Mr JENKINS(11.55 a.m.) —In debating the estimates for this portfolio and especially in the discussions concerning unemployment, there is a need to stress the locational disparity of the unemployment figures. That needs to be stressed to this government because it does not seem to acknowledge that that is the case. It is not only the absolute figures that we are concerned with, the fact that there has been an inability by the government to reduce unemployment, but also the fact that on a regional basis, as has been outlined by the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), in areas such as rural Victoria there has been increasing unemployment.

If you look at the unemployment figures in a region like mine, which I share with the member for Batman and the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), and although the figures are not sufficiently disaggregated easily, we know that long-term unemployment is increasing. Traditionally, in a region like the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, that has been a factor within the unemployment figures, that the long-term unemployed in the region that we represent is great. Also, if you look at the figures that are supplied by the Bureau of Statistics you will see that in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne that female unemployment has increased by a large amount recently.

What I am trying to do by highlighting those factors is get the government to understand that it just cannot have a broad brush approach to the problems of unemployment. I also want to say that those programs that have not yet wound down, and those programs that are applauded by people like the Minister for Schools (Dr Kemp), are targeting areas where there is already a good labour market. They do not target areas where there are disadvantaged, unemployed people.

You find that when you have things like the pathways programs going into schools, that that has been targeted to areas where it is for the easy outcomes. It is in areas where the labour market is in a more healthy condition than it is in other areas. There appears to be this tendency to put the programs in where they can get the easy mark. There does not appear to be a willingness to develop programs that are going to attack unemployment in regional areas such as the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

There the problems of unemployment have been very severe for a long time, and there the problems have been exacerbated by the opening up of the economy to international factors. Things like tariff reductions have already had a dramatic effect there. That is why schemes like special assistance to people involved in the passenger motor vehicle industry and in TCF were so important.

In the area I represent we had both those industries as major employers. The dramatic effects of tariff reductions have been felt, and there is a need to target those people who are losing jobs in those industries. That is a feature that over the last year and a bit we have lost. This government is unable to understand that we should be maximising outcomes to ensure that unlike the United Kingdom and unlike the United States we do not see this continuing marginalisation of large areas of the nation. That is what will happen unless we attack and target areas of greatest disadvantage.

If we do not have that as one of our primary reasons for putting in place programs it will lead to the same problems of social dislocation and all the other matters that we see highlighted in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. I implore the ministers and the parliamentary secretary, who has been good enough to stay for this long debate, to have a look at these matters. They are important, and the government needs to be looking at ways in which it can at least give hope to people who are finding it difficult to find employment, and to areas that are going to be in even more difficulty unless they get this type of assistance.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Attorney-General's Department

Proposed expenditure, $786,701,000