Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (5:30 PM) —I rise today to set out a few facts on the employment performance of the Howard government since its election in March 1996. I am pleased that the Minister for Employment Services is in here to listen to these facts. The truth of the matter is that in recent months we have seen the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and a number of government ministers making grandiose claims about the job creating record of the Howard government. In light of this, I wish to bring a few facts to the attention of the House and to the public debate.

Employment growth in Labor's last three years in office was 729,900. In the coalition's 3½ years, it has been 464,000. Yes, a comparison as to job growth throughout both periods coming from the same starting point: 729,000 under Labor and 464,000 under the coalition. That is right, we created 60 per cent more jobs—and I know that the member for Eden-Monaro is ashamed of this government's performance. We created almost twice as many full-time jobs. This is only if you believe the independent Australian Bureau of Statistics—not Martin Ferguson—rather than the government's rhetoric. When it came into office the Howard government cut $2.1 billion from labour market assistance. Alternatively, Labor's comprehensive commitment to the unemployed has since been replaced by the poorly administered Job Network. We can only hope they get it better in the second tender round.

Has this improved employment opportunities for people in the labour market? We know by the fall in the participation rate of almost one percentage point that there are fewer people in the labour market as many have given up hope. But that aside, what has been the impact of the Howard government? Again, according to the ABS, Labor reduced long-term unemployment by over 150,000 between November 1993 and May 1996. Since the coalition began to slash labour market assistance in the mid-1996 period, long-term unemployment has fallen by just 12,000. In 3½ years, it is fair to say that this government has reduced long-term unemployment by just 12,000, not 150,000 as occurred under Labor.

But what about the worst and most disadvantaged—the very long-term unemployed, the hardest cases? How are they faring under a Howard government? Is the Job Network really working for them? What have been the cuts to labour market assistance and what have they done for their job prospects? Under Labor's approach, the number of very long-term unemployed was reduced by over 70,000 between November 1993 and May 1996. From the time the Howard government began to cut labour market assistance, the number of very long-term unemployed has actually increased by 70,000, not reduced by 70,000 as it did under Labor. We are, therefore, talking about the most disadvantaged in the labour market. Surely that is an area of concern for the government.

Let us then go to the issue of youth employment. Let us again look at the facts. In our last three years we reduced youth unemployment by 31,000 and yet, according to the ABS, in 3½ years the Howard government has reduced it by just 23,000. In Labor's last three years we reduced youth unemployment by 30 per cent more than the Howard government has been able to manage in 3½ years. The Howard government's attitude to the unemployed—and I suppose it is best reflected by ongoing comments from the Minister for Employment Services—is that it would sooner insult them than assist them. Yes, that is what it is about: calling them `job snobs' and `people who depend on welfare' rather than realising that they are great Australians who actually want to work—insults rather than positive actions to assist them. I do not believe that that approach or definition can assist the genuinely long-term unemployed, the disadvantaged in the labour market.

So the next time the government want to crow about their record, ask them for the full story. Ask them for what the ABS says; ask them for the facts. Ask them why it is that they do not believe in a fair and equitable society where all Australians have the opportunity to work and to develop their skills. Ask them why it is that the world of work remains beyond the reach of so many Australians and ask them to verify their rhetoric with facts.

I raise these issues in the adjournment debate tonight because I think that the Australian community wants action rather than rhetoric and insults. It wants the facts rather than a deliberate misrepresentation, as occurs in this House—the facts going to the government's performance on the employment front from time to time during question time under the cloud of question time. (Time expired)