Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1167 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Greens are very concerned about the lack of a strategic approach to job creation and industry planning, and we are glad that Labor has picked up this concern. Aside perhaps from the IT industry, this Government has not done its homework in developing an industry plan. In the environmental industry, this is particularly apparent.

In February 1997, I put a question on notice to the Chief Minister. I asked whether or not the Government had information on what industries and occupations within industries are the main contributors to employment growth and employment decline. The answer was:

Private sector employment and unemployment trend data for (a) industry and (b) occupation are not published by the ABS ...

I also asked:

What projections have been made for the coming year(s) about industries and occupations within those industries that are likely to contribute to (a) employment and (b) unemployment?

The answer was:

There are no projections about industries and occupations that are likely to contribute to (a) employment and (b) unemployment.

There is no evidence from this Government of analysis about the employment growth potential within existing industry sectors or future areas of job growth. If the Government has made no projections about growth in particular sectors, how can we therefore ensure that government assistance is most strategically placed to achieve higher rates of socially useful employment at the least cost per job? The Government needs to get much better at tracking jobs growth and assessing value for money.

I might not have been in this Assembly for very long, but there are some short memories here. It is a sleight of hand to claim that this is the biggest single injection of funds ever into jobs, when two years ago the budget for labour market and training programs was cut from $4.1m to $1.6m. The presentation of the jobs paper this year is at least more honest, because additional money, or catch-up money, is separated out from money allocated to maintaining existing programs. There are some proven winners. The Youth Joblink program is obviously very successful. It is a pity that our public transport system stops people getting to the jobs, however.

The traineeship program, Youth500, has potential too, if the take-up rates are there. I think it was Bill Kelty who recently was talking about the benefits of the training and apprenticeship programs over the past few years in Australia, and I hope that they will grow in the environmental area as this industry grows. Programs like this still do not guarantee long-term jobs, and that is why this sort of training program must be linked into strategic industry development. I think a program of this sort to retrain older people is also needed, particularly as the NEIS program is ending, although this is offset to a degree - by about half - by increasing the New Future in Small Business program.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .