Mr KELVIN THOMSON(5.47 p.m.) —Why is the House debating the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Bill? We are debating this bill for two reasons. The first is that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was caught out misleading the Ray Martin program concerning the extent of his knowledge of AFP investigations into his former colleague Senator Woods. He got into such strife over misleading the Ray Martin program—it is one thing to mislead parliament, but to mislead the Ray Martin program is another thing altogether—that he became desperate for anything to take the heat of that particular issue. So he went on the Laurie Oakes program one Sunday and said, `I've got something to take your minds of this. We've got the work for the dole scheme.'

Dr Kemp —Rubbish!

Mr KELVIN THOMSON —You should go home and change your tie. The second reason we have this bill before us this afternoon is that the government wants to come up with its own pretend solution to unemployment—this Clayton's solution to unemployment from a government which has run up the white flag of surrender where jobs are concerned; a directionless government which has no fair dinkum solution to unemployment.

The Treasurer (Mr Costello), in his televised speech on the budget, mentioned the word `unemployment' only once. For the first time in living memory a budget speech failed to disclose the record on jobs and on growth for the past year. The reason why was simple enough. The Treasurer predicted last year that he would bring the unemployment rate down to 8¼ per cent. Instead, it has risen to 8¾ per cent. The most recent figures show that nearly a quarter of a million people are now long-term unemployed—a 23-month high. The economic growth which was forecast for next year, despite the pick-up in the world economy, comes in at just 3¾ per cent—still under the four per cent which the Prime Minister and everybody else accept is necessary for any genuine, serious reduction in unemployment.

We have another 16,500 Public Service jobs to go next year. There are no job creation schemes worth the name. There is no restoration of the labour market programs which were savaged last year. They are so crucial for job readiness and training in skills. There are no new regional programs worth having and, indeed, there is a further assault on export promotion spending.

In my own electorate of Wills and in the area of the north-western suburbs of Melbourne we are seeing alarming employment statistics after a year of this government in office. The latest Bureau of Statistics data reveal a fall in the number of people employed in the north-west statistical region to 104,600. That is 4,300 fewer people in work in this region than in the previous month and over 16,000 fewer than a year ago. Those latest figures mean that jobs have disappeared quicker in the north-west region than in any other part of metropolitan Melbourne. We have had a change during the past year, from April 1996 to April 1997, of 16,000 fewer people in work. That is a 13.7 per cent drop. So unemployment in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne has risen and we are now the jobs black spot of Melbourne.

I believe that the government needs to change its job destroying policies of public sector job shedding and cuts in support for manufacturing industry. We urgently need a change in policy. Instead, what we get is the work for the dole scheme with its shabby and demeaning title, which the opposition will certainly seek to amend.

The Prime Minister, in his announcement, spoke of mutual obligation between the community and unemployed people. Let me say right out front that I have no problem with mutual obligation or reciprocal obligation—the obligation of unemployed people to look for work and to make their services available to the community in these sorts of ways. The Labor Party indeed pioneered the term `reciprocal obligation' in its job compact between the government and the unemployed as part of the Working Nation jobs programs.

But reciprocal obligation is a two-way street. The government has obligations also to create real training opportunities and jobs for the unemployed. But this mutual obligation takes the government out of the equation. What we have is the slashing of $1.8 billion from properly paid and structured labour market programs getting unemployed people job ready and getting unemployment down. We have a government whose cuts to labour market programs have meant that an estimated 117,000 young unemployed people have lost access to these programs. Those opposite have the nerve to come in here and say, `Look at us. We want a pat on the back. We're introducing a work for the dole scheme for 10,000 people,' yet they have cut places for 117,000 young unemployed people. Make no mistake, this is a mickey mouse program.

Work for the dole projects will not provide proper training. They are not even designed to lead to a real job. The people participating in the projects will not have the protection of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act or the Workplace Relations Act.

Under this government, the overall unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate have both risen, reversing their downward trend under Labor. What we have here is a scheme simply designed to divert attention from the government's complete failure to deliver on its promise to generate real jobs for young people and, indeed, divert attention from other scandals which were besetting the government.

In their view, unemployment is a problem only for taxpayers. If people are working for the dole, taxpayers will feel happier about their taxes contributing to the jobsearch allowance or unemployment benefits, and therefore the problem is solved and will go away. But unemployment is much more than that. It is a problem—a most serious problem—for the unemployed themselves. It does lead to increases in crime, it does lead to family breakdown and it does lead to suicide, as other speakers have mentioned. It is also a problem for the nation in that we fail to utilise our productive capacity. This is no solution for the problem of unemployment at all.

This kind of solution is not acceptable not only to the Labor Party but also to leaders of Australian churches, who have pointed out that work for the dole risks deploying youth as cheap labour and has the debilitating image of earning handouts. To this end, we will be proposing amendments designed to make this a genuine, fair dinkum labour market program which the community could indeed be proud of.

We believe that the scheme must not displace existing workers. We believe that resources need to be made available to enable payment activity at the relevant national training wage award rate. We believe that participants should be guaranteed accredited on- or off-the-job training within the work activity, that appropriate case management and supervision should be available to all participants to assist them making decisions about opportunities under work for the dole arrangements. We think that participants need to be able to leave the scheme, to accept employment opportunities without penalty and that access to financial assistance ought to be available to potential employers to cover costs such as supervision and materials. Through these sorts of amendments, this program can be turned into something worth while which, presently, regrettably, it is not.

Not only does the bill do nothing to address the underlying causes of unemployment, but also its other genesis comes from the opinion polls. The Prime Minister(Mr Howard) and the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Dr Kemp) have declared to the House that the government is encouraged by strong public support. I have to say that I and many other members have received a lot of negative feedback from young people who want to know why the government feels compelled to beat them up. They want to know why the government does not believe that they are searching earnestly for work when they spend a great many hours each week applying for jobs, interviews and so on.

This comes from a party which has a great fascination with public opinion polling. We have seen a bevy of ministers denouncing the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) in recent days, not because anything she said in recent days was extraordinary by her standards, but because Liberal Party technocrats had examined the polls and concluded that not to say anything might lead Australians to believe that the Prime Minister was weak and vacillating. Well it might! Like Rasputin, the pollsters have the Prime Minister and his cabinet in a trance. It is those same technocrats who informed the Prime Minister at the height of the Bob Woods affair that something was needed to distract media attention.

At the heart of the work for the dole bill is a belief by a lot of people on the other side of the chamber that people who are on the dole do not look hard enough for work. That is simply not my experience. My experience is that there are simply not enough jobs around for a lot of people who are serious and sincere in their desire to find work. Many on the other side have allowed themselves to support this bill not because they believe that it will genuinely address unemployment but because they know that it is driven by opinion polls. They are as desperate as the Prime Minister to see the government's flagging popularity restored. Just because something is—to quote the fictional Frontline producer—sexy, does not mean that it is good policy.

By supporting this bill, members opposite are pandering to base politics. It will do nothing to solve unemployment, and they know it. It is simply a smokescreen, a mask, to enable them to claim that they are doing something about unemployment and, as such, it is a disgraceful tactic and one which Liberal and National Party members should have no part of. At the same time that the Prime Minister is finally castigating the member for Oxley over her politics on race, he is engaging in the same baseline political tactics on unemployment—and we wonder how he manages to stay relaxed and comfortable with this duplicity.

The bill before the House does absolutely nothing for unemployed Australians. It will not create one additional job. It will create additional bureaucratic red tape, but it will not create a single constructive job which adds wealth to this nation. It is ironic, and indeed tragic, that the government is introducing this bill at the same time that its poor record on employment is becoming clearer.

As I indicated earlier, we have seen jobs shrinking in the north-west and certainly no action is being taken by this government which will provide lasting work of value to people in my electorate. What I believe the government needs to do is to reverse the job cutting policies which it has engaged in over the course of the past year. It needs to restore the Working Nation programs, which were getting unemployment down to five per cent by the year 2000. It needs to provide fair dinkum support to manufacturing industry.

It is regrettable that its cuts to manufacturing have had such an unfortunate and adverse effect in my electorate. It needs to ensure that public sector services remain healthy and that regions get support. Those are the things that it needs to do in order to provide real long-term, lasting jobs in this community, jobs which will be of genuine benefit to all Australians.

The Labor Party will not be opposing this legislation, but we will be moving a raft of amendments designed to improve it. They are designed to make it a fair dinkum labour market program which will be of benefit to unemployed people and to restore it from the shabby state in which it was introduced to this House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cobb) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.