Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Under a Labor piece of legislation—that is quite right, Senator Seselja. This independent commission, made up of mates of Senator Cameron who his government appointed to the job, took evidence and looked at it all. They understood the facts and figures, and they—not the Turnbull government—made a decision to adjust penalty rates for Saturday and Sunday work. Why? It is because the evidence clearly showed that penalty rates discourage employment opportunities. I know, without a study by the Productivity Commission or the Fair Work Commission or anyone else, just from my contact with my constituents, that there are so many small businesses who will not open on Saturday and Sunday because they cannot afford to pay the penalty rates. They cannot afford to compete in wages, because they have to pay huge penalty rates, whereas the big chains—like Maccas, Kentucky Fried and those fast-food chains; Myers and David Jones; Woolworths and Coles—thanks to a union deal, do not have to pay those same rates.

Why? It is because Mr Shorten, when he was a union leader, did these deals with that sector of the industry and said, 'You don't have to pay these huge penalty rates,' but the small businessmen, the mums and dads trying to compete with these multinational chains, 'Sorry you've got to pay these prohibitive penalty rates,' which means that most of them do not open. With a more realistic approach to penalty rates these small businesses, the mums and dads, will say, 'Yes, we will open on Saturday and Sunday, because we can afford to employ people.' That means more people will be employed, and that sort of thing will address the critical unemployment situation in my home city of Townsville. Fortunately, this is not shared by most of the rest of Australia at the present time, but it will make a difference there and right across Australia.

As I said before, it is my party's vision—it is in our DNA and it is certainly in the DNA of coalition governments federally—to look after those who cannot look after themselves, the more disadvantaged in our society. I will give just one example: the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I concede this originated in the term of the Labor government, but it was a proposal that was fully supported by the then opposition, which was our party, something you do not see today in this parliament. Anything that comes to this parliament, whether it be good, bad or indifferent, is automatically opposed by Labor and the Greens, just because we brought it forward. The Liberal Party in opposition thought that the NDIS was a good idea. It is part, as I say, of our DNA to look after those not as advantaged as the rest of us.

It was a good idea, but at the time we warned, 'Is this being paid for?' As I mentioned before in one of those important maxims, 'You can't keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.' That is what Labor governments do all the time. That is what they did with the NDIS. That is what they do with everything: 'Yeah, good idea, it will get a few votes: let's promise we'll have a national disability insurance scheme. How's it going to be paid for? Don't worry about that; let's get the credit for setting this up and we'll worry about that later.' Of course, the Labor Party never provided money for the NDIS. It has been left to this government to actually fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We are asking Australians to contribute, with the Medicare levy to be increased by half a percentage point from two to 2.5 per cent of taxable income. This means that one-fifth of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy, along with underspends within NDIS, will be directed to an NDIS savings fund to ensure that this good scheme can continue and be fully funded into the future—a proposition, an arrangement that the Labor Party had neither the wit nor the courage nor the understanding to introduce.

This is a measure because we do have those hated rich people that Senator Lines spoke about. Fortunately they are rich, because 2.5 per cent of their income will mean a huge boost to looking after those who need the NDIS. I repeat that maxim: you cannot establish sound security—social security in this instance—on borrowed money. Because we do have people who earn a lot, they contribute more—and thank goodness we do have them.

Similarly, this government understands inequality in education. That is why Senator Birmingham is bringing in a scheme that is equal across the board. It makes sure that people, no matter which category they are in, have money to be properly educated. As a state school veteran—all my school years were at a state school; I could not afford to go to university; I did my tertiary studies externally—I understand how important it is that all students should be helped by the federal government and the state governments. People say to me: why is the federal government giving Catholic and private schools so much money and state schools so little? The reason is that the state governments in our Federation give the state schools all the money and the Catholic and private schools very little at all. So what the Commonwealth has always done, since the Menzies days, is try and equalise that. We do not care where kids go to school; as long as they are getting a good education, they should all be treated relatively equally.

Across the board, coalition governments, since time immemorial, have tried to lessen the inequalities within Australia by sensible policies that work and that do achieve results;. That is why every serious social reform, and indeed environmental reform, that has ever come before the Australian parliament has been a product of Liberal governments over the decades.