Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just joined the chamber when Senator Cameron was halfway through his ideological rant, devoid of any kind of factual basis. It was the usual rhetoric: $80 billion cut from health and education—$80 billion out of the forward estimates that wasn't even there. The money wasn't there.

I am going to spend a little bit of time debunking a lot of what is being said, because around this PPL argument—and the whole budget argument—you would have to say that there is a lot of explosive, inflammatory, clearly wrong rhetoric that the Labor Party and the Greens are expounding out there.

Of course they go to the usual faults like Senator Cameron does: 'It's Murdoch's fault. It's the conservative government's fault. It's everybody's fault.' I can also say, 'It's Fairfax's fault. It's TheGuardian's fault. It's the leftie-leaning media all over the country that are just not getting the message out about what really has to happen.' That is pretty low-rent politics. It is just la, la, la, la, la, and everybody glazes over and turns off.

So let's debunk some myths: First and foremost, the $80 billion out of health and education was out of the forward estimates. It was beyond four years and it was put in there as a landmine by the Labor government so that they could claim when they lost government that it had been cut. It was never there; it was never funded—and Senator Polley knows that. I am sure Senator Stephens knows that.

It is put out as a cut. In all of the doorstops and things that we see around this place and what gets fed through the mainstream media, we hear the word 'demonise' and the NDIS. The NDIS is a noble program and it has bipartisan support. Everybody wants to help anybody who is in need in this country and who cannot help themselves, we will help them. But, unfortunately, we cannot pay for it with fairy floss. You need to have real hard cash; a government has to have cash to pay for these services. People need to be employed to run the NDIS to help these people in need. Those programs have to be funded through the efforts of prudent management in the health department. This whole issue of demonising this government because there are cuts—this is an embryonic program. The NDIS is a noble program. Yet, Senator Cameron takes a cheap political shot in saying, 'The coalition is walking away.' We all know that it was a celebration when that legislation passed through this place. We all know that it is going to be a challenge to implement it because it is ground-breaking, world-leading and world-class. We would expect a little bit more support in one of the tightest fiscal environments that a government has had since the last time you handed over the government in 1996, when you left us with a $96 billion debt. You have left us with accumulative deficits worth $124 billion, hurtling to a national debt of $667 billion at a cost of $1 billion a month—$12 billion a year to pay the interest on the debt that has been accumulated.

We have a noble program like the NDIS, but we are called out by Senator Cameron as not being a caring government. We are right behind the NDIS and we will continue to be so as long as we manage our money prudently. He talks—in that broad Scottish brogue which I enjoy—about the cost of degrees going through the roof; that is actually mischievous because Senator Cameron knows full well that associate diplomas are going to be funded for the very first time in this country. People with lesser opportunities to go to universities will perhaps find their way to funding—a fairer system across the whole community. I know that Minister Pyne is very keen to ensure that trades and those other areas outside tertiary education are well serviced.

Today, Senator Cameron demonised us for taking control of our borders. We feel for the plight of all refugees. There are 20 million refugees in refugee camps on borders all around this globe. There are 20 million people, and, I suspect, that that number is going to increase. Here we are, being portrayed in cheap political shots from the other side saying that we are not looking out. We have had no boats of illegal arrivals come to this country over the last six months. It is six months today; in the same period last 190 boats arrived on these shores illegally because the policy vacuum in which the previous government was operating encouraged crooks, charlatans and those otherwise called people-smugglers in other countries to profit from people's despair. I can assure you that when Senator Cameron attempts to vilify this kind of tight government management, he is exposing himself with his cheap political rhetoric. I do remind everyone out there, who might want take note of this contribution, that the extraordinary cost of border protection was nearly $12 billion when your government was in place, Acting Deputy President Sterle. The savings which we have brought to this budget—by stopping the boats, by stopping all these illegal arrivals, by nipping in the bud this cursed trade in people—is projected to be around $2.5 billion. All the detention centres—and in South Australia we have the Inverbrackie that was open to cope with the burgeoning number of people, who came to this country illegally—are now closing. The costs of those detention centres have gone; they have disappeared. The housing, particularly in Inverbrackie, will be made available to other people, probably, legitimate migrants who come to this country and go in a queue to get all the appropriate approvals.

I know that people are desperate, but what are we going to do about the 20 million refugees? Senator Cameron also failed to outline that, when boats were coming to this country, lives were lost at sea. Boats disappeared never to be seen again; and families never heard from them again. If we extrapolate that, since the boats have stopped, probably 250 lives who have not been lost at sea. You would have to say that this government's approach is compassionate, as there are no children dying at sea. These people smugglers are not pocketing wads of cash—reportedly $5,000, $6,000, $10,000—to go quickly in bigger boats or safer boats. There are many different stories and anecdotal stories, I am sure that you have heard them too. That is all gone and has been stopped now. The reason this has been made possible is a program called Operation Sovereign Borders. Operation Sovereign Borders is a demonstrably successful program, and Minister Morrison has a great deal take credit for. The issue about the budget and the vilification of the budget by Senator Cameron is plainly quite irresponsible. The Secretary-General of the OECD, as recently as last Thursday, said Australia has adopted a responsible budget, where the ratio was 80 per cent of the budget being focused on reducing costs, on scrutinising costs of government, and 20 per cent focused on increases in taxes. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the Secretary-General's quote here but he said it is a responsible budget. You can refer to it because it is on the public record. He did not say it is demonising working people.

