Julia Gillard unveils $1 billion jobs creation plan

[not_an_eloi]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has made a pitch to blue-collar workers, unveiling details of the Government's new $1 billion jobs package.

The legislation is designed to improve the benefits Australian companies see from large-scale projects undertaken in the country. Ms Gillard says concerns have been raised that major projects undertaken by multi-nationals tend to lean towards using international suppliers and importing material and equipment.

Under the plan, large companies will be required by law to give local firms the opportunity to bid for contracts before they are sent offshore. "When there are projects worth more than $500 million, they will need to have an Australian industry participation plan," Ms Gillard told a press conference in Melbourne. "They will need to look to how they can involve Australian businesses and create Australian jobs in what they do." Ms Gillard says the plan is designed to keep the local manufacturing industry competitive despite the high Australian dollar and other economic pressures. "I believe that modern Australia can have a great blue-collar future," she said. "We can continue to be a manufacturing nation, we can be a nation in which people make their living through blue-collar jobs that aren't intermittent or insecure or low paid, blue-collar jobs that are highly skilled and highly paid. "But we aren't going to get there by accident. We have to make sure that we shape that future."

A series of new manufacturing precincts will also be established to develop new products and skills to break into new markets. Industry and Innovation Minister Greg Combet says the precincts are a key part of the plan. "A lot of our research effort in Australia is pure research and a lot of great research has been done," he said. "But we don't perform well by international comparisons in commercialising the research effort that we make in this country. "And I think one solution to that is to get industry far more active in directing the research effort we have." The Government predicts the plan will inject $1.6 billion into the economy. Ms Gillard says the plan will be funded by removing a tax concession for big businesses. "Bigger businesses currently benefiting for a special research and development tax advantage will be forgoing that advantage," she said. The national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Paul Bastian, says the jobs package largely reflects what it has been campaigning for. "We're now going to have in legislation that any project worth more than $500 million in this country will be required to have an Australian industry participation plan to show how those projects are giving our manufacturers the opportunity to bid on a fair and reasonable basis for work," he said. "That is a big tick for us."

followed by the usual negative fud from liberal's mirabella

[*crikey*mate*]

My point was you cannot over help people with money, while at the same time dump them and tell them 'good luck with that'.

*looks embarrassed* I still don't understand your point, I'm sorry.

There will always be idiots that do not favour hard manual labour (I enjoy the fresh air, though the prestige of an office would be great).

LOL - for me it wasn't even about the "prestige" of an office job - LOL - I used to be a chef and I just knew I didn't want to be 65 and still working my guts out in a stinking hot kitchen standing on cement floors all day - I thought sitting down in a nice air conditioned office sounded a lot better LOL - I was one of the fortunate ones who has a chance to retrain.

If someone from any Government chooses to paint everyone like that they are doing it for a reason that is ploitical. Not everyone is the same..

I agree - plenty of examples of people who will work at whatever job they can get. Even if its for the pride of working for their money and not relying on welfare. But as I also said - I don't mind welfare for people in genuine need - but I object to it for those who are just too lazy to seek alternatives and are prepared to settle for a life dictated by the control of the government.

Data entry is slowly going overseas and what is able to be done here is done on contract through the government (who you know will get you a contract).

Not my field, I'm sorry - I don't know - I just thought of it cos I have a friend who does it for a small business a few days a week.

Book keeping from what I have looked into is now favoured by larger organised businesses that advertise not only multiple clients, but after hours online tech/account  help.

Check out the papers - always heaps of jobs there for small businesses looking for a hand.

All the businesses I do work with go that option for the ease and they trust a larger businesses handling their valuables.

It's sad, all the letterbox delivery people I see are elderly earning peanuts and they look as if their gnna kneel over.

Yes, I notice that too - kinda breaks your heart a bit eh? and from what I can make out, the money isn't really that good...

My recycle bin gets raided by an old lady  up the street (does not bother me) who looks like she is on her last legs.

If I come accross overly against those who are doing well financially..it is because I work everyday for these people and deal with the silly things they spend their fortunes on, while at the same time I live in a fairly low income area and see some people who are pretty bad off.

  I do think it's a bit mean to have ill feelings towards people who find a way to generate their own wealth - the way i figure it - if I earn it legally and pay all the taxes etc I'm supposed to, then what I spend my wealth on is my business....

I hope to buy a new car in 22 days and I also want to learn how to ride a motorbike this year, so will need to buy one of those too - should I not be allowed to buy either of these things simply because my neighbour can't afford to?

