David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Prior to adjourning the debate on this we heard from Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron was responding to the amendments which I moved—which are quite little amendments—which basically said that the government should not intrude into the process of negotiating an extension to paid parental leave between an employer and an employee. In the course of that opposition to my amendment he engaged in a fairly broad-ranging attack on me and my values—or what he assumes my values to be. So I think it is probably fairly appropriate that I respond, at least partially, in kind.

His first point was that politicians on $200,000 a year were not qualified or entitled to talk about people on penalty rates. I guess the point there is that I was not always a politician. In fact, Senator Cameron has been a politician for a great deal longer than I, and earning $200,000 a year at the expense of taxpayers for many years, during which time I was earning in the private sector, working for a living. He also implies that one can only be compassionate about low-income people if you are poor or if you are in favour of spending other people's money. Clearly, that is not an appropriate argument.

When we are getting into subjects like appropriateness, he used words which I thought were interesting. He used the word 'unacceptable', then he used the word 'obnoxious' and then he used the word 'fairness'. I do not take any of those personally, but I have to say—and, Senator Cameron, I am delighted that you have joined us; it really would be a waste of my breath to return fire without having somebody to aim at—I am an excellent judge of what is acceptable and unacceptable, I am an excellent judge of what is obnoxious and I am and excellent judge of fairness. In fact, I think I am probably the best judge of those things that I know. In fact, I have never met anybody else who I think is a better judge than me of what is unacceptable, obnoxious or fair. Perhaps you might disagree with me, Senator Cameron, but let's agree to differ.

When it gets to the question of fairness, the question is: what is fair? Should we worry about those people with jobs or should we worry about people who do not have jobs? What is fair about being unemployed? It is very unfair if you cannot get a job because those who have a job are too busy grabbing all of the goodies for themselves. That is what I think the current penalty rates regime does and what the Fair Work Act does. I do not think that Senator Cameron cares about people who do not have a job, and I think that is unacceptable.

He also discussed democracy in the workplace. What a peculiar concept. Do we vote for the boss in the workplace? No, we do not. Do we elect our shareholders, whose money owns the company? No, we do not. There is no such thing as democracy in the workplace.

Senator Cameron also suggested that my thinking was from a past era. Let me tell you, Senator Cameron, class warfare is not the new era. The new era is when the government leaves the workplace to the employer and the employee. It does not legislate how to deal with a little matter, such as the subject of my amendments, which we are in the process of considering, relating to an extension in unpaid parental leave and whether the law should say, 'You must have a formal discussion.'

Finally, Senator Cameron, I am very worried that you attributed all of those qualities of Margaret Thatcher to Senator Cash. Margaret Thatcher is also one of my heroes, and I wonder why you have not compared her to me. Is it because I am not female—which would make you sexist—or is it just simple hair discrimination? I wonder what it could be?