In my home state, I work in the northern suburbs where a 45 per cent youth unemployment rate was presided over by the member for Wakefield, Mr Champion, for the last six years, while his Labor Party were in government and youth unemployment only increased, and he also advocated income management for people. Now there are 500 people in that electorate who are having their income managed and we have a situation where work for the dole is being first implemented. These are the hands up. This is trying to get rid of generational unemployment. We are trying to incentivise all these people. This is the shift in the budget. This is the budget which Senator Cameron has absolutely demonised for the last 20 minutes. He has gone on and on about it. I know that there are jobs in Port Wakefield and Port Lincoln. I know they are there and I know that there are people in Mana Pallara and Salisbury North and there are people in the areas where the car business is going out of business who will need jobs. And under were all the other jobs are. This government is going to provide them with assistance to relocate.

How is that demonic? How is that demonising the working people of Australia? This government is trying to incentivise. The member for Wakefield is abdicating his responsibility, calling on the Premier of South Australia to have a minister for the north because he is not coping or he obviously does not know how to fix this problem. He needs a little bit of sound knowledge, a bit of market pull, a bit of an understanding about having profits before employment. If you have profits you have tax and if you have tax the government can pay for the NDIS, for health services and for all these other things. This is how it works.

Senator Cameron vilified PPL. I must say that PPL troubles a lot of people. It is troubling me. I have spoken to the most senior of my colleagues in the government and outlined that I do not think we have been effective in delivering the message of the paid parental leave. It is very difficult. I refer back to the conspiracy which Senator Cameron mentioned we have with the Murdoch press. I could say that our message on PPL is not getting out that well because all the other people from the left wing press want to vilify it. I will not name them because I named them earlier. I am not going to do that, but I will say that we have to be better about getting the message out. There are many myths about the ridiculous assertion that we are feeding millionaires. Let's be real: only 1.7 per cent of working women in this country—I wish it were more and I hope the number increases—earn more than $100,000. So that all these millions of millionaires who are going to be paid $50,000 is just a nonsense. Stop perpetuating the nonsense.

If you want to stand up for women, Senator Cameron, if you want to stand up for them to have a go, disagree when we are doing this or whatever but do not denigrate women who make more than $100,000 a year. Do not denigrate women. Last time I looked I did not have any ovaries, so I cannot have a child. So my career has not been interrupted. We have to address PPL and women are gifted with the ability to have children, so do we take them out of the workforce and stop their careers? We have to do something. Disagree with the amount. Some people in my party have disagreed with the amount. I have a problem in a tight fiscal environment with introducing what people do not understand. We have to articulate the argument about PPL a lot better.

I talk to people out in the country and in the city about PPL and they all think it is going to cost their business more money or they do not understand the thresholds. This is what we have to be better at and I am out there communicating, telling people what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country want for working women. If you look at it, 3,000 of the top companies in this country will be paying a 1.5 per cent levy and 3,000 of those will also enjoy a 1.5 per cent tax cut, but those companies under the top 3,000 in this country will not be paying the 1.5 per cent levy and they will get a 1.5 per cent tax cut. So all the small businesses, all the coffee shop owners, all the delicatessens, all the people in small- to medium-sized enterprises and all the people in franchises will get a tax cut. All the big companies—God forbid, those which employee so many Australians—already have paid parental leave schemes and have had for some time. They will pick up the 1.5 PPL and that will be a cost to the I don't know why the Greens are not coming over here and giving everybody over here a big hug. But, just because we came up with it, a conservative government, it has got to be bad, so: 'We'll demonise it. God forbid we get the facts out. We don't want the facts out there at all.'

I have addressed the issue of the 1.5 per cent. It is just maths: 3,000 of the top companies will pay 1.5 per cent. All companies will get 1.5 per cent tax cuts. That is thousands of companies. The publicans and all those people that say to me, 'Oh, I'm not sure about it,' will be directly benefited, because they will be able to give their people a workplace entitlement. It is not welfare; it is an entitlement, an entitlement which all the women in the public service, state and federal, already enjoy. This levels out the playing field. Whether you like this or not, this is a progressive piece of legislation which addresses some social inequity which the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the cabinet want addressed for the women of this country.

I just want to finish my contribution on this by asking people to have a look at the policy in a little bit of detail. Have a look at the five headline points which put this policy right in line with the other 34 OECD countries which have a paid parental leave system in place. Yes, it is up there with some of the most generous paid parental leave systems. I acknowledge that it is generous. But it does bring us into line. Labor brought in paid parental leave on the minimum wage. Well done.