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

Quite fortunately this morning I was in a meeting with probably one of Australia's most esteemed businessmen, and I think it fits with today's MPI. He quoted Condoleezza Rice. The quote was:

Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same.

It went on:

If you are too attentive to the former you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter.

So in looking at today's MPI, I thought let us look at a little recent history because this budget and the discussion about the budget needs some context. Thinking back on previous Australian governments, I can remember Whitlam. With all due respect to the great man, he was passionate. He had passion and he had values. He might have been misguided economically, but he certainly had values. Look at the Fraser government. I think history has judged the Fraser government as a steady government; some view that it certainly missed some opportunities that it could have taken.

Look at the Hawke-Keating government. I think history has judged them as reformist. They obviously overspent a bit and left us some debt, but I think people have judged that government as pretty good performers. I think history has judged the Howard government as good economic managers. I think history already has judged the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years as a disaster. Unlike Whitlam, they had no values. Unlike Hawke and Keating, they were not reformists; they were populists and they were valueless. That quote comes back to haunt them because they were permanently looking at the day's headlines. That is how they governed and that is why they have gone down as not good governments. As many have previously mentioned, they gave us the six biggest deficits; therefore, the largest debt this country has ever had.

The member for Lilley on the television a week or two ago was saying: 'We're hung up about debt. It's not a problem.' That shows the folly of that side of politics. Isn't it wonderful being a politician and running around the country throwing out money. That is an easy thing to do. It is a populist thing to do, but it is not sustainable. They have proven it is not sustainable and we see many examples around the world right now as to why it is not sustainable and the problems that that causes. While it might feel good in the short term, and while it might be good for the short-term headline, it is not good and history will not judge you well for it.

The other side also talk often about how righteous they are environmentally. They talk about the environment, about energy and about sustainability. Sustainability is their mantra. Do you know what we are into? We are into economic sustainability. We are trying to bring this country's finances back into something that is ongoing. To the member for Lilley who says that debt is not a problem, I will give one example of why it is a problem. We are now spending close to $1 billion a year in interest. It is not hard to work out that it is well over $10 billion a year. We are not going to being spending that sort of money. That sort of money is not even budgeted for in Gonski going forward. They talk about the NDIS and about Gonski. That is money that we are spending in interest before you even start spending money on programs like this. Again, populism works in the short term—

An opposition member interjecting—

Someone on the other side said, 'You need to learn from your mistakes.' Even in opposition, you can go down in history as having been a good opposition. I think the Howard opposition was a good opposition. They could have taken short-term populist shots at the then Hawke-Keating governments. The Hawke-Keating governments did some real reforms and this side of politics could have played the populist and said, 'We'll oppose everything to win votes in the short term.' That was not for the good of the country. Even in opposition, the Howard opposition showed that you could have real values in opposition as well. While the short term may give you popular votes, history will judge you badly. They have proven that in government and they are proving that in opposition.

See this speech in context