Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I might add that we have supported tax cuts directed at small and medium enterprises, but we are not just shuffling over $65 billion to the biggest end of town and then sacrificing investment in an area that is required—an area where even big business say they need to see more. How is it that we can have big businesses say, 'We need to see more talented people in this country,' yet we divert funds from the very thing that helps invest in the development of those skills—education. You are willing to argue for a $65 billion corporate tax, and then cut $22 billion out of schools, cut $600 million out of TAFE and cut $4 billion out of universities. Everyone knows that for the development of skills in this nation we need to make that investment and make it now, because it is a longer term game plan.

In particular, what gets me is National Party members who, when you look at the socio-economic breakdown of their electorates, should be arguing for greater investment in schools, not less. They should not be following the Liberal line—the Liberal line that goes, 'You don't chuck money at education,' yet so many of them would be putting their kids through some of the most expensive schools in the country. Of course money does not mean anything when you are doing that. Then they deny money from the very schools that we need to see bringing in new talent, bringing in new skills and making sure that we have a longer term investment in young Australians. The Nationals just accept what the Liberal Party is doing. Those people who will end up potentially running their own enterprises, running their own small businesses and being involved in the future decisions of the nation are being denied. Why? All because, again, the National Party wants to toe the Liberal Party line of, 'Yeah, it is a better move to put $65 billion into a tax cut instead of investing in the regions and investing in the young people within those regions.' It makes no sense.

I come back to the point that, with small business, there are things this government can do. They can certainly take on board the amendment, and I certainly encourage support of the amendment put forward by the shadow Treasurer. Speaker after speaker on this side, including the shadow Assistant Treasurer, have articulated the types of things that need to be done to fix this bill up, but it should not have got to this point. The Treasurer should have taken advice on and should not have been so arrogant as to ignore the views expressed by the people who would have to implement this decision. We are here now because of that arrogance. We are here now because of that pigheadedness that has been exhibited. I have seen it in the laws that he has been putting forward, particularly with respect to the innovation space, where he will not listen to good advice. If we have to go through this process that has been advocated through the amendment put forward by the shadow Treasurer, then so be it. We would rather get this right than rush and stuff it all up, which is, basically, what the government is trying to argue the House accepts today.

See this speech in context