ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (15:51): This afternoon, I would like to thank the former prime minister Kevin Rudd, his treasurer Wayne Swan (the current Deputy Prime Minister) and our current Prime Minister for the work that they have done on the economic stimulus package.

It is quite clear to me that that package was of particular benefit to the people in Reynell. If we look at the occupations of Reynell residents, 19.4 per cent of them work in the technicians and trades workers area, compared with 14.2 per cent across the Adelaide metropolitan area. Sixteen per cent are labourers compared with 10.9 per cent across the Adelaide metropolitan area. These two groups of workers have particularly benefited from the fact that we have continuing construction and building projects occurring in our electorates. They are employed because of the federal government economic stimulus package.

We also have a high proportion of sales workers with 11.5 per cent compared with 10.3 per cent across the Adelaide metropolitan area. Those workers were kept in employment because of the stimulus package, directly through the $900 payment, and indirectly through the fact that so many other workers were kept in work. As we know, across Australia about 200,000 people stayed in work because of the economic stimulus package.

According to the OECD figures, the latest available for a range of countries being March 2010, Australia's unemployment rate at that time was 5.4 per cent. This compares with: Canada, 8.2 per cent; France, 9.9 per cent; Germany, 7.3 per cent; Greece, 11 per cent; Norway (doing better than we are as they also adopted intensive stimulus measures), 3.5 per cent; Spain, 19.5 per cent; UK, 7.9 per cent; and the USA, 9.7 per cent.

This made me particularly interested in an item in the Guardian of 8 July 2010, headed 'Budget cuts will keep joblessness high—OECD'. Under the subheading: 'Unemployment "likely to stay at 8%" until late 2011—praise for Gordon Brown's labour market strategy', the article states:

The government was under renewed pressure last night over jobs after the west's leading economic thinktank expressed concern over the axing of programmes to help the unemployed back into work.

Labour seized on a report from the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which said the coalition's deficit reduction plans should not come at the expense of money to tackle the labour-market legacy of Britain's postwar recession.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said Labour's funding of work programmes had helped limit the increase in joblessness, adding that it was a dangerous time to scrap the future jobs fund and the six-month offer—both victims of post-election spending cuts.

'In the 1990s, the Conservatives said unemployment was a price worth paying for reducing inflation,' Cooper said. 'Now the government is effectively saying that unemployment is a price worth paying for deficit reduction.'

In the face of the Abbot coalition threat to cut the economic stimulus plan, I ask myself whether they are simply following the Cameron lead from Britain, and that we will see the same sort of policies here, where unemployment is offered up as a sacrifice to deficit reduction. The OECD report said that it expected the UK recovery to be:

...too muted to result in strong job creation and that unemployment is likely to recede only slowly. As a result, the UK unemployment rate is expected to remain at nearly 8% at the end of 2011.

It added:

While the large fiscal deficit makes it essential to focus on cost effective programs and target the most disadvantaged groups, labour-market policies should remain adequately funded.

Further on, it says that:

The OECD said the active labour market strategy adopted by Gordon Brown's administration had prevented unemployment from rising as rapidly as in previous recessions...

Time expired.