Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Moore, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the division and dysfunction in the Coalition Government over the Prime Minister's unaffordable and unfair Paid Parental Leave Scheme; and

(b) calls on the Government to release the details of the Prime Minister's scheme, including its costs and modelling that quantifies productivity and distributional impacts.

I am pleased to debate this motion of Senator Moore's. It notes the division and dysfunction in the coalition government over the Prime Minister's unaffordable and unfair Paid Parental Leave scheme, and it also calls on the government to release the details of the Prime Minister's scheme, including its costs and its modelling that quantifies productivity and distributional impacts.

We have heard much from the Prime Minister about how this rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme will improve productivity and workforce participation. But, from opposition to government, the coalition have changed significantly, because they now no longer require a fact based approach to legislation. They no longer require any econometric analysis when it comes to the Prime Minister's pet scheme. That is the rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme that will provide $50,000 to some of the wealthiest families in the country to have leave during the period after the birth of a child. At the same time, they are ripping asunder the social security system and the welfare system that provide some fairness and equity for people who really need fairness and equity and government support in this country. So, on one hand, it is support for those millionaires and high-paid families in the exclusive suburbs of our cities, and yet there is no support for the families in the bush, in regional Australia and in the outer suburbs of our cities. It is clear that when anyone seeks to criticise the budget—including those opposition senators who criticise the budget both in the chamber and publicly and in the media—they are accused of engaging in class warfare.

I was appalled to hear the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, at the Sydney Institute, lecturing and talking to all of those highly paid, wealthy individuals, saying again, 'The age of entitlement is over.' I think someone who has worked all their life as a cleaner, a boilermaker, a truckie or a welder is entitled to a decent retirement. They are entitled to some security in their old age because they have made a huge contribution to this country. The argument that they are some type of 'leaner', that they are not a 'lifter' but a 'leaner', I think is an appalling smear on Australian retirees and pensioners.

It is okay for Senator Cormann and the Treasurer to kick back when the budget has been signed off and relax with their $50 Havana cigars when some people are surviving on $35 a day on Newstart. Their celebratory cigar was worth more than an individual gets on Newstart for the day. So I just think this argument about class warfare is an absolute joke. Criticise the coalition for ripping away at pensioners, ripping away at the education system and ripping away at the health system and you are engaging in class warfare, according to the Treasurer. Well, I think it is okay. The Treasurer can retire with his Havana cigars to his mansion on the North Shore. He can retire to his weekender worth over $1 million in Stanwell Park, overlooking the ocean. He can head off to his cattle station up in the Northern Territory. He is doing okay. He does not understand what it is like to be an ordinary family battling away, trying to educate their kids, trying to send their kids to school, depending on some support from the government to put food on the table. The Treasurer would not know anything about that, and neither would the Minister for Finance. I would say that many, if not the majority, of the coalition would not understand what it is like to battle to pay your rent, to battle to pay your mortgage and to battle to pay your debts. And yet we have these throwaway lines that 'the age of entitlement is over'.

Well, I think Australians are entitled to a decent society in this country. I think they are entitled to a society where they can feed their kids, where they can educate their kids and where they can send their kids to get medical help when it is required. Handing $50,000 of Commonwealth money to some of the wealthiest people in this country when you are telling ordinary families that they have to sacrifice, that they have to be lifters and not leaners, that they are not going to be entitled to decent increases in their pensions, that family tax benefit A will be cut and that family tax benefit B will be cut I think is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance from the coalition.

I can understand why the Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not see this as a big issue. Because if you look at their electorates, at the family recipients getting family tax benefit A, you will see that in North Sydney there are 3½ thousand. But if you go out to Penrith, in the western suburbs of Sydney, you will see that there are 13,000-plus people relying on family tax benefit A to help put food on the table. If you go out to the electorates of Lindsay and Chifley and to the Mount Druitt area, you will find that there are 18,779, nearly 19,000, families depending on some government support to put food on the table, clothe their kids, get transport to and from school and get transport to and from work. These are the real battlers out there, who are just being absolutely wiped by this government. In the Prime Minister's seat of Warringah, there are 4,000 family recipients, compared to Chifley, with 18,779.

One thing I cannot understand is why the National Party are not even more rebellious against the Liberal Party's push for this rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme. Because if you look at some of the National Party seats, out on the north coast of New South Wales in Page, you will see that there are 12,476 recipients of family tax benefit A and in New England, where Senator Williams comes from, you will see there are 12,654. So you can see there is an issue of class and it is a class attack by the wealthy, the Havana-smoking coalition cabinet ministers, on the working-class people in this country. That is what we are seeing before our very eyes.

The government are saying that you should actually cop this, that you should cop $50,000 going to the millionaires in the eastern suburbs and the north shore of Sydney—$50,000 to go and have a baby. Yet the poorest people, who are really battling, and pensioners are being told, 'You will not get a rise consistent with the rise that has been paid in the past; you will go to CPI payments,' which, over a period of time, is a massive cut in the pension. These are the sorts of decisions that are being made in this budget: look after the rich and the wealthy in this country and stand on the head of the poor.

If Joe Hockey wants to have a debate about class, then let us understand what class is. Class is an issue where, if you live in some of the poorer suburbs, towns or cities of this country, you are battling to get a decent school for your kids. But if you live in the leafy north shore of Sydney, you can make the choice, with your massive executive salaries, to send your kids to a private school and they will be looked after. Those families do not have to worry about whether family tax benefit B or family tax benefit A will be cut or whether their grandma or grandpa will get a decent increase in their pension. They will still be able to give their grandkids a quid when they need it. They will still be able to look after their grandkids. But the people in Mount Druitt, in Penrith or in the outer suburbs of Tamworth will not be able to do that. They are battling just to survive. So the class issue is quite clear in terms of the Hockey budget—that is, the working class, the poor class, the underclass in this country are getting hammered and the upper class will hardly be touched.

You do not hear a lot of whingeing from any of the politicians either in this chamber or in the House of Representatives about the increase in tax. I have known what it is like not to be able to pay my bills. As a blue-collar worker, battling when I came to Australia as a migrant, I know what it is like not to be able to pay my bills. I know what it is like not to be able to pay my mortgage. But I will tell you: I do not know about that now, in here, because as politicians in this country we are very comfortable indeed. No-one in this chamber will miss a two per cent increase in their tax. But what will happen in two years time? That tax hike will be gone for the political class in this country, and the working class, the pensioners, the retirees, the superannuants will continue to suffer for years under this Hockey budget.

That is why you have heard more being run this week about the demonisation of refugees, the demonisation of boat people, all because the government want a diversion from this horrible class-based budget that they have brought in. They want to talk about anything but the budget. The health minister cannot answer a question that has been raised by the AMA, that has been raised by some of the most eminent physicians in the country about the problems of that extra $7 tax when you go to see a doctor.

Let me tell you: $80 billion cut out of health and education at the same time as handing out $50,000—$5 billion—to some of the richest people in this country is an absolute outrage. Unfortunately, I spent the weekend at Penrith hospital. At the weekend one member of my family spent two days in emergency, because there were no beds in the hospital. When finally we got a move on the third day, we sat on two seats in the surgical ward for hour after hour after hour.

Yet this lot over here, the rich, mighty and arrogant coalition, want to cut $80 billion out of hospital funding and education funding. They want to make sure that, if you life on the North Shore or the Eastern Suburbs, you get looked after with paid parental leave. You will be able to afford the best schools. You will be able to afford the best universities. But, if you are a working-class kid in a working-class family battling to get along, you are going to be hammered, because fees are going to increase for your education and the cost of a degree is going to go through the roof.

These are the issues that the public are looking at. Is it any wonder the coalition want to talk about refugees and carbon tax? They want to talk about those issues when the public have moved on. The public now realise that the carbon tax will not destroy the economy. They realise that refugees are human beings, yet all you get from this half-hearted, heartless coalition are these arguments and they will not engage on the issues of importance.

They run this argument that there is a great economic crisis, a catastrophe. No-one in the world believes this. No-one else looks at Australia and says that Australia is a country in economic crisis. Give us a break! They know that Australia is one of the richest countries in the world and, as one of the richest countries in the world, we should be looking after our citizens. We should not be using a false argument. We should not be doctoring the books as the coalition have done to try and create a so-called budget crisis. We should not be doing that.

We should be building a decent society, a good society, where every family can get a fair go. If you criticise the unfairness of the coalition's budget, they immediately go to the budget emergency that nobody else believes is a budget emergency. They start demonising asylum seekers and refugees, and now they are moving to some of the poorest people in our country—people on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, people on Newstart, people on disability payments—and demonising them.

You have only got to look at what is being done through the Murdoch press, supported by this coalition. I don't know who supports who; I think it is quite a team happening there between the Murdoch press and the coalition. But is all about demonising the poorest people in this country and at the same time running this false argument that providing $50,000 to the richest people in the country would provide a great productivity boost.

Look at the Canadian experience. Look at Ontario. The issue is not about getting paid parental leave; it is about child care. Ask any family what the issue is for them. Talk to my daughter. 'Wacka' Williams went on Latelineand just wrecked the coalition's position on it. Senator Macdonald came out and asked questions about this issue and wrecked the coalition's position on it. I know the issue for my daughter when her grandkids were not at school was actually getting them into some child care. That is the issue.

This is a bad budget. It is a budget based on lies. It is budget based on deceit. It is a deceitful government, and you are paying a price and we will pay a price.

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

I just joined the chamber when Senator Cameron was halfway through his ideological rant, devoid of any kind of factual basis. It was the usual rhetoric: $80 billion cut from health and education—$80 billion out of the forward estimates that wasn't even there. The money wasn't there.

I am going to spend a little bit of time debunking a lot of what is being said, because around this PPL argument—and the whole budget argument—you would have to say that there is a lot of explosive, inflammatory, clearly wrong rhetoric that the Labor Party and the Greens are expounding out there.

Of course they go to the usual faults like Senator Cameron does: 'It's Murdoch's fault. It's the conservative government's fault. It's everybody's fault.' I can also say, 'It's Fairfax's fault. It's TheGuardian's fault. It's the leftie-leaning media all over the country that are just not getting the message out about what really has to happen.' That is pretty low-rent politics. It is just la, la, la, la, la, and everybody glazes over and turns off.

So let's debunk some myths: First and foremost, the $80 billion out of health and education was out of the forward estimates. It was beyond four years and it was put in there as a landmine by the Labor government so that they could claim when they lost government that it had been cut. It was never there; it was never funded—and Senator Polley knows that. I am sure Senator Stephens knows that.

It is put out as a cut. In all of the doorstops and things that we see around this place and what gets fed through the mainstream media, we hear the word 'demonise' and the NDIS. The NDIS is a noble program and it has bipartisan support. Everybody wants to help anybody who is in need in this country and who cannot help themselves, we will help them. But, unfortunately, we cannot pay for it with fairy floss. You need to have real hard cash; a government has to have cash to pay for these services. People need to be employed to run the NDIS to help these people in need. Those programs have to be funded through the efforts of prudent management in the health department. This whole issue of demonising this government because there are cuts—this is an embryonic program. The NDIS is a noble program. Yet, Senator Cameron takes a cheap political shot in saying, 'The coalition is walking away.' We all know that it was a celebration when that legislation passed through this place. We all know that it is going to be a challenge to implement it because it is ground-breaking, world-leading and world-class. We would expect a little bit more support in one of the tightest fiscal environments that a government has had since the last time you handed over the government in 1996, when you left us with a $96 billion debt. You have left us with accumulative deficits worth $124 billion, hurtling to a national debt of $667 billion at a cost of $1 billion a month—$12 billion a year to pay the interest on the debt that has been accumulated.

We have a noble program like the NDIS, but we are called out by Senator Cameron as not being a caring government. We are right behind the NDIS and we will continue to be so as long as we manage our money prudently. He talks—in that broad Scottish brogue which I enjoy—about the cost of degrees going through the roof; that is actually mischievous because Senator Cameron knows full well that associate diplomas are going to be funded for the very first time in this country. People with lesser opportunities to go to universities will perhaps find their way to funding—a fairer system across the whole community. I know that Minister Pyne is very keen to ensure that trades and those other areas outside tertiary education are well serviced.

Today, Senator Cameron demonised us for taking control of our borders. We feel for the plight of all refugees. There are 20 million refugees in refugee camps on borders all around this globe. There are 20 million people, and, I suspect, that that number is going to increase. Here we are, being portrayed in cheap political shots from the other side saying that we are not looking out. We have had no boats of illegal arrivals come to this country over the last six months. It is six months today; in the same period last 190 boats arrived on these shores illegally because the policy vacuum in which the previous government was operating encouraged crooks, charlatans and those otherwise called people-smugglers in other countries to profit from people's despair. I can assure you that when Senator Cameron attempts to vilify this kind of tight government management, he is exposing himself with his cheap political rhetoric. I do remind everyone out there, who might want take note of this contribution, that the extraordinary cost of border protection was nearly $12 billion when your government was in place, Acting Deputy President Sterle. The savings which we have brought to this budget—by stopping the boats, by stopping all these illegal arrivals, by nipping in the bud this cursed trade in people—is projected to be around $2.5 billion. All the detention centres—and in South Australia we have the Inverbrackie that was open to cope with the burgeoning number of people, who came to this country illegally—are now closing. The costs of those detention centres have gone; they have disappeared. The housing, particularly in Inverbrackie, will be made available to other people, probably, legitimate migrants who come to this country and go in a queue to get all the appropriate approvals.

I know that people are desperate, but what are we going to do about the 20 million refugees? Senator Cameron also failed to outline that, when boats were coming to this country, lives were lost at sea. Boats disappeared never to be seen again; and families never heard from them again. If we extrapolate that, since the boats have stopped, probably 250 lives who have not been lost at sea. You would have to say that this government's approach is compassionate, as there are no children dying at sea. These people smugglers are not pocketing wads of cash—reportedly $5,000, $6,000, $10,000—to go quickly in bigger boats or safer boats. There are many different stories and anecdotal stories, I am sure that you have heard them too. That is all gone and has been stopped now. The reason this has been made possible is a program called Operation Sovereign Borders. Operation Sovereign Borders is a demonstrably successful program, and Minister Morrison has a great deal take credit for. The issue about the budget and the vilification of the budget by Senator Cameron is plainly quite irresponsible. The Secretary-General of the OECD, as recently as last Thursday, said Australia has adopted a responsible budget, where the ratio was 80 per cent of the budget being focused on reducing costs, on scrutinising costs of government, and 20 per cent focused on increases in taxes. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the Secretary-General's quote here but he said it is a responsible budget. You can refer to it because it is on the public record. He did not say it is demonising working people.

In my home state, I work in the northern suburbs where a 45 per cent youth unemployment rate was presided over by the member for Wakefield, Mr Champion, for the last six years, while his Labor Party were in government and youth unemployment only increased, and he also advocated income management for people. Now there are 500 people in that electorate who are having their income managed and we have a situation where work for the dole is being first implemented. These are the hands up. This is trying to get rid of generational unemployment. We are trying to incentivise all these people. This is the shift in the budget. This is the budget which Senator Cameron has absolutely demonised for the last 20 minutes. He has gone on and on about it. I know that there are jobs in Port Wakefield and Port Lincoln. I know they are there and I know that there are people in Mana Pallara and Salisbury North and there are people in the areas where the car business is going out of business who will need jobs. And under were all the other jobs are. This government is going to provide them with assistance to relocate.

How is that demonic? How is that demonising the working people of Australia? This government is trying to incentivise. The member for Wakefield is abdicating his responsibility, calling on the Premier of South Australia to have a minister for the north because he is not coping or he obviously does not know how to fix this problem. He needs a little bit of sound knowledge, a bit of market pull, a bit of an understanding about having profits before employment. If you have profits you have tax and if you have tax the government can pay for the NDIS, for health services and for all these other things. This is how it works.

Senator Cameron vilified PPL. I must say that PPL troubles a lot of people. It is troubling me. I have spoken to the most senior of my colleagues in the government and outlined that I do not think we have been effective in delivering the message of the paid parental leave. It is very difficult. I refer back to the conspiracy which Senator Cameron mentioned we have with the Murdoch press. I could say that our message on PPL is not getting out that well because all the other people from the left wing press want to vilify it. I will not name them because I named them earlier. I am not going to do that, but I will say that we have to be better about getting the message out. There are many myths about the ridiculous assertion that we are feeding millionaires. Let's be real: only 1.7 per cent of working women in this country—I wish it were more and I hope the number increases—earn more than $100,000. So that all these millions of millionaires who are going to be paid $50,000 is just a nonsense. Stop perpetuating the nonsense.

If you want to stand up for women, Senator Cameron, if you want to stand up for them to have a go, disagree when we are doing this or whatever but do not denigrate women who make more than $100,000 a year. Do not denigrate women. Last time I looked I did not have any ovaries, so I cannot have a child. So my career has not been interrupted. We have to address PPL and women are gifted with the ability to have children, so do we take them out of the workforce and stop their careers? We have to do something. Disagree with the amount. Some people in my party have disagreed with the amount. I have a problem in a tight fiscal environment with introducing what people do not understand. We have to articulate the argument about PPL a lot better.

I talk to people out in the country and in the city about PPL and they all think it is going to cost their business more money or they do not understand the thresholds. This is what we have to be better at and I am out there communicating, telling people what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country want for working women. If you look at it, 3,000 of the top companies in this country will be paying a 1.5 per cent levy and 3,000 of those will also enjoy a 1.5 per cent tax cut, but those companies under the top 3,000 in this country will not be paying the 1.5 per cent levy and they will get a 1.5 per cent tax cut. So all the small businesses, all the coffee shop owners, all the delicatessens, all the people in small- to medium-sized enterprises and all the people in franchises will get a tax cut. All the big companies—God forbid, those which employee so many Australians—already have paid parental leave schemes and have had for some time. They will pick up the 1.5 PPL and that will be a cost to the I don't know why the Greens are not coming over here and giving everybody over here a big hug. But, just because we came up with it, a conservative government, it has got to be bad, so: 'We'll demonise it. God forbid we get the facts out. We don't want the facts out there at all.'

I have addressed the issue of the 1.5 per cent. It is just maths: 3,000 of the top companies will pay 1.5 per cent. All companies will get 1.5 per cent tax cuts. That is thousands of companies. The publicans and all those people that say to me, 'Oh, I'm not sure about it,' will be directly benefited, because they will be able to give their people a workplace entitlement. It is not welfare; it is an entitlement, an entitlement which all the women in the public service, state and federal, already enjoy. This levels out the playing field. Whether you like this or not, this is a progressive piece of legislation which addresses some social inequity which the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the cabinet want addressed for the women of this country.

I just want to finish my contribution on this by asking people to have a look at the policy in a little bit of detail. Have a look at the five headline points which put this policy right in line with the other 34 OECD countries which have a paid parental leave system in place. Yes, it is up there with some of the most generous paid parental leave systems. I acknowledge that it is generous. But it does bring us into line. Labor brought in paid parental leave on the minimum wage. Well done.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very good system.

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

It is a good system. I would probably argue, in times of fiscal constraint, maybe we should just take it to 26 weeks off the 18 weeks and make it at the minimum wage. I would have an argument about that with probably most of the women on my side, or the other side, of the chamber. We would argue, but we would eventually make a decision, when this legislation comes up, as to whether we were going to support it or not. There will be a lot of debate about it. I want to make sure, when we come to this place, that everybody on every side of the chamber has heard from as many people in this country about this policy as possible. I have been listening to a lot of people, and there is a lot of confusion still about what this actually does and does not do for women in this country. I urge all of you out there who are behind some reasonable equality for women in the workplace to get the information which is available to you on the various websites so that you can make an informed decision.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Edwards. I thoroughly enjoyed most of your contribution. I did have to check with the Clerk, though, to find out exactly what the question before us was. I should have known, because it was actually my motion. But, when I did check, it was a relief to me that I was actually in the right debate. I thought that, as has been known, I might have come in and not been quite sure of which debate was taking place. But I am relieved to know that the question that we are discussing—I do not always like the term 'debating'—this afternoon is about paid parental leave and the perception that there seems to be some variation of opinion within the government ranks about their scheme, the scheme that they proudly told us a number of times that they have taken before the Australian community twice in elections.

As a member of the parliament, I am desperately seeking some detail about this scheme. I tried at the estimates process to find out specific details about how it would work—the operations, the funding models, the promotion processes, around this—and I got no more than the LNP election material, which I had studied closely through the two election campaigns, and, beyond a couple of statements, it said that there was strong support for an enhanced Paid Parental Leave scheme in Australia and the Prime Minister was standing up for the women of Australia. We congratulate that. Of course we congratulate that. I just believe that we need to see exactly what we are promoting. From my perspective, I would like to see some kind of unity of purpose being put out by the government around this issue.

I have asked questions of the government on these issues, and I have been reassured that there is a very broad church in the LNP. That came as a great relief to me, to know that there is a broad church in the LNP. What it actually means, though, in terms of getting detail around the Paid Parental Leave scheme, I am not sure, because, in this broad church, there is an agreement that people are able to follow their own beliefs and, evidently, make their own public comment about proposals that supposedly have been fully understood by the government—and not only fully understood but promoted actively in their election campaigns.

We all in this place have been involved in election campaigns. I am a person who takes a great deal of interest in the issues around paid parental leave and women's empowerment, and I think that is something that is indisputable across the area, but I do not remember a single forum, during either of those two intensive election campaigns, where the topic of the day was the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I do remember seeing some handouts at some of the functions, amidst other things, which showed glowing happy families and had a two-dot-point focus which said that the new Paid Parental Leave scheme would allow payments for women on higher wages at a more reasonable level, to reflect their wages. And that was what we had.

Point (b) of the motion before the chamber calls for the details of this scheme, 'including its costs and modelling that quantifies productivity and distributional impacts'. That is what we are seeking. There is a cost figure in the public arena for the enhanced scheme. I use the term 'enhanced scheme' because we do have an operational paid parental scheme in our country now. It was a hard fought, long awaited and way too late. I am looking at the other women on both sides of this chamber who I believe were waiting for a government in our country to step into the real world and develop a paid parental scheme for Australia. I remember speaking in this chamber at the time and listing some of the nations that did have paid parental schemes in place when Australia did not. That was to our shame, and I think that has been acknowledged.

We went through a difficult process to develop a scheme that was seen quite clearly as a workplace entitlement for working people to ensure that we acknowledged the responsibilities both for career and training enhancement as well as the very important responsibilities of having children and raising families. The process we used as a government was to give a reference to the Productivity Commission. The commission did an extraordinarily detailed and very valuable report about paid parental leave, not just in our country but across the world. On that basis a scheme was developed, and I wish to strongly acknowledge the work of Jenny Macklin. She was the then minister in our government and she fought hard not just within the wider community to ensure that people understood the background the scheme, the need for the scheme and the detailed operations of the scheme; she fought hard within our caucus. People were raising issues about the cost and the community response and also looking at the longstanding issues about what was the responsibility of employers and what was the responsibility of government.

All these things were in a really dynamic mix of debate and extensive community consultation in terms of the work done by a range of committees looking at both employers and employees, employer associations and trade unions, and working together with the common goal of bringing Australia into the 21st century. The aim also was to establish a scheme which provided for women who did not have either the power or the support in their own workplaces in order to come up with an arrangement through the enterprise bargaining methodology. We all know, and Senator Edwards referred to this, that many companies and businesses through their own workplace relations process have negotiated with their employees an effective paid parental scheme, and there are a large number of those. I wish to acknowledge those companies, because what they had done was acknowledge the workplace reality that the best way to ensure they have trained, skilled and engaged workers, both women and men, was to support them through the time when they are having children and then the time after that. It is not just the paid parental scheme you need to consider, but the full wraparound services in the community to ensure that workers are acknowledged for their roles both in their workplace and in raising families.

All that went on for several months, with consultation across the nation. This consultation exposed serious differences of opinion, as indeed all consultation does. As soon as you acknowledge that you are going to consult you need to be aware that you are going to hear a range of opinions, not all of which meet with your agreement. But, through that process, we were able to identify the key issues. The Labor caucus then discussed how we would introduce a process for paid parental leave in our country. One of the major factors in that discussion was looking at responsible financial management, looking at the environment in which our country was working, internationally as well as domestically, looking at the economic imperatives but also staying true to our strong commitment that we would introduce a paid parental scheme. Linked into that scheme was a very clear review process: while the scheme was operational, the legislation provided for set reviews so that we could look at how the scheme was working, what was working and what was not working, and whether the community was engaging with the scheme and saying that they thought a paid parental scheme was important and they would use it.

Fortunately, the most recent review has very recently been released—a little later than we thought it would be made public but nonetheless it is now public, so I will not have to ask at the next Senate estimates when it will be made public, which will be a relief to everybody. That very detailed review talks about the fact that over 340,000 women have already accessed paid parental leave since it was introduced in January 2011. It also shows that nearly 40,000 fathers and same-sex partners have accessed the dad and partner scheme since January 2013. We introduced the paid parental scheme for women workers in the first place and then enhanced that in view of the very real need for fathers and same-sex partners to be involved both in the birth and in the initial time with their children. That need for that kind of scheme had been raised consistently through the Productivity Commission process and through many community consultations, so many of which I have been involved with for over 25 years. So we know without doubt that, in this period of time, the scheme is being used in our country and it is being used by women from a range of economic backgrounds and circumstances. The limitation is that the time is limited, as is the quantum people receive. The quantum under the government sponsored paid parental scheme is based on the national wage; that is the process on which it operates.

Do I think it would be good to have an enhanced paid parental scheme? I do. I am on record saying that no program should be set in concrete and left to sit there without review and evolution to meet the needs of society. Do I think now is the time? No. It pains me to say that, but I do not believe that now is the time to widen the scheme. What we are talking about is widening an existing scheme.

By this time we should have achieved, absolutely, a cessation of the debate about whether there should or should not be a paid parental leave scheme in our work places. My fear is that by widening the scheme—it will cost about $5 billion a year; $20 billion around the forward estimates—the debate will be around the quantum, and that will inflame the division and the negativity in the community about whether this is the right way to spend our money.

We have had that debate. That debate was finalised. We accepted that there needs to be acknowledgement for women and their partners about the birthing of children and the raising of families, and the linkage of that with work places. That debate should be over. But the extreme generosity—I am trying to be very calm and kind in my terminology—of this scheme has caused the debate to be reopened in some places, where people have come forward and said that it is a waste of money and that women make their own decisions. I have seen this in the media and I have heard it in public meetings. We are re-awakening debates that should have been finalised.

This comes at a time when many attacks are being made on the most vulnerable in our community—at a time when we are lectured continually about the dangers of the budget crisis. You only have to take a quick snapshot of any time we have a question or debate in this place at the moment to see that the budget crisis in this country is constantly talked about. In this environment it would be extremely valuable to have a reasonable discussion about the role of parenting in the work place and the best way to work with that.

Coincidentally, I think we need to have in our community a debate about that. It is not just a debate about what happens around birthing and paid parental leave; we need an ongoing and responsive debate in our community about the issues of work and family and the cost of raising children and working. The Productivity Commission, when they did the initial work on the Paid Parental Leave scheme, identified that we need to have a clear discussion about, and decision on, how to have a more flexible arrangement within work places and around child care. Once you have children and you are maintaining your career you need to have the security that you will be supported in your work place.

The first two speakers in this debate concentrated extensively on the wider budget arrangement but my belief is that one of the reasons that this debate has become so heated is its timing. The environment in which we are discussing it this Paid Parental Leave scheme sets up a contest, where, on the one hand the government is introducing schemes which are going to be extraordinarily harsh for young unemployed people. These are unprecedented social welfare changes for young people who have survived being born—they have got through that bit—and have reached an age where they are looking for work and are not able to find it. The government is proposing to put in place a range of schemes which ensure that they will get no social welfare support.

At the same time, the government is freezing indexation on a number of existing social welfare payments. We are waiting with expectation for the McClure report, which I believe is going to recommend wide-ranging changes to our whole social welfare system. It seems to me that when we talk about these sorts of things 'wide-ranging changes' often means reductions. And there is also the increased HECS fees and so on.

So in the same budget you have a whole bucket-load of reductions and restrictions on people who are the most vulnerable in our community. That is the government's priority, and that is what they have put forward. The government do not deny that the changes that they are putting in place will impact on some of the most vulnerable in the community. So you have that in one part of the debate.

None of those things I have talked about were in the election promises document, but if the government were releasing such a document now you would find all those measures. Then, if you turned the page, you would find the proposed new Paid Parental Leave scheme, with a price tag of $5 billion a year, or $20 billion in the forward estimates. That is what saddens me. The people on this side of the chamber are not creating this division. It is a division which is being discussed in the wider community. We have an existing paid parental scheme, which people are using and we are now talking about changing that to a great extent.

Always when people feel strongly about something they tend to be more excited and more elaborate in their debating style. But we have had some on the other side of the chamber who have the sheer gall to accuse people who are questioning this Paid Parental Leave scheme—they are not saying it is abhorrent but are questioning it—of not supporting working women in our community. That does not help the debate. That it is false should be self-evident. It does not acknowledge the reality: there needs to be an understanding of the priorities in our community.

We need to celebrate the success we have had in establishing a paid parental leave scheme in this country. We need to bring people along with us to see that, in the future, there can well be changes to the scheme. We do not oppose looking at how we can enhance the scheme but at this time I do not believe that our community, our economy or our future are best served by looking at a scheme, the full details of which we still do not have. And whilst I am making these comments on this side of the chamber, there are very many people in the LNP who are seemingly able to make similar comments both in the media and elsewhere, and while not always in this place, sometimes the comments have come up within a wider discussion around the debate.

That is the reason for the motion on the paper. It is focused on paid parental leave. It is focused on the fact that we do not know the details but its clear focus is that we are not in opposition to the working women and men in this country. We actually worked to develop a paid parental scheme in this country, and we do not want to go back to the debates which question whether you need such a scheme at all.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the motion put forward by Senator Moore in relation to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, but most particularly the issue that she raises in relation to the division and dysfunction in the coalition government. I must say that I find it quite bizarre that you would refer to somebody having their own point of view and standing by what they believe in, and just because it does not necessarily coincide exactly with party policy, that that is division and dysfunction. I would have called that a democracy where people are allowed to have their own opinion.

I suppose it is very pleasing to hear Senator Moore say that those opposite do support a Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Obviously they are standing on ceremony and not supporting this particular one—and it is their right not to support the detail of it—and, as we rightly notice, there are some people on this side of the chamber who have not supported the entire detail of it. I think we are all okay with that. So I am at a little bit of a loss as to why we are even standing here today discussing this when we all agree that a Paid Parental Leave Scheme would be a positive thing in our workplace and it is only the detail that we are messing around with.

One of the things that has been first and foremost in my mind for many years since paid parental leave has been on the agenda in the world and in Australia is the debate about what it actually is. I think the most important thing is that this is about women's participation in the workforce—women's continued participation, women's return to the workforce after they have had children. If you look at the statistics across Australia, you realise that the participation of working women during the period of time in which they have children is a lot lower than it possibly could be. It is particularly noticeable for women who have invested a lot of their time in going to university and getting themselves careers, careers that are so terribly important to our community.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then why are you pushing up the costs so drastically?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise one particular profession that is tremendously important to where I live—and Senator Farrell might possibly like to pop up and see some time. I live in the country, and one of the big issues we have in the country is that we cannot attract any women doctors. It is hard enough to attract doctors to rural and regional areas, as Senator Farrell would well know, but the really disappointing thing is that often you may get a husband and wife who are both doctors moving to your region; the wife then chooses to have children and we lose her from the workforce. Any initiative that would encourage women, particularly women in regional areas, to remain in the workforce or to return to the workforce reasonably soon after having their children, is a very positive thing for the regions.

But that also raises another thing in terms of equality. We have a situation at the moment where the federal government has a reasonably generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme in operation, a much more generous scheme than the one that offers the base wage for 18 weeks. Invariably, people who live in the country do not work for the federal government, they often do not work for the state government, and almost none of them work for large business. This means that women who work in rural and regional areas are much less likely—even if they want to—to have the opportunity to access any of the current more generous paid parental schemes that exist in our public sector and in our large businesses. I would draw to the attention of the House that there is an issue of equity here for women who live in the country, an issue of equity for women who work in small business. There is an issue of equity between women who work in the private sector and the public sector. So whilst I agree with Senator Moore that we do not need to open up the debate about a Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we do need to open up the debate about what is equitable.

It also hits quite hard another sector of our economy that is struggling at the moment—the small business sector. Small businesses do not have the same sort of hook and incentive to get the best female employees because those women are often offered greater incentives to work for the large companies or for the public sector and a small business cannot afford to put in place a Paid Parental Leave Scheme that would compare with the ones achievable for women working in those other sectors. I think we do need to look at the debate we have at the moment about equity and make sure that it is one of the issues discussed in this forum.

You hear the Leader of the Opposition Mr Shorten making comments about this particular scheme. The staff that work for Mr Shorten would be eligible for the more generous federal government Paid Parental Leave Scheme. It is very, very difficult for us to stand here when our staff are entitled to these more generous schemes, and say that people who are living out there in our electorates and in our states, who are not able to get access to this type of scheme, cannot have it but it is okay for us because we can offer it to our staff.

I go back to the issue of dissent. I do not think there is a massive amount of dissent in the Liberal Party outside of the expression of a point of view. I draw to the attention of the chamber to a quote that is often attributed to Voltaire, although I am not actually sure that he was the first person to say it: 'I can disapprove of whatever you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I think a true democracy would support that right to the death. So as we sit here talking about the semantics of someone saying that maybe the amount is a little bit too high or maybe the timing of the introduction is not quite right, I think that is really nothing more than semantics. Most disappointingly, there is this idea across the board that it is just another productive mechanism or initiative that the coalition is seeking to put out in the marketplace in the hope that we may be able to increase productivity in our economy. I draw to the house's attention the comments of the Productivity Commission in 2009 when it reviewed Labor's proposed scheme:

… would provide a strong signal that taking time out of the paid workforce to care for a child is viewed by the wider community as part of the usual course of life and work for parents, rather than a nuisance. A scheme that intends to signal this should be structured like other leave arrangements, such as those for recreation, illness and long service leave, rather than being structured as a social welfare measure.

It is obvious that we are all on the same page, but at the moment we seem to be seeking to be divisive for the sake of division, as opposed to delivering something productive for the women of Australia.

As another example of this situation and the ridiculous inequity, I draw the house's attention to an article that was recently in The Australian. It was written by Mr Chris Kenny, who is well known to all of us in this place, and he said:

Let us pretend for a minute that I work at the ABC—

I must admit, I did see some humour in Chris Kenny pretending that he worked for the ABC, but notwithstanding that—

hosting a current affairs television program on an annual salary of $280,000.

That seems to be a reasonable ballpark figure for a presenter's salary. If Mr Kenny—or Mrs Kenny, as we will call her—fell pregnant, she would be entitled under the ABC's leave program to have a benefit of 14 weeks off at full pay or 28 weeks off at half pay, or $140,000. The person working for the ABC would be paid $5,285 a week for 14 weeks, or for 28 at a half rate, which ends up as a total of $75,385. When you compare this to the government's current Paid Parental Leave scheme of $622 a week for 18 weeks, totalling $11,000, you can see the extraordinary inequity that occurs out there in the marketplace.

We need to be having a debate about what happens when all the women and businesses in Australia have the opportunity to have some sort of equity when they are competing for the services, skills and employment. The disappointing thing is that this is not the only our productive measure that we are putting into the marketplace that the Labor Party are trying to pull down. That the carbon tax is yet to be repealed absolutely beggars belief. The people of Australia said they wanted it to be repealed, but, for some reason, those opposite think it is still their right—despite the fact that they did not get the majority of the vote—to keep this tax that the Australian people do not want. It is a similar story with the mining tax and other budget measures.

In conclusion, I think it is time that we started having a productive debate about how we can put some of these more positive measures into the marketplace. Let's debate constructively the detail of it, and let's not tear it down for the sake of tearing it down.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to discuss the division and dysfunction that we are seeing in this coalition government from those who have found some voice to respond to the question that Senator Ruston has just indicated should be discussed in this place—the question of what is equitable. I am surprised to see that we have had some murmurings of consideration of that question amongst a few of the Nationals, and a couple of the Liberal members, who have an understanding, having lived in this country long enough, that what the Prime Minister is attempting to do with his Paid Parental Leave scheme is absolutely and totally inequitable. It is an unaffordable scheme and it is an unfair scheme. The Paid Parental Leave scheme is something that should belong to the past. Sadly, here we are right now debating this disgraceful imposition on the Australian people.

I am also pleased to stand in support of this motion put forward by Senator Moore that calls on the government to release some details of the scheme. You would have to hope that there might be some details of the way in which this scheme, which was cooked up by the Prime Minister, was costed. We have had holier-than-thou and sanctimonious conversations across the chamber from those opposite constantly going on about the dollar value of every prospect—cost-benefit analysis is a word I hear in nearly every speech that they make—yet to date we have not seen any of the costing, modelling or productivity gains that they are claiming, or any distributional impacts of this piece of legislation or this policy that the Prime Minister wants to implement. None of that has seen the light of day.

In this Senate, we get to ask questions about the dark arts—the conjuring arts—that are being practised by those opposite during this period in which they consider they are governing. Having questioned the response of the minister on the government's shambles of the paid parental leave policy this week, I think it is fair to describe his response as waffle. He waffled on in a nasal monotone, and it seems that, in his evasive responses to straightforward questions from myself and others, we are not getting any clear answers.

You would expect a clear and well-developed policy response that could be proffered when asked where this policy came from. It is a policy that was taken to two federal elections. The minister's crude ability to swat away these genuine inquiries from senators is, I am sure, a skill that is much admired somewhere in a dark corner of the woods of parliament. But in the sheer gamesmanship that is often distilled into our trying profession one could be even tempted to compare Senator Abetz's dogged effort to prevent a shred of credibility from passing his lips to a nightwatchman deftly blocking a pace attack to survive the last overs before stumps—a nightwatchman but no longer an opening batsman. To continue to indulge in such a comparison, it is only fair to acknowledge the runner at the other end, the nervous rookies, swinging wildly and soon to be caught out down this end of the chamber—the National Party.

We have the rookies down the far end—the National Party. The rookie who distrusts his more seasoned teammate, and for good reason, because what we are seeing on the other side is a team where one member of the team is only playing for himself. We look around this august chamber and it doesn't take a genius to see that the rookies at the end here, the National Party senators, are sitting next to their misnamed coalition partners, and they are not exactly getting the run of the green at the moment. They are certainly not getting the run of the green on this policy, which is absolutely propping up wealthy people in Liberal seats and really not responding at all to the reality of marginal seats in the rural and regional areas.

They are selling out their constituencies if any one of the National Party stick with his Paid Parental Leave scheme. Day after day here in the Senate and in the House they cling onto power alongside an arrogant government that is tearing daily at the very fabric of our society. They do so for their own existential needs. It is a dysfunctional relationship we are seeing here between the Nats and the Libs. We look across the chamber at those who claim a coalition, but it is more a demolition job on what the National Party pretends to stand for. Not all of them, but too many still are not standing up to the intimidation that is clearly happening with this PPL that is being proposed by the Liberal part of the coalition.

