available for jobseekers linked up to training that will be required now—and, indeed, required in the future when the economy recovers.

I do not think this opposition is serious, and that is why the honourable member does not even get a question in question time to talk to me about this particular matter. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance, because we have a government in this country that is hostage to the 24-hour news cycle. We have a government that is hostage to the 10-second sound bite and its media spin doctors.

We will see handed down in this chamber tonight what the Australian people will know as a traditional Labor budget on steroids. It is going to be a budget that will usher in the era of big deficits. It will be a budget that will usher in the high level of unemployment that we are expecting in the months ahead. It is a budget that will burden the Australian people with massive debt and burden their children with massive debt.

Only 18 months ago, when this government came to office, this country was a prosperous country. In that short time, in that 18 months, we have seen prosperity shift to negative growth. After only 18 months, Treasurer Swan has converted a $23 billion surplus into a deficit. After only 18 months in office, strong employment growth was replaced by job losses. University graduates, only 18 months ago, had a choice of careers. They were hopeful; they were optimistic. Now, you ask university graduates and they wonder where a job will come from.

This is Kevin Rudd’s Australia—an Australia that is moving from hope to despair; an Australia that is at the whim of media spin doctors; an Australia that has been governed by spin doctors rather than on the basis of good policy. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in the 2007 election campaign, promised Australians a dream and he is delivering a nightmare.

What we see is a government that is actually making the situation worse. When the government came to power at a time when the world economy was already showing signs of slowing, what did it do? It egged the Reserve Bank on to push up interest rates. Rather than being responsible, it took the political decision to try to trash the legacy of the Howard government—to try to trash the good work that was done by the previous coalition government in building a strong Australia—purely for political purposes, at a time when it knew, or ought to have known, that the economy would slow. They actually made the situation worse—egging on the Reserve Bank.

Their own DEEWR leading indicator of employment was already trending down, yet they were egging the Reserve Bank on to push up interest rates. How do increased interest rates improve the prospect for jobs? How does increasing interest rates support a better employment outcome? These are questions for which the opposition will hold this government accountable.

We have seen a situation where a government has pursued political expediency over good policy. We have seen a multibillion-dollar cash splash, more targeted at the PM’s approval ratings than the national interest. We saw Mr Popularity driving up his approval ratings by giving money away. We have seen a strategy dependent on throwing money at boom gates and at Pink Batts to protect Australia from recession—a strategy which is proving to be a spectacular failure.

There will always be a place for government stimulus. From time to time, during economic cycles, stimulus is required. But it is the quality of that stimulus—the quality of that spending—that determines whether the nation will get a real return on the funds that it invests. Supporting jobs in China through throwing money at people to pay for imports is hardly going to protect Australian jobs. Racking up massive debt is not going to protect Australian jobs.

Most Australians are now starting to question the Rudd government’s spendathon. Most people are starting to now question: is it worth it to receive a $900 cheque in the mail, only to have that replaced by a $900 interest burden per person in the years ahead? People are really waking up to this government, and they are concerned. They are very, very concerned. The policies of this government—the policies that this government has set in train—are going to create outcomes that will ultimately destroy jobs, not create or support jobs. After all, it is the private sector that will be employers, both large and small. It will be the private sector that will be the real drivers of job outcomes in this economy in the years ahead.

So why is this government working on a plan—hatching a very clever plan—to make it more difficult for employers to employ people? This government is introducing a vigorous new competitor into the finance markets. The Australian government is going to go out into the finance markets and compete with small business and large business for scarce financial resources. We already have evidence of small businesses having difficulty refinancing their programs and loans. How can small businesses expand? How can they even maintain their current employment numbers if they do not have access to working capital to allow their businesses to thrive? Treasurer Swan and Prime Minister Rudd are out there actively competing with them for those resources.

We also know that money is like any other commodity: it is at the whim of supply and demand. When the demand for funds is massively increased by this government’s reckless spending, only one thing can happen to the price of money. It has to go up. We are going to have small business paying more for its finance, if it can get it, large business paying more for its finance and the government in there actively competing against the private sector for those scarce resources. It is a formula for disaster in the long term.

The other question that this government has to answer is: how can consumers maintain their spending if they will have to pay the higher taxes that will be needed to service this government’s debt? Consumption must fall if disposable income falls; disposable income must fall if taxes rise; and taxes must rise if this debt is going to be repaid. What is worrying people is this notion of a temporary deficit. The Australian people are not silly. Treasurer Swan went waltzing around the country suggesting that there may be a temporary deficit at some stage. He was not guaranteeing that the budget would remain in surplus. Despite the claims during the 2007 election campaign that Kevin Rudd was a fiscal conservative, the Treasurer belatedly acknowledged that there may be need for a temporary deficit. But—shock-horror!—what have the people of Australia recently found out? The temporary deficit may be in the order of six years. To the people of Australia it sounds a very permanent deficit—a very concerning factor.

Spending will be reduced as consumers are forced to pay higher taxes and as businesses and homeowners are forced to pay interest rates as a result of having to compete with this government in the finance markets. It is an absolutely outrageous situation that the recovery will actually be made longer and more painful by this government rather than alleviated. The cash splash and this government’s failure to control its own expenditure will ultimately make the recession longer and more painful.

An interesting little poll was taken on Sky News today. It indicated that 71 per cent of respondents believe that this government has lost control of the nation’s finances—after only 18 months. We saw Whitlam in full flight in the seventies, we saw Keating and Hawke in full flight in the eighties and nineties and now we have Kevin Rudd in full flight on the debt binge in the 21st century. Seventy one per cent of respondents to the poll felt that the government has lost control of its finances. Businesses know that financing is going to become more difficult. The Dunn and Bradstreet business expectations survey in the March quarter showed that 28 per cent of firms were expecting to cut staff and 14 per cent of firms said they were planning to cut investment.

That is not to mention the government making things more difficult through award modernisation. One of my constituents wrote to me and said: ‘All in all, as the result of the so-called modern award, I am considering whether I will continue to operate my business in 2010’—a business which operated for 29 years. It is considering closing down as a result of this government’s award modernisation. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that no business would be worse off and no employee would be worse off—an Orwellian concept in itself—but here we have a business in operation in my electorate for 29 years considering closure as a result of this government’s policy. We have a government that is making the situation worse. We have a government that is actively putting in place policy—(Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The nonsense of this matter of public importance was revealed in the Treasury modelling that was published in the newspapers today. That modelling showed that, were it not for the government’s actions—if the government had not acted to stimulate the economy—200,000 more Australians would be unemployed at the peak of this recession than would otherwise be the case.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many will be unemployed?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is 200,000 Australians, more than all the workers in my electorate; more than all the workers in the electorate of Moncrieff. That is effectively two Olympic stadiums full of people who would have been unemployed if we had adopted the approach of the opposition, which is to do nothing, stand on the sidelines and let the market take its course.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not our approach!

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will see on Thursday night if you have an approach that resembles anything like a policy of doing something about jobs, because every time we offer up an approach it is either criticised from the sidelines or fundamentally opposed. All of the evidence that comes in, whether it is the unemployment data that came in last week, the retail figures for March that came in last week or the housing data for March that came in last week, is clear. The work that this government has undertaken to stimulate the economy is having an effect to protect and support jobs. There are 1½ million people in the retail industry in Australia, such as the people who work at Centro in Bankstown or Bass Hill Plaza in my electorate—people who have jobs because we have stimulated the economy, putting money in people’s pockets that is being spent at shopping centres and supermarkets around the country.

If you want any proof of the effect that that stimulus is having on the economy to protect and support jobs, compare the data for retail figures in Australia to the rest of the world.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To Zimbabwe?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s compare it to America, where they have lost 5.7 million jobs over the last 12 months. People who worked in retail in America 12 months ago do not have a job today because retail figures in America are down. If you look at the retail figures for the United States since November—since Lehman Brothers collapsed—you will see that they have fallen by 2.5 per cent. In Japan it has fallen by 3.1 per cent. That is why people are losing their jobs in the United States and Japan.

All of this money which supports the retail industry supports all of the associated businesses, such as the trucking industry and everybody that is associated with the retail industry. These are people who have jobs today who would not have had jobs if we had not taken this effort and had the energy and the wit to stimulate the economy.

It is not just the retail industry, though: have a look at the housing figures that came out today. You do not hear much criticism from the opposition about the increase to the first home owners grant. They were critical at the start, but now they have become great supporters of it. And why wouldn’t they support it? People that they represent have a first home, have bought back into the great Australian dream, because of that boost to the first home owners grant. The $21,000 that enables somebody to get into the housing market with a brand new home at places like Ropes Crossing in the member for Lindsay’s electorate is creating jobs from laying the slab through to putting tiles on the roof and every job in between, whether the tiler, the builder, the glazier who puts the windows in the sills, the person who lays the tiles or the person who cleans the site at the end of the day. The multiplier effect of all of those jobs is substantial.

The data from March says this: loans for construction are up 13.9 per cent and loans for new dwellings are up 8.8 per cent. That is just the month of March. That is already supporting jobs for all of those tradesmen, all those people on the tools, who I have just mentioned. What does it mean? It means real jobs. The evidence is in. The evidence is on our side; the opposition is on the other. That is why you suddenly hear them go about a little bit quiet on the other side.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give us a debt update.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you an update from the Housing Industry Association. You should not talk about debt, mate, after Sky TV last week. You should be very quiet on debt at the moment. The Housing Industry Association is not a friend of the Labor Party. They are an organisation that is not a signed up member of the Labor Party. The HIA chief economist, Harley Dale, had this to say just today: ‘The consequences of this policy’—that is, our stimulus package of 12 October—’have been more construction activity’—tick—’more jobs’—tick—’and more demand in manufacturing and retail sectors in the first half of 2009 than would otherwise have been the case’.

The substance of this MPI is that the government, through all its activities, has made things worse. That is what the previous speaker said: everything that the government has done has made things worse. I will tell you what: if there was anyone out there making that case other than the opposition you might take them seriously. But whether it is economists or industry representatives, all of the evidence, argument and experts are on one side and the opposition are on the other. If you ask the opposition why they took this approach, why they decided to oppose the stimulus package and why they opposed the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and who advised them to do that, you will hear deafening silence. No-one advised them to do that. They made the decision all on their own for political mischief’s sake. It is all about politics.

If we wait here and listen carefully after asking whether anyone gave them the advice that they should oppose the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—after asking who was the economist or erudite person who told them that it was a good idea to oppose stimulus to the economy at a time of global recession—it sounds like there is nobody there. The only people there are the Crosby Textors of this world, who say, ‘Paint the Labor Party as the party that is miring people in debt and, if that doesn’t work, accuse them of throwing people overboard.’ That is their approach.

This government’s approach is pretty different. It is about creating, supporting and generating jobs in local communities, particularly the ones that need it, whether that is through stimulating the economy by stimulating the retail industry, stimulating the economy by stimulating the housing industry or stimulating the economy by creating jobs at the 9,750 schools across the country. There is a construction site in every school, big or small, across the country in every town, whether a big town like Sydney or a small town like Deniliquin. There are construction jobs everywhere. That is what the education revolution is all about.

I cannot help quoting the AMP chief economist, who only recently said, ‘In other words, the recession would’ve been a lot deeper if it weren’t for the stimulus.’ Isn’t that interesting? Tony Abbott was on Lateline the other night and he conceded that the stimulus was working. He conceded that it was having the desired effect; it was stimulating the economy. But then he said, ‘But if you stimulate the economy, you’ll make the recession deeper and worse.’ I thought I had better have a look at this. Surely by stimulating the economy—by creating jobs—you cannot be making a recession deeper or a recession worse. And according to the AMP chief economist, that is a nonsense argument.

The Liberal Party’s approach to this is: ‘It doesn’t matter how many jobs people lose; don’t worry about the social impact or the human cost. Don’t worry about that. Try and minimise the amount that you spend and let people lose their jobs as a consequence.’ But the less you stimulate the economy, the more jobs that will be lost, the less tax that will come in and the more you have to pay in unemployment benefits. The longer the recession, the deeper the cost and the more social casualties there will be as a consequence. And that is what the economists say. Where is the evidence from them and where is the evidence from anybody that supports their arguments? Again, there is deafening silence.

This is a government which is doing things nationally and on the ground. In my local community, like in every other community around the country, money is being injected to create community infrastructure and that is creating jobs on the ground, whether it is arts centres or car parks—such as another car park in the electorate of Lindsay. There are projects all throughout the country that are creating construction jobs and other jobs across the country.

I was with the Prime Minister in the electorate of Blaxland—my electorate—just last week. In fact, it was the first time a Prime Minister had been to Blaxland in 13½ years. The only time the government ever came to Blaxland in the past was to rip jobs out of it. They ripped 650 jobs out of it by shutting the tax office; they ripped 150 jobs out of it when they shut the immigration office. But this Prime Minister came to Blaxland to help build, create and generate jobs, along with the minister. They are working with people like Bill Kelty and Lindsay Fox—people who have a history of creating jobs and supporting employment in this country—to come up with local solutions to local problems. That is what the budget will be about tonight: creating and generating jobs. This is not the Liberal Party’s approach with all its human cost, which is all about ripping money out of the economy. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance today because it goes to the failure of the Rudd Labor government to create, protect and support jobs. As Phil Coorey pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald today:

TODAY’S federal budget will forecast a record deficit of $58 billion for next financial year while also claiming that the Government’s stimulus packages will save 200,000 people from losing their jobs.

Sounds good, but here’s the rub:

With the two stimulus packages worth a combined $52 billion, the average cost of each job saved—

wait for it—

will be $260,000.

So, on their own figures, to do anything about these jobs will cost $260,000 per job.

As I have said a number of times in this place, the Labor Party walk around this country pretending that they are the friend of the worker. They would have you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they are the party for the workers. Well, they might have been in the past, when real people like Mick Young did wash their hands in Solvol, but in this place today they are all academics, ex-staffers and ex union officials who do not have grassroots working backgrounds. They are the people that are in this place today and they use workers rather than treat workers as their real friends.

The fact of the matter is that, if the Labor Party were true to workers, they would make sure workers had a job. But their record on this is abysmal. Every time the Labor Party gets into government, both at a federal and a state level, what happens? Unemployment goes up. We know that in the Keating years unemployment went to nearly 11 per cent.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Almost a million people.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Almost a million people were without a job in the Keating years.

It took a coalition government to do something about it. When the previous government, the Howard government, came to power in March 1996, the unemployment level was 8.2 per cent. Gradually, as the Howard government’s policies worked, the unemployment level came down. Who would have thought that, with an eight per cent level, we used to fantasise about having a ‘five’ as that figure. We then got excited because we were actually going to put more people in jobs and create a four per cent unemployment level. During the Howard years, the golden years of government in this country, the unemployment level came down to 4.2 per cent—that is what it was when we left office. It had almost halved.

Two million jobs were created in that time. In the less than half a term of this government, they have suddenly reversed that trend and a million people are going to be out of work. Their own forecasts and the forecasts of all reliable commentators in this country say that, by the end of this year, almost a million people are going to be out of work. So much for doing the right thing by the workers! The best thing you can do for a worker is to give them a job. If you really want to represent the workers of this country, make sure they have a job, they are meaningfully employed. That is how they can get a mortgage, they can pay for their own, they do not have to be welfare dependent and they can have self-esteem—unlike the 50,000 people who lost their jobs last month and the 50,000 who lost their jobs the month before that. A rogue figure came out last month of an increase in employment by 20,000. Nobody believes that figure. Even the Prime Minister said the other day that that figure is a rogue figure.

