House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Employment Figures EMPLOYMENT FIGURES Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Norwood Leader of the Opposition EMPLOYMENT FIGURES Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): Given the Premier's answer that 2,000 people is statistically meaningless, can the Premier— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I don't actually think the Premier said that. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: He did say that, sir, last Hansard—not today, but previously. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Previously—okay. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Can he perhaps reflect on the total increase in unemployment in the northern suburbs, then, an increase from 15,000 to 19,000? And are those 19,000 people who are unemployed in our northern suburbs also completely meaningless? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: That is a better formulation of the question. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Premier. Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: 19,000 people. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I call the leader to order. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Minister for State Development Minister for the Public Sector Minister for the Arts The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his question. Just repeating something with increasing levels of anger does not actually make the point any more cogent. We have said repeatedly that the way in which the opposition has promoted these statistics about youth unemployment—many years ago when youth unemployment was a particular focus, decades ago, when many of these young people were not in fact in school, the statistic obviously gained a certain currency in the public policy debate. That same statistic is used today in a way which really has very little relevance to the true issues at stake. That is the simple point that we have made. We have never made the point—and it is offensive to suggest that we have made the point—that any one person being made unemployed is not anything other than a personal tragedy for that person and something that this side of the house has always regarded as its key project and purpose. That is why I flew to Detroit and I think, before the wheels were actually down on the ground, the opposition was saying that that was a meaningless trip, a pointless trip, that I should not be there advocating for the people of the north. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir. Again, I refer you to 137. You have warned the Premier time and time again about introducing debate into answers to questions, and he continues to do so. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The question, as I recall, was formulated as, 'Why does the Premier keep on saying...?' Therefore the leader was asking the Premier what is in his mind and the Premier is now sharing that with us. It is a rather open-ended question and, accordingly, I warn the member for Unley for the second time for a frivolous and vexatious point of order that is obstructing the business of the house. Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We hear a bit about bipartisanship in these matters. When I took my journey to Detroit to try to secure the jobs of 16,000 people in the northern suburbs—the very issue that we are talking about—it was described by the opposition as a waste of taxpayers' dollars. So much for bipartisanship; you wonder why the hand of bipartisanship is not extended to you. The wheels were not even on the tarmac and you were describing the visit as a complete waste of taxpayers' dollars and you want to be in— Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order from the deputy leader. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Clearly, this is debate and, in addition to that, the issue is relevance to the question, which was: 'Does the Premier agree that 19,000 unemployed in the northern suburbs is also a meaningless statistic?' The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Premier—well, it was a supplementary, wasn't it? It was a supplementary where the original question was 'Why does the Premier say...?' The supplementary is so open ended that the Premier is telling you why he doesn't agree. Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We've heard a lot about bipartisanship in the face of pressures on unemployment rates in the northern suburbs. That has essentially been the motif of the Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, sir: how can this possibly not be debate? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I warn the deputy leader for the second time for a frivolous—would the Premier be seated—and vexatious point of order that is obstructing the business of the house, and the deputy leader will go out next time she makes a point of order like that. Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This idea of bipartisanship is being advanced, yet we have the most partisan of attacks. How could anybody seriously suggest that I, or anybody in this chamber, regard unemployment of any substantial number of citizens of this state as a meaningless statistic? It is game playing with words. Everyone here knows that the points we were making were about the use of that youth unemployment statistic, used in a way and juxtapositioned to the general unemployment rate, and calculated to create an impression in the mind of the community that the situation was so much worse in the northern suburbs than people might otherwise imagine. That degrades the morale of people. If the key issue in this state, and indeed in this nation, is confidence—and we know it is because we have relatively low unemployment rates, we have relatively low inflation rates, we have relatively strong growth rates—how on earth could that contribution do anything other than damage confidence?