Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister is: why does this budget actively choose a future of high unemployment and low wages for the Australian people when it could be bringing down unemployment to the level that we had in this country in the years between World War II and the 1970s? Why is the Treasurer satisfied with a goal of six per cent unemployment instead of two per cent unemployment, which is what used to be considered full employment in this country?

One of the things that we've learnt throughout the response to this pandemic is that government expenditure can bring down the level of unemployment. The last government speaker just made a big point about how it was forecast to be 12 per cent—but government expenditure and finally realising that a surplus wasn't the be-all and end-all—but the government decided to put jobs first. When the government did that it brought down unemployment—that could have been 12 per cent—to eight per cent. The last government speaker made a big point about that. If the government can bring down unemployment by four per cent why aren't we aiming for a target of well below three per cent unemployment in this country? Why are we content, in this government, with a high unemployment future of at least six per cent for the foreseeable future, which is what the Treasurer has said would be his goal?

This is going to have a huge impact for young people in particular, because going into this pandemic, nearly one in three young people either didn't have a job or didn't have enough hours of work—and that figure has gone up to closer to four in 10. It is going to stay high if the government continues with its approach of actively choosing high unemployment.

There are things this country needs. We need more social and public housing so that people have a roof over their head. If we invested in public housing we'd create jobs. Build half a million new public housing homes and you create 40,000 jobs, plus 4,000 apprenticeships, over the next 10 to 15 years. Build us to get to 100 per cent renewable energy, expand the aged-care and university sectors instead of cutting them and you lift unemployment.

My question to the government is: why persist with at least six per cent unemployment, which translates to two million people in this country either not having a job or not having enough hours of work when we have learnt from this pandemic that government investment can bring down the level of unemployment? So why not?

My question is: why does the budget not include a jobs guarantee for young people? Young people could be guaranteed a job on nation-building, planet-saving projects that would tackle the climate crisis, tackle the inequality crisis and help us get out of the economic recession that we are in as a result of coronavirus. In other words, if the doctor tells you that you have got three things wrong with you and that they can give you a medicine that fixes all three or a medicine that just fixes one of them you take the medicine that fixes all three. We have got that medicine. It is called government investment, government investment in nation-building projects that could help bring down our emissions, reduce inequality in this country and get unemployment back to two per cent. That's the level that it was for decades between World War II and the 1970s. This government is now actively choosing an unemployment level of closer to six per cent. It says it is comfortable with a target of closer to six per cent.

I want to reiterate the point that the government is choosing two million people either having not enough work or having no job at all, when it has just admitted that through investment it could bring it down even lower. It's going to be a devastating blow and create a lost generation of young people. Imagine being a young person at the moment trying to find a job in your area if you are in the area of hospitality, arts or entertainment? It is goings to be a long road for you to find secure and stable employment.

The government has just admitted, through its speakers, it could bring down the level of unemployment lower if it wanted to. It is just choosing not to. Not only is that going to be bad for young people and for the one million Australians at the moment who don't have a job—that this government has turned its back on and decided to keep them unemployed—but it's going to be bad for everyone else's wages as well, because the higher unemployment is the harder it is going to be for people in jobs to get good and decent wages. This is going to put a brake on wage growth. My question to the government is: why are you actively choosing to lock in high unemployment and low wage growth in these budget papers when with significant government investment we could get back to full employment in this country and tackle the challenges this country is facing?

See this speech in context