Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

The government will oppose the amendments. This omnibus bill is part and parcel of the government's determination to reduce red tape and extra costs, which are prejudicing the capacity of the Australian economy to grow and create jobs. In a situation where we are running a huge deficit and debt that will hang around the neck of the next generation like an economic millstone, we have a duty to ensure we do everything to drive the economy in a manner that will change that debt and deficit disaster and allow jobs to grow. If jobs grow, we know that we might be able to remove the six from in front of the unemployment figure.

It was interesting to listen to Senator Waters, and this was typical Green-speak. She said, 'It doesn't cost much' and then moved on to say 'free advice'. It either costs or it is free. You cannot have it both ways, and this is why the budget is in the mess it is—because of the former Greens-Labor government pretending they could do things without a cost to the Australian people. What they did was to run up deficits and run up debt, which we now have to confront, which we now have to rein back in and which we have to pay back. It is interesting that the architects of this debt and deficit disaster are retaining their position to ensure that the fireman who was called in to put out the fire—namely, the coalition—is being stopped at the door from doing the duty that the Australian people elected it to undertake, and that is to restore the economy. We promised the Australian people that we would seek to remove red tape and do it in a manner that would help the economy cut the debt and deficit disaster and create jobs. That is what motivates us, that is what continues to motivate us, and I would encourage the Senate to not insist on these amendments so that we can get on with the business of creating the wealth and jobs for the future.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the committee not insist on amendments (1) to (6) with which the House has disagreed.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the committee not insist on amendment (7) with which the House has disagreed.