Topics: Jobs, Renewable Energy Target and national security
E&OE…
David Lipson
I’m joined now by Parliamentary Secretary Senator Scott Ryan, and Shadow Education Minister Amanda Rishworth. Scott Ryan, good morning to you. Is this a back down? It was to be 40 jobs per month, now 20.
Scott Ryan
Well it’s consultation, David. The Government put out a draft discussion paper. We sought feedback from the sector, from employers, from providers and the announcement today reflects the feedback we heard and the feedback we received. It reflects the fact that the Government listened to the people involved in the sector. We don’t apologise for…
Lipson
So what was that? What was the main concern that the consultations had?
Ryan
Well as I understand it there were 60submissions. Some of the feedback, I’m not familiar with all of it, but some of the feedback reflected the fact that there would be a potentially increased burden on small businesses. And so what we’ve done and what the Government’s announced is a policy that maintains the20 job applications per month, but again dramatically expands Work for the Dole so people under the age of 30 in the Work for the Dole program will be participating for 25 hours per week. It’s to maintain that level of engagement that is so important to maintain participating in the labour market.
Lipson
Amanda Rishworth, as Scott Ryan just said this is about consultation. They sought input, they put a draft report out, they got input and they’ve adjusted their policy accordingly. What’s wrong with that?
Amanda Rishworth
Well look, I would say that this was an ill-thought through policy, not one that actually would work, or indeed Labor and everyone in the sector indeed businesses, organisations that work with young unemployed people were saying this was just a silly, a silly proposal that was trying to talk tough but of course wouldn’t have got the outcomes that were necessary for young jobseekers. And indeed for small business it would have meant just hundreds and hundreds of resumes coming in, and they would have to sift though and actually and likely those people wouldn’t be suitable for hose jobs. So clearly this was an ill-thought through policy and it should never have been announced in the first place, and it’s not surprising now that the Government is slinking away from this policy that was harsh and also quite ridiculous in the first place.
Lipson
Scott Ryan, I’ll get your response on that. Was it ill-though through?
Ryan
Well firstly, despite the inflated rhetoric of Amanda there, I mean is she criticising the Government for floating an option and then listening? I suppose with her record in the previous government, where they didn’t listen to stakeholders, that could be perceived as a condemnation. But let’s be realistic about what was proposed; it was 40 contacts not 40 job applications. That’s a very important difference, but what it’s aimed at is actually ensuring young people don’t disengage from the labour market.
Lipson
Just to pick you up on that, when arguing the case for this Eric Abetz made very clear, he said somewhat infamously I suppose you could say ‘ one job search in the morning and one in the afternoon – that’s not too much to ask’.
Ryan
Well, I heard Luke Hartsuyker this morning as well, and he was talking about contacts and the justification for really driving people to make contact with employers is to prevent young people in particular from disengaging from the labour market. Now we don’t make any apologies for the fact that forcing people to engage in the labour market through earn-or-learn policies, through forced numbers of contacts with employers, through work for the dole arrangements is critical in ensuring that we don’t have a long-term unemployment problem like the one we inherited in 1996.
Lipson
Ok, so is it 20 contacts or 20 job searches? What are we talking about now?
Ryan
Sorry David, I just missed that.
Lipson
Is it 20 contacts as you described it earlier, or is it 20 job searches?
Ryan
As I understand it David, the proposal for 40 included contacts. The announcement from the Minister and the Assistant Minister for Employment will be made later this morning, and those details will be answered then.
Lipson
Amanda Rishworth?
Rishworth
Well I think the Government really needs to get back to basics and shows us where their plans for jobs are. Where is your plan for jobs? Where is your plan for jobs for young people in this country? Because one of the big missing items is your plan to get young people into jobs, Scott, is the fact that you don’t have a policy around creating jobs in this country so that would be a good start. Of course ensuring young people get meaningful training and meaningful support is also important, and of course you’ve cut a whole range of prevention and transition programs that were assisting young people; so it’s all well and good to talk the talk and come up with lib policies like you’re going to have to apply for 40 jobs a month, but actually when we get down to the substance young people need support and they also need the jobs to apply for.
Lipson
Well speaking about support for employment … I’ll give you just 20 seconds if you like Scott to reply.
Ryan
The one thing Amanda doesn’t talk about there is the fact that under Labor, private sector job growth had collapsed. We were down to less than 10,000 jobs a month being created by the private sector at one point towards the end of the Labor Government. And the most important thing a Government can do is to allow a business to grow and invest and supply those jobs opportunities, and that’s what Labor’s policies did so much to kill.
Lipson
And speaking of the industry, the jobs industry, I did want to look at the Renewable Energy Target. We see these reports today that Labor, Amanda Rishworth, is prepared to exempt the aluminium smelter industry from this target of 41,000 gigawatt hours. Why would the aluminium sector be exempt from that target?
Rishworth
Well let’s first of all actually focus on the Renewable Energy Target and what Tony Abbott has done through his uncertainty and his mucking around, which was a bipartisan commitment before the election …
Lipson
We can get on to that, but can you confirm that Labor has given this commitment?
Rishworth
Well what I’ll say is that we have committed to work in a bipartisan way to get the Renewable Energy Target back on track, to continue to attract investment and ensure the focus is on promoting that investment in renewable energy and the jobs that come along with it. Now, obviously we said we would look at sensible proposals, not those in the Warburton Review, they were not sensible proposals. We said we would look at other proposals and work with the Government, including looking at the aluminium industry.
Let’s remember that with the Renewable Energy Target, as set up with John Howard, there was no support for the aluminium smelter industry. Under Labor’s Renewable Energy Target there was support for the aluminium industry, so we’ll continue to look at sensible proposals to get investment in this area back on track. But Tony Abbott has trashed the confidence in renewable energy, and indeed we need to get it back on track to ensure there is investment and confidence in jobs. We have dropped significantly in our investment in renewable energy because Tony Abbott has trashed this bipartisan approach, so we will work with the Government to get it back on track but not when it comes to what was in the Warburton Review which was not the right approach.
Lipson
And just before I get a response from Scott, Amanda, this will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
Rishworth
Well look, we will work as I said to get the Renewable Energy Target back on track. Also our focus is obviously on jobs, and as I said under the Renewable Energy Target there was support for the aluminium industry under our previous scheme so we’re happy to look at that and the jobs that go along with it. But what we won’t do is trash the Renewable Energy Target, trash the investment in renewable energy and trash business confidence. These are all things that the Abbott Government has done when it comes to renewable energy.
Lipson
Senator Ryan, would a deal like this deliver certainty to the sector which, as we understand it, has seen investment plummet since the review from Dick Warburton?
Ryan
Well let’s put the review in context, David. The review is a mandated review, the review is a report to the Government and it’s a review that was in the legislation put in place by the previous government, the Labor Party. So let’s put the review in context.
I read the reports this morning about the point you make about aluminium. I can’t comment on the veracity of them, but in due course the Government will be making an announcement in response to the report because it was a report to the Government, it wasn’t Government policy. But in response to what Amanda says there, the Government doesn’t make any apologies for looking at the costs that we impose on Australian businesses and making sure that Australian businesses don’t have costs imposed on them that make them uncompetitive against other nations businesses where they don’t have similar costs imposed on them. And electricity is a huge input into aluminium smelting, and I don’t think anyone can deny that policies that force up the price of electricity have an impact on aluminium smelting.
Now when it comes to jobs and investment, the truth is you don’t guarantee jobs and investment through forcing up the price of doing business and forcing up the price of a business to subsidise another. That’s what the review was aboutm to try and determine what is the cost of this policy, does it achieve the objectives outlined for it, and can we do it more cheaply?
Lipson
Ok, we’ve got to take a quick break here on AM Agenda … oh no, I am being told that we’re getting pretty close to the news conference from Tony Abbott, perhaps I’ll put that same …
(Press conference with the Prime Minister)
He also interestingly ruled out tax cuts to pay for the involvement in Iraq, estimated at some $500 million a year, and he said that this was something in a $400 billion a year budget, that it was essentially something that could be absorbed. We’ve still got our political panel here. I want to just get a quick response from Scott Ryan on that point. So ruling out tax cuts, $500 million a year isn’t nothing, that’s $2 billion over the forward estimates, is it wise to rule out tax increases to pay for this considering that actual commitment itself is open-ended?
Ryan
Well I think there’re two important points the Prime Minister made there, David. One is that we have a $400 billion a year budget, and so while significant, several hundred million dollars can be managed within that $400 billion budget. But he also made the point, and I think this is particularly important, that what we are doing in Iraq is a core part of our national security business. There is a real threat to Australia from foreign fighters and from terrorism spreading around the globe and national security is the prime responsibility of government. And so for that reason and the fact that we do have a significantly large budget, this can be accommodated within existing revenues.
Lipson
Amanda Rishworth, one may assume that there will have to be further savings made if those targets are to be met. You know if you add the $630 million boost to intelligence agencies here in Australia as well.
Rishworth
Well look, obviously there is bipartisanship support for our mission in Iraq. We do believe that our national security, and also playing our bit in this international force is critically important. But when it comes to broader Budget measures, obviously the Government isn’t able to get a number of their really regressive Budget measures through the Parliament and so the Government’s flagged that they’ll be looking for further cuts and hasn’t ruled out tax increases more generally. So, while it might not be associated with this certainly the Government is saying that they haven’t ruled out or more cuts, and the opposition wants them to be up front about where those will come from.
Lipson
Amanda Rishworth, Senator Scott Ryan. Thank you both for your time this morning.
(Ends)