Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a very interesting topic we are talking about today. A federal budget sets the parameters of our economy, and one of the most important things the federal government can do is make sure the economy is in good shape. The budget is about jobs. The economy is about jobs. It is about cost of living and a lot of other issues that are very dear to everyone's hearts.

This budget is a very important word used by the other side of politics on a lot of different issues: 'sustainable'. We hear a lot of people on the other side of politics talk about other sustainable things, but what we need to hear more about from the other side is the sustainability of this country's finances, and that is what this budget is about.

I was thinking about the different culture or history of different political parties as well. I probably look a lot older, but the first Prime Minister I have a conscious memory of is Gough Whitlam. I am sure Mr Whitlam is a lovely character, but economic management certainly was not part of his repertoire. The history of the Labor Party and the economic management of the Whitlam years are well documented. Our country was in a very bad way at the end of it with the Khamlani Loans Affair and other issues.

When I left university, in 1984 we had the Hawke-Keating governments. I am not going to talk about the physical limitations of either of those gentlemen—other people have been doing that in the last couple of days—but they did many good things. They made some reforms of our country. But, again, when it came to the budget and longer-term economic management, they left this country with 'the recession we had to have' and interest rates at one stage of 18 or 19 per cent. And then they left us with that lovely $96 billion deficit.

So what did a coalition government do for the next 11 years of Howard? As we on this side knew—and it was not easy—long-term sustainability was more important than short-term populism. That is what this debate is about. So we paid back the $96 billion and put $50 billion aside to fund unfunded Commonwealth public servant superannuation. Again, it was all about long-term sustainability.

Part of the word in this somewhere is 'hurting'. I know what hurts Australians and what hurts normal mums and dads. What hurt was that we then had the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco, which has been well documented again and commented on again today. This side will never mention the debt that they ran up—one of the fastest growing debts in the Western world? What hurt did that cause the normal mums and dads of Australia/ The hurt is the billion dollars that was spent on interest every month. That might just sound like a figure to that side, but what could that billion dollars be spent on? All these wonderful programs that we all love.

There is nothing nicer for a politician than to run around handing out money. We can see around the world the problems that gets you into if you are not doing it sustainably. We can see countries in Europe where they do not have a lot of choice about what they have to do with austerity measures. They are forced upon them because of the short-term populism of handing out money. But, if we were not spending $1 billion a month on interest, there would be a lot of wonderful projects we would love to spend that money on rather than just paying it back on interest—not paying back the debt; just paying back interest on that debt.

It is very easy for politicians to run around and hand out money for short-term popularity, but this budget is about long-term sustainability. And there are a lot of good things in this budget. One that I want to comment on that is very important to my electorate is the duplication of the Pacific Highway. They will not tell you this either, but the Labor Party wanted to withdraw the 80 per cent federal funding of the Pacific Highway and were only committing $3 billion to it. This side of politics said it important, federal funding will remain 80 per cent and we will fund it at $5 billion. That is an extra $2 billion this side is funding for the Pacific Highway when compared to that side, because we know it is important to save lives and we know it is important for the economy such as that in my electorate and in the areas that it goes through. (Time expired)

See this speech in context