Senator BOLKUS(4.12 p.m.) —It is with a degree of regret that the opposition introduces this MPI today. We raise it because the future for the unemployed in Australia is bleak under this government; not just for the unemployed and for young people, for whom there is the prospect of very few jobs and the prospect of fewer places in tertiary institutions, but also for families, for whom this government prescribes a contractionary budget, a budget which will ensure that growth next year and the outgoing years is less than the growth in the economy over recent years. As a consequence, there will be fewer job opportunities.

We also raise this matter today because of the government's cavalier insensitivity to the unemployed. We have a Prime Minister (Mr Howard) who sheds crocodile tears over the unemployed whilst he presides over a budget which reduces the growth rate in our economy. We have a Prime Minister who, whilst feigning concern, declines to set targets for unemployment in this country either for this year or for outgoing years.

He leads the government; but it is led also by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), who has not mentioned unemployment as a concern whilst he has been Treasurer. Not only that, he has actually tried to write unemployment out of the political agenda by writing it out politically from the Reserve Bank's charter. We also have a minister who shows no understanding, no sensitivity and no concern about unemployment or any aspect of her portfolio. She has no idea about economics, no idea about training and no idea about education.

But she is responsible for these three critical areas—areas that provide life opportunities for so many hundreds of thousands of Australians. She is in charge of education, training, schools and work, but she has showed absolutely no application to the fundamental issues in these areas. She claimed in question time today that she is fixing it. She is fixing it by having fewer university places, less funding for universities, fewer resources for schools and fewer jobs.

This is a person to whom this government entrusts the life opportunities of Australia's future generations. She arrogantly dismisses any criticism or any commentary from whatever quarter it might come—high academic quarters or commentators in the media. They are all treated with the same disrespect, disregard and arrogance by this Marie Antoinette of this government.

Nowhere better have we seen this government's disregard for the unemployed than in an interview on The World Today with Senator Vanstone some few weeks ago. When you are looking at unemployment, when you are looking at jobs, you would like to know when the unemployment rate is going to come down. Catherine Job asked what sort of time frame was being looked at, and said, `So we are looking at months, a year, three years, a whole term before your policies do what you say they will do and start pulling unemployment down?' What does Amanda Vanstone say? She says, `Well, I don't really think there is much benefit for anybody, especially for the unemployed.' Is she nominating one month, two months, six months, 12 months or 18 months? How wrong can she be? If you are unemployed, you want to know when your job prospects are going to increase. But, for Amanda Vanstone, she does not care. There is not much benefit for anybody.

Senator O'Chee —`Senator Vanstone' to you.

Senator BOLKUS —Senator Vanstone to anyone, in fact. Calling her by her Christian name is probably one of the kindest things that has been done to her in recent months. When the unemployment rate goes down is one thing; how much it goes down is another.

Catherine Job also asked her about targets. What was the response from Senator Vanstone in terms of targets? She said, `What targets do is shift your focus onto some notional target that you have invented or developed to satisfy the media's need to have a target.' Well, it is not that. Targets are also important for those who are concerned about unemployment. They are important to young people leaving school and to families who may be hitting the unemployment ranks.

She does not care about when the unemployment rate is going to go down or about how much it will go down by. When asked, `Is it going to get better, Senator, before it gets worse?', she said, `That is another futile question, with the greatest of respect.' It goes on. This is a minister who shows absolute disregard for the issues and disregard for the people involved.

This is one of the reasons why we have raised this matter of public importance today. Another one is that, despite presiding over a budget that will increase unemployment, despite bringing forward estimates that will mean much higher unemployment than would have occurred in our economy, this minister's response, this government's response, is to not cater for unemployment, to not try to accommodate it, to not try to train or re-skill the people involved, but to massively cut back on critical programs and to massively cut back on the structures—the CES or otherwise—that are so critical for people seeking employment. This is a government with no new ideas but with old prejudices, and that is what has driven their agenda in this case.

A commitment in this area has to be of two basic characteristics, and that was a commitment that was shown by the previous federal government. Our concern for the jobless was, and continues to be, a genuine commitment. There needs to be the commitment, and we allocated significant energy and resources to the problem. And we did get results: over 700,000 new jobs in three years, which was something that the coalition said that we could never do, and real improvements in the rate of long-term unemployment—a cut by some 35 per cent over three years of Working Nation. In fact, unemployment over that three-year period of Working Nation went down from 11.7 per cent to 8.1 per cent—well towards achieving our target of five per cent by the year 2000.

There are two fundamentals in tackling unemployment. You have to have a goal and you have to have a genuine commitment, and this government has neither. Why not? Because the government is not concerned. It is of secondary importance to them. It is of secondary importance to the extent that Peter Costello wanted to write it out of the Reserve Bank charter. The unemployed in this budget are being treated in the same way as the Aboriginal people, the elderly, migrants and all others who have been targeted by a malicious budget of this sort. Unemployment is of no real concern to the government.

There is one central and disturbing reason for the government not setting targets and not showing a degree of concern. As was evidenced quite clearly in question time today, Senator Vanstone has indicated that some of the distortions that she has been putting out in the media in recent days have been not well based.

The big, fundamental situation was that Senator Vanstone has tried to portray unemployment as being about 8.5 per cent or thereabouts under the previous government's policies and strategies. But it was quite clear from the question and the answer today that she had been advised, on taking office, that unemployment was to go down to five per cent during the course of the next few years up to the year 2000.

Senator Vanstone herself has also acknowledged that unemployment is more likely to rise than decrease. What sort of government is it which comes in with a commitment to reduce unemployment but, within just weeks of taking office, sheds that very fundamental and poor promise? Are the unemployed not of a core concern to you, Senator Vanstone? Are the unemployed not of a core concern to the government? It is quite clear that they are not.

On 21 August this year on Triple J, this minister was asked whether she was concerned that the government's new job programs would work better than the ones that they replaced. She said that, really, she was not concerned about that. She was concerned about getting competition. We have a minister who is presiding over a raft of cutbacks in necessary support mechanisms for the unemployed but also in necessary mechanisms to re-skill and re-train the unemployed to work in new job environments.

The government, in its approach in this area of cutbacks, has shown not just a degree of social vandalism but also a degree of serial slashing. Gone are the jobskills programs, the landcare environment action plans, new work opportunities, job training, special intervention programs, accredited training for youth, skillshare and jobclubs. They are all gone, and regardless of whether organisations such as Access Economics give advice to the government to the effect that these programs are cost effective, these programs are working and these programs are producing necessary results.

The government, in its approach—as I say, serial slashing in this area—has seen fit to do away with the programs because they have a conservative approach to unemployment. First of all, it is not a major concern—not a core concern. Secondly, it is going to have to happen if we are going to get other aspects like inflation right. And, thirdly, the government has no role in supporting those who may be the victims of their policies.

I think Maggie Thatcher put it right when a couple of years ago—talking about her approach, the conservative approach, the Thatcher-Reagan approach to the victims of their economic policies—she said, `Our job is to glory in inequality. The poor will always be with us.' That is the sort of disregard this minister is showing to this particular sector. The minister has no real understanding of the economic issues. That is matched by no real commitment in terms of training and employment programs and matched by no real sensitivity to those who are the victims, and will be the victims, of her disregard and neglect in this area. No wonder she is increasingly being called the Marie Antoinette of this government.