Page 1548 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: What do the rich give up in all of this, Tony? Nothing.
MR DE DOMENICO: You will have your chance later on. What do you say to an unemployed person who says, "Listen, mate, it is not worth going to work because it costs. You have to buy new clothes, pay the bus fare and buy your lunch". The reply is, once again, "Have I got a deal for you! You stay on your unemployment benefits until your income exceeds your entitlements, plus you get an extra $20 per day for the extra costs, up to $50 per fortnight". That is fair enough, I am suggesting.
So far, it looks as though the Government takes a big hit, paying out all those incentives and costs. Actually, it does not work that way; quite the converse, in fact. Using a mathematical method to model the financial effects of the work-share policy initiative, and given a few assumptions about the distribution of people leaving and entering the work force and so forth, the results are quite staggering, from a national point of view. After all the tax losses and gains are added and the costs of the benefits to the enterprises and the unemployed are totalled, there are substantial savings to be made.
The fiscal outcome is not the only benefit to all the stakeholders. Those people exchanging income for leisure will be more rested and less stressed. Their quality of life will increase. The presently unemployed people entering the work force will have more income to spend and will have the benefits of working, acquiring skills and self-esteem. Businesses will enjoy having a rested, motivated, flexiforce where changes in business activity can be accommodated through a change of working hours. The Government will benefit not only from a reduction in outlays but also from a reduction in the collateral costs of unemployment. There you have it. It is a work-share initiative. Everybody seems to win.
As Mr Kaine said, there was no thought even of presenting in the paper anything that had any vision. It made a few motherhood statements. I am not saying that this is the be all and end all. I am not saying that it will definitely work. But at least it is presenting an alternative point of view, which any vision statement or any statement looking into the future should be all about, after all. As Mr Kaine said, there was nothing in the papers Ms Follett presented that said anything about future vision.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (9.06): While I commend the Government for putting up a strategic plan at all, and I agree that it is required, I am concerned about the reality of such a plan. I think Ms Szuty made some very good comments in her long and detailed speech. I am concerned about its implementation, the data upon which it is based, and also the Government's real agenda. The four stages set out in Ms Follett's tabling speech are logical and, on the surface, are a move in the right direction. But, in all honesty, can we trust this Government either to work to a plan or to base any future direction on sound facts and figures rather than on mere ideology? While the contents may be well intentioned, I suggest that they are somewhat unrealistic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .