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*]

Crikey Mate ,

The link above shows how much is considered and affects payment or likelihood of payment should you or anyone else need help supporting your dependents.So much info needs to be given (and by the parents as well. if the applicant is a dependant )so that rate of payment can be calculated.

My comments have been in relation to the kids whose parents hand them over the payment as pocket money, not for the parents who need that money to continue to support their child.

I don't totally disagree though you raise some interesting points as far as job creation.Children getting jobs can be a beneficial thing as long as it complies with child labor laws etc and taxation etc etc. Pretty sure most 16 year olds are legally allowed to have a part time job....Though with many as you have said elsewhere wanting more for less and older Australians and others wanting work would those kids  (dependents of their parents )  getting pocket money for wants and the employer cheap labor WOW - cheap labour??? There is an award which must be followed - plus you underestimate the value of teaching a chjild to work for what they get rather than have it handed to them - to me - that is priceless - at the expense of others who may need it for their bread and butter ? So, a 16 year old child shouldn't look for a part time job, just in case some one else wants that job? A 16 year old child has no right to start saving up for a car, or driving lessons or a deposit on a house? Instead, we should teach that child to sit on their backsides and take money for nothing from the gov? At what age do you believe a person shopuld be allowed to start preparing for their future? Oh, I know - they don't have to prepare for their future, cos the gov will always be there to hand them something for nothing whether they need it or not. Are they taking jobs that others need to support themselves ? Why isn't a 16 year old entitled to support themselves, begin preparing for their future - at what age do you propose they be allowed to start doing that?? I'm just gobsmacked at what your suggesting - that it is better for a 16 year old kid to sit on his bottom and receive $200 from the gov for doing absolutely nothing, so that he doesn't take jobs from someone else?

The key to creating jobs is to minimize welfare to all those who don't need it (ie ill and disabled) and then people will be forced to find/create employment - for too long, Australia has bred a culture where you really don't have to exert any effort to survive if you don't particularly mind the standard of living that welfare affords.

There's work out there - some people are just too fussy to take what's available and others may not have the skills to undertake certain jobs - so another key is skill development, training and education.

Should one person be denied the right to drive a BMW because his neighbour either can't or chooses not to?

Why would you think that ? You've taken the quotes out of context. It's easy to understand though that those on lower incomes may have trouble getting their 'needs' though isn't it ?

If the neighbour with the BMW had holidays every year and all the extra wants and then complained they had to wait for their child to have an op at a public hospital they are the ones who look like they have their priorities wrong and want to get what they 'need' for nothing while having what they want. OK - so even though the person with the BMW pays the same if not more money towards the medicare system, they shouldn't be allowed to use it? Seriously? because they have worked out a way to generate a different level of income to another person, they aren't allowed to use the same things as every other Australian? I suppose you also think they shouldn't be allowed to go to public schools either... or watch free to air TV - yeah - that's it - make em all subscribe to patyTV,,

You have said that kids cost far more as they get older...I can't see why or how they get cheaper If they go to Uni ?

No school fees, (Uni fees can be deferred) no school uniforms, 24 hour study rooms complete with computers and unlimited free internet, free tutors, etc - all they need is a pen and notepad and they can get through if they need to.

[*crikey*mate*]

I agree with you Nevyn and Soul, Perhaps those that see it all as people simply wanting something for nothing ...don't get it and actually add to how demeaning it all is for those in need ?

If a parent can afford to hand over that $200 payment to the kid for their own personal "spending money" rather than keep it to contribute towards their care, clothing and housing - then are they really in need?

I'm talking about a perfectly healthy 16 to 21 year old kid here, capable of getting a part time job and earning their own money and paying for the stuff they want, rather than getting it given to them for nothing...

I'm still just so gobsmacked at the mentality of a culture where it is OK to take money/stuff for nothing when you don't need even need it.

And it still mortifies me to know that there are people in our society who believe it is OK to believe that they are entitled to money when they don't even need it and moreso, that there are people who continually whinge about their lot in life but never do anything to even try to change their circumstances - just continue to whinge and expect the governent to hand out more and more money to them.

[carls*world]

Ok. I'm laughing.

We have a major road project currently under construction, a bridge to nowhere we dub it, as it just bottlenecks both end. But that's not the relevance here.

Our state government took this "initiative" already, requiring a large percentage of the work to be undertaken by local companies. The definition of a "local company" which won the major contract, turned out to be "Holds an ABN" (Never mind that it is wholly owned and operated overseas)

The project has a huge number of 457 visa holders working as general unskilled labourers, while locals have been turned away in droves for jobs.

So yeah, I can see it working fabulously.

As for globalism, well, we could compete on that scale, if we were to devalue our currency to equal that of our trading partners, and lower our supposed upmarket standard of living to theirs.

Protections worked. Biased free trade doesn't.

[freakiness]

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

Student youth allowance is plenty of incentive to work.

Both my girls got it and both understood real fast they could not live in comfort on it so needed a decent job, in the long term.

[freakiness]

Those who hand it over to their kids as pocket money don't care. Think they're owed.

Not necessarily. It is their money to live on while they are students. It is their money to learn how to budget with and attempt to purchase all their needs with.

[*crikey*mate*]

Not necessarily. It is their money to live on while they are students. It is their money to learn how to budget with and attempt to purchase all their needs with.

So what's wrong with them getting a job and generating their own income in order to learn these things? They have to wait till the gov hands em $200 to begin to learn how to budget?

Why is it that it is deemed acceptable for the Gov to hand them over funds to do this?

DISCLAIMER - I am speaking solely of those children whose parents hand this money over to them for pocketmoney. yes, if a family needs this to assist in the support of the child, fair enough - anything that helps keep a kid in education/training to get some qualifications is an awesome thing - and I do also acknowledge that there are some kids who just can't work and study/train - but c'mon hey - for the regular kid, for pocket money? seriously?

[shinynewid]

The arents dont hand the money over to the kids 

If I understand it correctly it gets paid direct to the kids 

but will stand corrected if thats not the case 

isnt it just like a new start allowance ( dole ) but less money & paid to those between 16 and 21 that are studying or looking for work ? 

Now if that is the case , if the kids are living at home then the parents should charge te kids part of that allowance as board , but I dont think it gets paid to them and they and it to the kids , does it ? 

[*crikey*mate*]

shiny - earlier in the thread, it was bought up that there is an option to have it signed over to the kids and paid into their accounts and there wewre examples given of how it was deemed pocketmoney for the kids.

That's where I'm coming from - the fact that if it's not needed to support a dependent child, that it is still paid to them.

[shinynewid]

I didnt read that , but I dont think thats the case , I think the child applies for it and it gets paid to the child ?  So I dont get the signing over to the kids bit ... It is their money , unless im mistaken 

here is the link for eligibility 

i havent read it , but im sure its the kids that apply for it and get paid it , not the parents 

again , if im wrong , im happy to e educated on this if im mistaken 

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/youth-allowance/claiming

[freakiness]

So what's wrong with them getting a job and generating their own income in order to learn these things? They have to wait till the gov hands em $200 to begin to learn how to budget?

Why is it that it is deemed acceptable for the Gov to hand them over funds to do this?

I don't think they got $200 a fortnight, until after they were away from home. They were away for yrs 11 and 12.

The govt. hands the money over so they can afford to stay at school. They both got part time jobs as well. They're better off learning how to budget early than late.