[*crikey*mate*]

One of my kids recently went into Centrelink to apply for Youth Allowance? (I think that's what it was) CRIKEY! The stuff they wanted to know - (which I suppose is a good thing) - just reeked of a way for them to get control of our lives and get us into a cycle of welfare dependence - I told him to run for the hills and generate his own money another way.

It is quite involved for the kid and the parent and for a reason I suppose...to make sure that only those who are eligible get the money...so that the parents who earn enough to fully support there dependents do so

http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-1/ssguide-1.1/ssguide-1.1.d/ssguide-1.1.d.70.html

1.1.D.70 Dependent child

Child 16 years or older

A young person who has turned 16 but is under 22 can still be a dependent child of the recipient if:

they are wholly or substantially dependent on the recipient,

AND

the child's income in the financial year will not exceed the personal income limit,

AND

they are receiving full-time education at a school, college or university.

so how did they support them for the previous 16 years? Dunno about most people's kids - but all of mine have been pretty dependent since birth... So how come at this magic age of 16 - some kids are "entitled" to get money for nothing whilst others aren't, just because their parents continue to support them?

To me it seems like just another way to redistribute wealth. At 16 a kid is perfectly capable of getting a part time job (barring illness and disability etc). In fact - IMO - it should be mandatory - if for nothing else than life experience, skill building and something to add to their resume for when they enter the workforce when their study is complete.

[just_me_karen]

Wow I hope the head chook doesn't see those long copy pastes.

The policy sound excellent and I think the Australian focus on big international business investment will help increase blue collar jobs. Of course, the Libs don't like it. They say we don't need more red tape... but I reckon it's completely sensible to force big international investors to give priority to Aussie workers and suppliers.

[izabsmiling]

so how did they support them for the previous 16 years?

I think parents who are low income earners may have been and still do receive Family Tax Benefit A and/or B ? That cuts off at 16 and changes to Youth Allowance as far as I am aware ? 

It can be paid into the parent's account too I believe ..though I think some 16 year olds (and their parents) see it as 'the teens  'own private spending money' .

[monman12]

"Ms Gillard says the plan is designed to keep the local manufacturing industry competitive."

I suppose that would be like the competitive (ha) automotive industry with its past tariff protection, and current yearly subsidies (for US parent companies)

The car industry’s net annual subsidy equivalent is some $35,000 per direct job. Most jobs associated with cars, such as in selling and repairing (mechanics, panel beaters) will exist irrespective of whether cars are made locally or imported.

"Basically the car industry has received about $500 million worth of assistance each year since 2001. That program of direct assistance was meant to run until 2015, but has now been extended to 2020. That will provide a total of about $10 billion worth of assistance to the industry."

"The legislation is designed to improve the benefits Australian companies see from large-scale projects undertaken in the country"

Sounds like another "go" at the mining companies, as the last one was a flop!

Is there an election in the offing?

[just_me_karen]

Mm perhaps comment after you've read the politcy ;\

[*crikey*mate*]

Wow I hope the head chook doesn't see those long copy pastes.

The policy sound excellent and I think the Australian focus on big international business investment will help increase blue collar jobs. Of course, the Libs don't like it. They say we don't need more red tape... but I reckon it's completely sensible to force big international investors to give priority to Aussie workers and suppliers.

But from what I can make out - a lot of Aussie workers want too much bang for their buck. In theory - I agree with the concept - but the reality is that it is just another way to dictate how much profit a company is able to make - another source of wealth distribution.

In a free market - a commodity's worth is dependent on what people are prepared to pay for that commodity (whether it be land, labour or capital) what we see in Australia is people not prepared to be a competitive commodity - so instead, rely on the government to redistribute the wealth.

[*crikey*mate*]

so how did they support them for the previous 16 years?

I think parents who are low income earners may have been and still do receive Family Tax Benefit A and/or B ? That cuts off at 16 and changes to Youth Allowance as far as I am aware ? 

It can be paid into the parent's account too I believe ..though I think some 16 year olds (and their parents) see it as 'the teens  'own private spending money' .

excellent! grooming another generation to expect something for nothing....

*shakes head in bewilderment*

So where is the incentive for these kids to work? to get a job?

[izabsmiling]

It could be looked at from different angles Crikey,

It could send a message to parents that they are responsible for the expenses of their dependents

and help children of low income earners to stay in education if they so choose.

If creating jobs is an issue ...there may not be 'paying' part time jobs around for the youth of today that there once was.

[izabsmiling]

So how did your son go with the paperwork ? Did you need to fill in that Mod form on your income and assets and get property valuations ?