Next month, after this budget, expect the unemployment figure to blow out. In the previous budget, in May last year, they forecast an extra hundred-odd thousand people to be out of work—they actually budgeted for that. Now they are budgeting for a million people to be out of work. So much for being the friend of the workers! They said their initial stimulus package would create 75,000 new jobs. Since October last year, not one new job has been created. That is the track record of this government—they are actually putting people out of work, putting them onto the dole queue. Tonight’s budget is going to confirm that.

Yesterday in the Age Michael Costa said:

“the Prime Minister and his Treasurer don’t know what they’re—

(Time expired)

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to get up and speak about this government’s record in creating, protecting and supporting jobs. I have to deal with the rather bizarre allegation by the member for Boothby that the Labor Party has never thought about jobs or workers but suddenly, after 100 years of campaigning on jobs, has to be reminded by the member for Boothby that jobs are important—it never occurred to us! I think he has forgotten very recent history. I ran in the seat of Robertson, now the most marginal seat in Australia. The minister who lost his seat there, with a massive swing, lost on the basis of a campaign and policy position of, ‘We want to be able to sack people more easily.’ They did not run on a campaign of, ‘We want to protect jobs’; they ran on a campaign of, ‘We want to sack workers more easily and we don’t want to have to put up with any fairness test when we do it.’ That is why it is rather ludicrous for this opposition to come here and say that this Labor government do not care about jobs. Obviously, jobs are the most important thing we deal with. They have not been the most important thing for a week, a month or a year—they have been the most important thing for this government and the Labor Party for 100 years. It is quite ridiculous to be lectured by this particular shadow minister.

Last week at Umina Beach in my electorate of Robertson, I had the pleasure of announcing the Rudd Labor government’s commitment of more than $3 million to help Gosford City Council build a $4.3 million regional recreation precinct. This commitment was part of the government’s $800 million Community Infrastructure Program, part of the largest one-off investment in infrastructure in Australia’s history. The construction of this vital piece of community infrastructure will address a real need, and that is a good thing. It is great to see that we will have a better playground, better fields and better cricket pitches. All this is important, but what is most important is that this $3 million commitment will provide additional jobs in my local area.

You might remember the Mayor of Gosford. He is a Liberal Party stalwart; maybe even you know about him. He was a candidate for the Liberal Party in the last New South Wales election. He said of the Peninsula Recreation Precinct that it will ‘boost the Central Coast in many ways’. He went on to say: ‘This investment … is a supreme opportunity to support local jobs during the current financial climate’. Here we have it stated quite categorically by someone who probably is not a big wheel in the federal Liberal Party, who is not represented in this parliament, but who is smart enough and cares enough about his community to know that the federal government’s initiatives are doing things that are about protecting jobs and saving jobs—and that is a good thing. He is not carping about the fact that they did not think of it first; he is interested in what is happening for his community and in the jobs that are being saved.

And it is not just happening in the peninsula; it is not just happening in my seat. There are examples of this multiplied all around Australia. In virtually every local government in Australia the words of the Liberal Mayor of Gosford are being repeated. They are not just being repeated by Labor members. They are not just being repeated by Labor parliamentarians or party members. They are being reported by community leaders and people all around Australia. They are thrilled that this government is making job creation and protection a major priority.

In addition to these infrastructure measures the government have introduced far-reaching and broadly based economic stimulus packages. It was not just this week; the government have been thinking about this for a very long time. We had the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy in 2008. Did the opposition say, ‘Great! Isn’t it wonderful that this government is doing something about stimulating the economy. Isn’t it great this government is supporting 75,000 jobs’—as this stimulus package did? No. What the opposition said was, ‘We don’t support it; we don’t like it.’ Then we had the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.