It is clear to all that the Liberals are the leaders—the cigar-chomping, arrogant leaders—in this arrangement the Nats have with their masters. What we are witnessing is arrangements that are completely dysfunctional and getting more toxic by the day. By sticking with the Liberals those in the National Party who stick with the arrangements are actually opting for a policy that is absolutely devastating on its impact on good people in rural and regional areas of this country. We have learned a lot about relationships and spoken about them publicly a lot more over the last 30 years. We all know that it is very unhealthy to stay in relationships with people who exploit you. We all know that, but in a clear indication of deep dysfunction, of the demolition coalition, there are still members of the National Party who remain loyal to the coalition as they betray their constituencies. Day after day they stand and defend in this place policies that take them further and further away from the founding principles that they shout loudly when they are at home in the bush but sell out in vote after vote in the House. We could not have a clearer demonstration of this than the questions that were asked of the Assistant Minister for Health today about the impact of this federal government's budget decisions in the health sector and how that is already damaging the health of people in the communities, and most particularly marginalising those in the bush.

We even had Senator Ruston in the contribution before I got up speaking about the difficulty of getting women doctors into the bush. The reality is that this piece of legislation reveals a very important decision by those in the National Party who decide to stick with their partners and those who are brave enough to stand and move over this side. There are voices that are muted, independence tarnished, policies abandoned, their back broken—it is truly sorry sight to see. Here we are debating yet another critical policy that epitomises the almost complete emasculation of the National Party and those who on the other side have stood and spoken so many times for fairness in our country.

The Prime Minister's signature policy, his personally promoted Paid Parental Leave scheme, is really at the heart of a view of the world of a man who is disconnected from ordinary Australians. We are not here discussing the NDIS or years five and six of the Gonski funding for schools; these are things that this government is running from, weaselling out of in their very unpleasant weaselly way. But what they are keen to do and what this piece of legislation that they support attempts to do is to spend $20 billion on this scheme that pays very wealthy woman $50,000 to have a baby while at the very same time they are ripping the heart out of child care and the quality of child care, and they are ripping the heart out of the schools into which these children would be able to go. There are a whole lot more of those women in seats held by the ascendant Liberal members who stand to benefit from this policy than there are in National-held seats and, indeed, in Labor-held seats.

I do note the comments of Senator John 'Wakka' Williams and I do note that Senator Boswell and Senator O'Sullivan have made noises of clear dissent from this policy. It certainly reveals a deep and growing division within those opposite and it is one that is a healthy indication that at least some conscience is still alive in the room when they meet and discuss how they are advancing their policy. But what these Nationals who have put themselves on the record as having some understanding of the inequity of the PPL that is proposed need to do is push for the complete scrapping of this puffed-up Prime Minister's policy for wealthy women in his constituency and in others like it.

Labor's paid parental leave scheme stands in stark contrast to the Abbott government's model. We instituted the first paid parental leave scheme this country had seen, a fair and affordable scheme, serving the interests of working women across the country in cities and regions like—just as the school funding that we proposed is sector blind and region blind, indeed, responding to disadvantage in those areas. We proposed and delivered an equitable paid parental scheme across the entire nation. That is the kind of policy ordinary Australians want, not an elitist one. We are seeing in this policy the revelation of the elitism that is the signature of the Prime Minister and the members of the Liberal Party in that demolition coalition.

In particular, many those on low and middle incomes, many of whom would otherwise have had no access to paid parental leave, were mothers who live in regional communities. Since the introduction of Labor's scheme, there have been over 340,000 families that have benefited from that assistance.

I think it was Senator Williams who went on the record on Lateline on 10 June—not too many days ago—talking about Labor's scheme and how helpful it was for his son and daughter-in-law:

Tammy's a solicitor, my son's an accountant, they're pretty well-paid jobs, they work hard. Now Tammy was telling me the minimum wage for those 18 weeks was a huge benefit to help them through their mortgage and their tough times …

The Nationals' Senator John Williams understands that this was valuable.

But Labor's scheme was also equitable, which is a far cry from what is being offered by the Prime Minister and those who are standing alongside him and continuing to support the program that he is set to impose on this country. Before Labor's policy was implemented, around 55 per cent of working mothers had no access to paid parental leave, and most of those, sadly, were from low-and middle-income backgrounds. But today, thanks to Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme, access to that scheme stands at 95 per cent of all working mothers. That is a significant policy outcome that is positive for women and their families and for the children who they are going to settle into great patterns of care, love and growth in those early days.

Labor's scheme saw taxpayers' money go to those who needed it most: low- and middle-income earners. And it was no accident, because that is what we believe is the role of government—to make sure that we do not leave our fellow Australians behind us. When 55 per cent of mothers had no access to paid parental leave, we gave 95 per cent access. That is the difference—equitable, fair and generous access given to those who need it most, not to some rort of a system like Tony Abbott's scheme, which is deeply flawed, awarding largesse to those who least need it. There is no means test for what this government is proposing. That means that millionaires will be gifted $50,000 from the public purse of scarce taxpayers' funds to have a baby. It simply does not make sense. It is completely and totally inequitable. And that is there for everyone to see.

Labor's scheme pays a flat rate; Tony Abbott's makes some mothers more equal than others, and some babies worth more from the moment that they are born than others. That is not the kind of Australia that I was born into. That is not the kind of Australia that my parents came to from the other side of the world. They came here because they knew they were going to get a fair go—not just a go; a fair go, with some equitable principles behind it, and that is what they have received for the most part. But Mr Abbott and this government are set to completely unpick that in every sector that they can. And, from the moment you are born in this country, this Liberal Party policy is set to discriminate against those who have the least and to advantage those who have the most. The better off you are, the bigger the cheque you receive.

The inequity is gobsmacking—not least when we compare Liberals' electorates to their hapless National Party colleagues' electorates. This policy will see blue-ribbon Liberal electorates benefit absolutely disproportionately. Treasurer Joe Hockey's seat of North Sydney has 590 mothers set to benefit. Malcolm Turnbull has 620 mothers who stand to get the full gain. Tony Abbott's seat of Warringah has 700 mothers who qualify.

Let us have a look at the National Party electorates that are being done over by their demolition coalition partners. One of those is my duty electorate, the seat of Lyne, held by the Prime Minister's supposed close friend David Gillespie, where there are only 270 mothers who are eligible. The same small number, 270 mothers, are eligible in the Deputy Prime Minister's seat of Wide Bay. And, overall, the average number of women who stand to benefit in each electorate is 475. By comparison, the Nationals' average is 365. I invite all of the National Party senators to cross the floor to vote with Labor to defeat this unfair Paid Parental Leave scheme. It disproportionately benefits the wealthy. It is wrong. It is inequitable. It is unfair, and it is an unnecessary drain on the public purse of $20 billion at a time when this government cries poor. That reveals, on another level, the dysfunction of this coalition. They have not even got an ideological line that they can follow through.

While rolling out an unfair, gold-plated Paid Parental Leave scheme at a cost of $5.5 billion each year, Tony Abbott has decided to hit pensioners and families with savage cuts. In the same breath as awarding $50,000 to a millionaire to have a baby, he is cutting the age pension, cutting the disability support pension, cutting the carer payment, cutting support to young job seekers, cutting family tax benefits and cutting $80 billion from schools and hospitals. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister it is also imposing a $7 GP tax, forcing many low-and middle-income families—and those, critically, with chronic disease and illness—to have to decide whether they buy groceries or take themselves or their sick child to see a doctor. Families, pensioners, carers and the disabled are having their support slashed, only for those dollars taken from them to be doled out to those who need them least. Put simply, Tony Abbott is robbing the poor to pay the rich.

In parliament this week, I was gobsmacked to hear Tony Abbott say:

… this is the budget that the Australian people elected us to bring down.

A budget that cuts pensions and family support? A budget that cuts funding to health and education and increases taxes? He has got to be joking. All this, despite the government's pledge—the Prime Minister's own pledge on the day before the election—that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no new taxes. This is a Prime Minister who has traded in deceit—so much so that deceit is now the official currency of this government. We even have Liberal members of parliament backgrounding the media on their constructed and determined deception of their National Party colleagues over a proposed increase in fuel tax, backslapping and praising each other for tricking those on their own side. The Liberal Party hoodwinked the Nationals into supporting higher fuel taxes through a ploy to abolish the diesel fuel rebate. Australians were lied to, and the Nationals have been lied to by their own partners. The fuel tax is a massive kick in the guts for regional Australia. Our regions have been completely betrayed. They need somebody to stand up for them and that is why, as a duty Senator for seven electorates—five of those in regional areas—I want to put on the record today that we cannot allow this terrible piece of policy to become part of the fabric of this society. In fact, it would not become part of any fabric—it would rend the fabric apart.

This budget exposes the Liberal Party as the far right ideological beast it has become. But even within that narrow Liberal church some of the parishioners—such as Senator Bernardi and Senator Macdonald—are peeling off their support. Somewhere they understand that what this policy reveals is a complete lack of care for fairness—a complete misunderstanding of the concept of equity and a disdain for fairness. It will not deliver for any ordinary Australians, but will deliver more to those who already have the most.

The PPL is a shining light. The fact is this government came up with this policy because they fail to respect the community. They failed to consult the National Farmers Federation. They failed to consult the Country Women's Association. They failed to consult any Australian who has a deep sense of equity or a vision for this country where all Australian children get a fair go, not a slanted go, from the day they are born. I look forward to the Liberal and National Party senators crossing the floor in great numbers against this disgraceful piece of public policy proposed by the Liberal Party. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a government, we are a pursuing a very clear strategy. It is a strategy to bring down the nation's debt. It is a strategy to get our finances into a sustainable position where we can afford to sustain the type of society that everybody in this chamber believes Australia should have—a society where we look after those who need it, provide opportunity to all those across Australia and reach out to give a helping hand to those who are in need.

We want to make sure the budget is sustainable so we can do all of those things. We want to make sure our country is competitive, which is why we are trying to get rid of taxes that harm Australia's competitiveness like the carbon tax and the mining tax. It is why we are trying to get rid of a whole lot of unnecessary red tape, green tape and bad regulation—to reduce the cost on businesses so that Australian businesses can better compete with the rest of the world; so they are in a position to grow jobs and create more opportunities. Hopefully, with that we will have fewer people needing the helping hand of government and more people enjoying the opportunities of jobs and of doing better for themselves and their families.

We are trying to ensure we create measures and introduce policies that encourage workplace participation opportunities, whether they are for young Australians, older Australians or women who have just had children. Whatever the case may be, we want to make sure we are encouraging as many people as possible in Australia to contribute to the workforce. We want to make sure that in contributing to the workforce they are contributing not just to a greater standard of living for themselves, but to a greater Australia over all.

I contrast the approach our government is taking—one that coalition governments around Australia have taken—with that of some of the Labor governments we have seen. This week we have seen two state budgets handed down. We saw a state budget handed down in New South Wales, a state whose public finances are back under control. They have actually delivered, this year, a surplus. There is a temporary deficit next year and further surpluses forecast—strong surpluses, robust surpluses, surpluses that will withstand movements in the economy. From that they are investing back in infrastructure that will generate wealth and create jobs and opportunity. It is a good example: after just 3½ years of a Liberal and National government in New South Wales, they have turned the state around. They have their finances on track and they are making a significant difference that will be to the benefit of everybody in New South Wales. Contrast what has happened there in 3½ years with the state budget handed down today in my home state of South Australia.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a terrific budget! It's getting us back into surplus!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell says it is a terrific budget. After 12 years of Labor government in South Australia, today they announced this year's budget deficit for South Australia will be $1.232 billion. How terrific, Senator Farrell! How absolutely terrific!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A state like South Australia, with 1.6 million people residing in the state, has handed down a deficit. This is not the state debt. Do not be confused, anybody, because—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're closing down Defence!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a state deficit for this single year of $1.232 billion. Next year they are forecasting that they might manage to halve it and get it back to about $500 million.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the year after that?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, the year after they claim they will be back in surplus. I can see the pigs flying around this chamber now, Senator Farrell, because I have heard that claim before. I have heard that claim from the South Australian Labor government before, just as we heard it from the government you were a member of. We heard it from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government: 'Oh, we'll be back in surplus in a couple of years time.' It is always in a couple of years time. They never ever get there.

What are we seeing? Senator Farrell wants to talk about jobs and the state of the economy in South Australia. Economic growth was written down in SA from 2½ per cent to 1.75 per cent. Growth is plummeting there. We did not have jobs growth in SA over the last year under the South Australian Labor government which has been there for 12 years. Jobs shrunk by 1.25 per cent. Senator Farrell forgets that his mob were in power most of last year and his mob have been in power in SA for 12 years. Somehow the current budget circumstances are all our fault. Senator Farrell, come and blame me in 10 years' time if we are in government that long. Let us actually have a go at governing SA. But, of course, it is your mob who have been there, and all we have seen are jobs lost, debt racked up, and the situation is just getting worse. What are they trying to do to fix it? They have upped taxes—like that somehow fixes it. (Time expired)