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

This government is taking a very intellectual approach to a very difficult transitioning economy—an economy which is transitioning out of the mining boom with nearly 300,000 new jobs added in the new last 12 months. We are attempting to have a sensible conversation, and I am very pleased that Senator Ketter is joining me in the chamber to join in this. In our economics committee we are dealing with the issues of superannuation and fairness—whether it be the inequality of retirement incomes of men and women or corporate tax avoidance or the plethora of other issues we are dealing with. I can tell you that the opposition is playing catch up when it comes to these issues, because we already have introduced multinational corporate tax avoidance legislation into this place while the Labor Party and the Greens are still talking about it. We are the ones who are looking at superannuation. As I travel the length and breadth of this country, there are people with large superannuation funds who are saying, 'I think it is thoroughly acceptable that the government have a look at the way in which superannuation funds are taxed.'

I think it is thoroughly appropriate that the Treasurer of this country has the conversation with people of Australia as he heads towards the budget in May. Even the workers in these multinational companies are now looking at higher wages, wage growth and bracket creep and the drag on the economy that bracket creep is. As people progress through the 30, 32, 37 cent bracket, it is a drag on growth in this country.

All the Treasury modelling shows that high-taxing and high-spending governments are a recipe for disaster. The Australian people understand what $100 million a day of borrowings are—36,500 million is what we are faced with over the forward estimates. That is what we borrow—$100 million a day. The other side think it is sustainable to continue borrowing and spending. Every minister in this government is looking at ways in which they can create efficiencies, but that does not mean non-delivery of service. That is what prudent governments do; that is what we do—it is in the DNA of this side. That is what the commentators are seeing: a rational approach to the way in which this next budget is framed—one which transitions from the windfall benefits of a mining boom and one which transitions from a time where people expected governments to hand out money. We all know the days of pink batts and cash for clunkers have gone, but we are still paying for them and we cannot do it anymore. The revenues have gone. Every time iron ore drops a dollar, it is a $10 million hit on the economy. Anybody who thinks that we can keep the trajectory of spending going at those levels is not quoting from Saul Eslake. These people are lobbying the government. Big business will always want their bit, small business will want their bit, the unions will want their bit, and we will traverse a path methodically and intelligently through that.

If you look at negative gearing carefully, every Australian aspires, whether or not they own a home, to own an investment property—every Australian. I do not know why those on the other side play the politics of envy and why they deny people the same opportunity that they have had. I do not know why they are being mean. I do not think these things are lucrative; I do not think it is keeping anybody out of the Adelaide market and I do not think it is keeping anybody out of the Whyalla market—(Time expired)