Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

When we had the change in government in 2007, we saw a great change in the position of the budget. We went from a position of budget strength to a position of budget weakness. Why is it important? With a strong budget you can deliver surpluses. You can pay back the debt that has been created by those opposite. The previous coalition government was left with $96 billion of debt. With a strong budget you are able to deliver personal and company tax cuts. You are able to invest in the future through such things as the Future Fund, and you are able to withstand global economic shocks such as the Asian financial crisis and the dot-com bust.

When you go to a position of budget weakness you have deficit upon deficit increasing debt. The previous government, the Labor government, increased debt to a position where, if there were no changes, it was going to be $667 billion—$25,000 for every man, woman and child—leaving us in a position where future generations would need to pay this back, at a time when we know our population is ageing, when there will be increased pressures on the budget and when we will be even more vulnerable to global economic shocks.

Since we handed down our first budget, all we have heard from those opposite is this simplistic chant of 'fairness'. It reminds me of that great literary classic Animal Farm, written by George Orwell, in which we heard, 'Four legs good, two legs bad.' And the reason the characters in that book repeated this chant was so that it would become an orthodoxy. Those opposite, again, want this to become a chant—an orthodoxy—that they can try and con the Australian people with.

Well, let us examine the statement. At the heart of Labor's charge is that fairness is defined as making no change to policy settings—no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the potential impact. This is quite wrong. Underlying their proposition is that not giving something to someone or scaling it back is, prima facie, unfair. Now, clearly this is a nonsense. Let us examine the way that this situation has changed. We are now, today, spending $100 million a day more than we receive. This is borrowed money. This is increasing debt for future generations.

Those on the opposite side of the chamber are not worried about debt. They are not worried about bequeathing debt to future generations, but I think that they should be. One of my great colleagues, Senator Brett Mason, today highlighted the fantastic work of the economist Niall Ferguson, a historian who has focused on economic history. He said in one of his recent books, The Great Degeneration: how institutions decay and economies die:

The heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn.

We, on this side of the House, care about those people. In my present condition, I can certainly say that I care about the future generations who will have to pay back this debt, who will have to withstand lower living conditions because they have been saddled with this debt. If we want to talk about fairness then we need to talk about intergenerational fairness. We need to talk about the legacy that we will be leaving to those generations that will follow us.

How fair is it to lock-in spending that we know we cannot afford? How fair is it for those who will follow us? The debts today that we build up will be paid for by future generations. That is why on this side of the House we are serious in engaging in budget repair over the long term and getting the policy settings right for a competitive and resilient economy. It is only by doing this that we will be able to create the very best future for future generations and for those present in this current generation. That is our responsibility. That is our duty.

See this speech in context