Job Guarantee Act of 2014 (Debating)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I much prefer incentivising private employment over creating public projects at an astronomical cost.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Private employers have shown that they won't hire the unemployed. If they would, this wouldn't be necessary. We will either hire the unemployed or we will allow millions of people to starve. That's the choice here.

I disagree that's the choice.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Let's step back from the talking points and grand-standing.

Let us look at first principles here.

1. What is the intention of this Bill?
2. Can it be realistically achieved? ie not resulting in massive and never-ending expenditure
3. Is this a program in perpetuity or to address a short or medium-term concern?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

1. To eradicate unemployment

2. Yes, it has been in the past and can be done again. The funds here shrink and grow with private sector unemployment, so costs will fluctuate according to the state of the private sector labor market. How hard is that to understand? It's in plain English in the text of the bill.

3. See 2

That's not necessary - considering the imposts proposed by this Bill, we need to be forensic in discussing its impacts, positive and negative.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It is necessary, given that I've reiterated it in post after post and we still have people asking how we can afford a program that shrinks if the private sector employment indicators are doing well.

But we don't have any idea how much this costs at all... and it's highly irresponsible to take on something without that idea.

We'll see beyond that, but I cannot entertain this Bill without what I think is a reasonable metric for discussion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is going to make money now?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thank you Mr Griffin

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Even if it was half the amount, it would be too much and would put massive pressure not just in pure dollar terms, but on existing support programs.

The intention is good but the prescription is bad and frankly would risk increasing unemployment, in both the long and short term contexts.

I'm happy to work with Senators to better harness existing resources, especially targeting the long-term unemployed and other vulnerable people.

I find it interesting that the fact we have one of the most generous safety-nets in the western world is being brushed aside here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Respectfully to both the Sponsor and to Senator Cranberry - I think we need to change tack on this completely.

Focus more on specific outcomes and specific groups of key need.

I'm happy to work on some words. However, Senator Cynic has a Bill that I think will be a more realistic way of approaching the issues.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support tabling

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE