Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Some people do ask, such as Senator Siewert, why it is so important to have a budget surplus. Why not just spend? Let me explain very briefly why a surplus is important. After World War II, Social Democratic parties in Western countries came up with a pea and thimble trick, and it was this: the state could offer more to its citizens than those citizens would ever pay in tax. That was the Social Democratic compact—principally in western Europe and more recently in the United States of America. Largely, of course, those countries got away with it. They got away with it for two reasons. Firstly, after World War II, the West had an enormous technological, manufacturing, industrial and educational advantage—far ahead of the rest of the world by a mile. Secondly, our population was young and it was growing, and it was buttressed by immigration in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. So we had both the economy on our side and demography on our side. After World War II, there were far more citizens paying tax than citizens receiving state support. The system more or less worked.

Fast forward to 2012. Where are we right now? Firstly, we no longer enjoy a huge technological, industrial and educational advantage. The rest of the world has caught up with the West. The rest has caught the West, especially China, India and East Asia. It has happened well within my lifetime. Within the last 30 years, we have seen the greatest economic transformation in human history, where billions of people have come out of poverty and into relative comfort. Secondly, our population is now ageing. We no longer enjoy a healthy ratio between those paying tax and those receiving benefits. That healthy ratio has evaporated. Our economic comparative advantage and our demographic advantage no longer apply.

In the Western world, too many people now work for the government, receive benefits from the government or are organised rent-seekers for government assistance. That is where the Western world is in 2012. Where are we today? Today the West is drowning in debt and it is getting worse. I accept the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a great idea, at about $10½ billion a year; the national dental scheme is a great idea, at about $4 billion over six years; the Gonski funding proposals for schools are a great idea too, at about $6½ billion per year—let alone the dodgy accounting that allows the NBN to be put off budget. All of them are great ideas—I do not dispute that. Let me ask this question, Acting Deputy President Ludlam, and you know the question I am going to ask: who will end up paying for it? I will tell you who is going to pay for it: our children and our grandchildren, as they are paying for similar schemes in western Europe and the United States, and it will not change.

The great British historian, Professor Niall Ferguson, wrote recently in his Reith Lectures and said:

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.

Yes, we are living at the expense of our children and our grandchildren. That is a fact.

The Labor Party and the Greens always like to talk about social justice, equity and fairness. Let me ask this: is it fair, is it just, is it appropriate to dump IOUs from our generation onto our children's and our grandchildren's generations because we are unable to live within our means? Is that fair? Is that social justice? I think not.

This is a Left mantra. It has been in Western Europe since World War II and in the United States from the 1960s. It is a disgraceful breach of the social contract between one generation and the next; between our generation and our children's generation and our grandchildren's generation. Governments, communities and societies are not just about eligible voters; they are about those kids who were watching us before, their children and those to come after. That is what this is about. It is about their future.

That is why we have to ensure that Labor balances its budget. We know that since Federation every time Labor leaves government we are further in debt as a nation. That has been, as I have said so often in this chamber, the Labor Party's story since their first Prime Minister, John Christian Watson, in 1904. That is why we do not trust this mob; they have had the same form for more than a century. It is always the same story: in peace and in war, in good times and bad times, it does not matter. Australia is always further in debt when this lot leaves government. There has never been an exception. That is why we in the opposition are worried as hell.

If this lot is re-elected, sure they have great schemes—Gonski, NDIS, the dental scheme and others—but who will pay for them? We all know who will pay for them in the end: it will be our kids and our grandkids, and we will mortgage their future. That is what we in the opposition are all petrified about. To paraphrase the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the problem with Labor is that sooner or later they run out of other people's money. That has been the problem since 1904 and the first Labor Prime Minister, and nothing has changed—no lessons are ever learned. Why don't they get that every generation has to pay for itself? Is it not a good principle of social justice and equity that, largely, more or less, within an arc, every generation pays for itself? That is all I am asking: that generations do that.

In the end, no-one in the Labor Party ever wants to pay the piper. They would rather spend our children's future and our grandchildren's inheritance. We, the opposition, will not allow that to happen. Let us just hope that we win the next election.