Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a privilege it is to follow my good friend Senator McDonald from Queensland. I must say, Senator McDonald, you bring many things to this place which are totally relevant, absolutely relevant, to the bill which we're considering here this evening, including the perspective of someone who's actually managed a business and employed people in the private sector. These are exactly the people we're targeting with this incentive to go out and give that young person a go, give that young person their first opportunity for a job, in the midst of a one-in-100-years pandemic. That's the experience you bring—lots of experience.

The other experience Senator McDonald brings is that of regional Queensland. Senator McDonald is of regional Queensland. She understands regional Queensland and she understands what this incentive means to businesses of all types in regional Queensland—the incentive to give young regional Queenslanders a job.

Lastly—she of course stole most of the lines I was going to use in relation to a previous Greens speaker, but there's plenty of material to go around in that regard—a material point I'd like to make in relation to this legislation and some of the contributions made by previous speakers is this: the issue of administration was raised; so will there be too much administration imposed on small businesses? Will that act as a disincentive, so small businesses won't employ those extra young people? I say this to you: Why not give it a go? Why not see if it works? Why not see if it does provide young people with an opportunity to get employment? Treasury's estimate is that this will provide 450,000 young people with an opportunity for employment. Why wouldn't you give it a go and see if it works? Why not? What have you got to lose?

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I'll take that interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson. If the $4 billion is actually spent on the scheme, that means 450,000 young people would have had the opportunity to get work. Surely that means it has worked. It's actually provided employment, and that's $4 billion which has been well spent. So I don't understand. There's an inherent lack of logic in those opposing this scheme. On one hand, people say it's not going to work and then, on the other hand, they're complaining that it's going to cost $4 billion. But, if it costs $4 billion, then it's provided hundreds of thousands of young people with jobs. Opportunity cost—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson, providing employment to 450,000 young people seems like a pretty good use of $4 billion to me in the middle of a pandemic. It really does.

The second point that was raised in objection to the bill was in relation to the fact that it's focused on young people. I, for one, think that it's fit and proper that it is directed at young people. As Senator McDonald eloquently put it, we need to make sure that we do not have a lost generation in the middle of this one-in-100-year pandemic. As Senator McDonald alluded to, I can remember graduating from university in 1992 in the middle of the recession we had to have. It was difficult to find jobs.

Debate interrupted.