Mr COBB(8.01 p.m.) —It is a little hard to get a handle on exactly what this motion, moved by the member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), is driving at. It seems to call upon governments and business to cease shedding jobs and instead start increasing employment. That is a fine objective, but surely the mover of the motion is not denying that there are times when labour does have to be shed.

If that is not what the mover of the motion means, then there are some parts that I can certainly agree with. If not, I think it is a somewhat simplistic and contradictory motion and would need heavy qualification. But I shall try to be positive in my comments on it. Life in the real world is fairly complicated and it is necessary from time to time, unfortunately, to lay people off, and anybody who has been in that position, as previous speakers have indicated, will know how difficult that is. It is one of the hardest things you ever have to do in your life.

The unemployment figures in this country have not been joyous ones under any government. When we last lost power in 1983, according to the seasonally adjusted figures, 691,000 people were out of work—a figure far too high. The metal trades decision did not help that. We had world inflation and we had a drought at the time. When we took over power again in March 1996, 811,000 people were out of work. The seasonally adjusted figure was 771,000—an increase after 13 years of 80,000, despite the well-intentioned ideals of the Labor Party to reduce that figure and despite us hearing in question time day after day about the millions of jobs the previous government had created.

There were obviously other factors in the equation that were never mentioned, such as population increases and so on. This is something that has been happening over the last 25 years or so. When we previously left power in 1972, 161,000 people, seasonally adjusted, were out of work. When we took over in 1975, 335,000 people, seasonally adjusted, were out of work and that figure was soaring because of the many things that were laid down in the three years of the Whitlam government.

The structure of unemployment is particularly worrying—just as worrying, if not more so, than the number. The long-term unemployed, who remarkably used to number in the hundreds back in 1972, are today numbered in the hundreds of thousands. I think the figure has climbed to something like 30 per cent of the total unemployed—231,000 on my calculation at the last election this year, which was probably a somewhat artificially low figure because of many of the labour market programs into which they were absorbed.

There is also the phenomenon of part-time work increasing greatly over the last decade or so and there has been a soaring increase in those that experience underemployment. We have to take these factors into consideration. Government, of course, impedes many jobs. I guess everybody on both sides of the chamber wants to see us as close as we can get to full employment.

Business gets bound up in red tape—rules and regulations—higher than necessary taxes in many cases and a very rigid wage system in this country, even though it is starting to free up. The on-costs to business of employing someone are horrific. They approach 50 per cent in some areas with fringe benefits tax, superannuation, workers compensation, the training guarantee levy—remember that?—and all of those sorts of things. Those costs make it harder and harder to employ people.

As well as that, I think most people recognise the urgent need to get rid of the unfair dismissal law in this country. That is probably stopping tens of thousands of people from getting jobs. Business has been constantly besieged with these rules, regulations and taxes which force them, if anything, to shed labour more than they otherwise would as we have just moved through a recession. Many businesses have even given up.

Looking at the government side of employment, Australia has had a pretty proud record with the Public Service in the past. That reputation has slipped somewhat in recent years. The quality of the work done through inadequate supervision and rules and regulations, and the politicisation of the Public Service is a disturbing trend in my opinion. In December 1995 the Australian Public Service comprised 145,000 people. In the main areas in which they were employed there were about 20,000 each in the Department of Social Security, the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office.

It is interesting to note the turnover in the Public Service, which takes place naturally all the time, since we left government in 1983. Something like 0.3 per cent of those that moved out of jobs in the Public Service were moved forcibly, whereas today the figure is almost 50 per cent—49 per cent on my last reading. Forty-nine per cent of those who move out of the Public Service are forced to do so. That is something that has to be looked at very seriously indeed and the motion does not take that into account.

We also have to look at the fact that every time a public servant is employed their wages and on-costs have to be paid for by taxing someone in business or creating a lower standard of living by increasing taxes on wage earners. That is another part of the equation, as desirable as it is to have a certain public service around this country.

I do agree with that part of the motion that refers to the way in which some elements of the private sector have knocked out part of their work force in recent years. I know it is easy to get stuck into the banks, but they have been particularly remiss in this area in my electorate just in recent years, since I have been a member in the area that I now hold or have held. The banks have left Gulargambone, Tullibigeal, Eugowra, Canowindra and Brewarrina. Two have just announced that they are going from the town of Trangie and one is about to go from Narromine and Peak Hill.

I admit that the method of banking is changing in this country. People with loans are largely catered for by mobile banking in this country. A person with the knowledge with a laptop computer drives to your door. If you have a loan over $300,000 or $500,000 they talk to you about it and you do not have a need to go to the bank, as such. They also entice customers from the smaller towns to the larger towns where their loans can be more properly assessed.

The trouble with that is that the banks find they are running at a loss in these smaller towns and they are pulling out. It is not only the job losses of the employees in the towns that are of concern, but also the loss of an institution that has often been there for 100 to 150 years in many of these towns. The National Bank in Brewarrina has been there for 122 years and they are now getting out of Brewarrina. That is very sad to see indeed.

When you talk to the banking officials they say, `It is not profitable to be in these towns.' I am talking about towns of 1,000 to 3,500 people, such as Narromine. Both banks ann ounced within a day of each other that they were going from Trangie—Westpac and the National Australia Bank. We promised the National Australia Bank, which was the second one to announce the decision, that they would get all the Westpac customers plus customers coming back from the larger centres like Dubbo. They could have increased their business, on the promises that we had, by 245 per cent. Even after that, they said that there was still a fourfold shortfall on what they would need to be profitable in Trangie. They said they needed $10 million to $15 million on their books to make it viable.

Quite frankly, I think the banks have to look at themselves. The credit unions tell me that they can go into these towns and offer virtually the same services with one-tenth of the book value—about $1½ million. The only thing they cannot do is give expertise for the large commercial loans. They are working on tying in links with PIBA, the primary industry bank, so that this can be done. If this happens we will see credit unions springing up in country towns all around Australia as the banks move out of these towns. That will be the ultimate answer for the downsizing that has been taking place in these banks in country towns around Australia. I am pleased to see that there is an answer emerging so country people can retain their services in these areas.