Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. There are more than a million Australians still on JobKeeper, and many are still dealing with the effects of border closures, delayed vaccinations and now floods. Today, Treasury has told Senate estimates that it expects 100,000 to 150,000 jobs could be lost after the Treasurer cuts JobKeeper this weekend. Why is the government leaving so many workers behind? How many of them could he afford to support beyond this weekend if he hadn't wasted so much money on companies which didn't need it?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again the member for Rankin selectively quoted the Secretary of the Treasury, because when the Secretary of the Treasury made that statement he did also continue to say:

This does not mean that there will be a commensurate increase in unemployment.

The Secretary of the Treasury did make a number of statements, including—and I would like to put these into the Hansard:

The relatively smooth transition from JobKeeper 1.0 to 2.0 gives us reason to believe that the effects will again be moderated by the strong economic and labour market recovery—

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will pause. The member for Rankin will leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Rankin then left the chamber.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said:

The relatively smooth transition from JobKeeper 1.0 to 2.0 gives us reason to believe that the effects will again be moderated by the strong economic and labour market recovery, the ongoing easing of restrictions, the changes that businesses have been making to their operating models and broader policy support measures that are in place.

The Secretary of the Treasury went on to say:

It is important to consider labour market disruptions at the end of JobKeeper in the context of the normal flows into and out of employment.

He went on to say:

So the flow of people out of JobKeeper positions is within the normal flows of employment that we regularly observe.

The Secretary of the Treasury told the committee today:

In our view it is appropriate for the program—

that is, JobKeeper—

to end as other support measures take effect and to allow the economy to continue adjusting.

He went on to say:

As noted in Treasury's JobKeeper Review, the program has a number of features that create adverse incentives which are likely to become more pronounced as the economy recovers.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fenner will leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Fenner then left the chamber.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said:

In particular, it distorts wage relativities, it dampens incentives to work, it hampers labour mobility and the reallocation of workers to more productive roles and it keeps businesses afloat that would not be viable without ongoing support.

Then the Secretary of the Treasury told the committee today:

Our view is that the adjustment away from JobKeeper will be manageable, and that employment will continue to increase over the course of this year …

That is what the Secretary of the Treasury told the committee today. Their advice to the government is that JobKeeper will end and the trajectory of the unemployment rate will continue to be down over the course of the year.

We have delivered more jobs and we have helped to cushion the blow from the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. This is what we have done. This is what we will continue to do.