Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I have in my hot little hand Senator Moore's matter of public importance for this afternoon, and I have to say that the impact of the Abbott government's proposed budget cuts on pensioners, on families and on young job seekers—or, for that matter, anyone else—is absolutely nothing compared to the impact on pensioners, families and young job seekers in the future if public expenditure is not brought under control. Is there an impact on pensioners, on families and on job seekers from the current budget? Yes, there is. I do not deny it. But, if it is unfair—and that is what the Labor Party is arguing—it is nowhere near as unfair as when future generations will be asked to pay for current generations. If public expenditure is not brought under control, future generations will be paying for us.

Is it fair to ask future generations of pensioners to pay for our current health, education and welfare? Is it fair to ask future generations of families to pay for our current health, education and welfare? Is it fair to ask future generations of young job seekers to pay for the current generation's health, education and welfare? How is that fair? How is it fair that, in less than 10 years, pensioners, families and young job seekers—all the people mentioned in Senator Moore's matter of public importance—will be paying $3 billion interest per month to finance our, the current generation's, health, education and welfare? Is that fair?

Only after future taxpayers have paid the $3 billion interest per month—and that will happen within 10 years—can any government, a coalition government or a Labor government, start to service their needs. Under current projections, before any money is spent on future generations—even one cent—future generations will have to pay back $3 billion per month simply to service the interest rates. How is it fair that, in 10 years, every pensioner in this country will be in debt for $25,000? How fair is it that, in 10 years, every member of every family will be debt for $25,000? How fair is it that, in 10 years, every job seeker will be in debt for $25,000 to pay for the current generation's health, education and welfare? The coalition believes that, in the end, it is pretty simple: it is only fair when generations pay for themselves—with allowances made for intergenerational infrastructure, I grant you. The coalition believes that, fundamentally, the only socially just budget, the only socially just deficit, is where generations pay for themselves.

What has happened since World War II? What has happened is that social democratic and socialist governments have changed their spots. In the past, without apology and quite openly, the left used to believe in redistributing money from the rich to everyone else. They used to say, 'Eat the rich'. It was quite open. In postwar Great Britain, it was quite open. But then, with modernising social democracy, in the late 70s, the 80s and the 90s, the social democrats discovered that there were not enough rich people and that their policy of eating the rich actually was an electoral risk. They realised not only that it was economically ridiculous and it would make the left an economic basket case but also that they lost too many votes and they would never be elected.

So what happened? What did Labor parties here in Australia and social democratic parties overseas do to raise funds for the great social democratic projects throughout the Western world? They became very, very cunning. Rather than openly talk about eating the rich and redistribution, they became very cunning. Rather than risking electoral backlash from the better-off, the social democrats decided to take from the powerless the money that they needed. The Labor Party always say that they stick up for the powerless—anyone listening will have heard that—but they take the money from the powerless. They take it from those people who are too young to vote and those people yet to be born—future generations.

What the left in the Western world—the social democrats and the socialists—realised was that they could not take the money from the rich anymore because there were not enough of them. So, instead, rather than eating the rich, they decided to eat the children and the next generation—because, to eat them, there are virtually no electoral repercussions. How clever it was of the left to discover that! Rather than blatantly, honestly and openly saying, 'We want to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the not-so-wealthy,' they are now redistributing wealth from the future—from kids not yet born and from the young—to current generations to service their wants. The left believe that is socially just to ask future generations in this country to pay for their living standards today—and they should be damned for that.

I respect people like some of the old Lefties who quite honestly and openly get up and say, 'No, we should tax the wealthy more.' I disagree with Senator Cameron and Senator Carr on virtually everything, but at least they are honest. But, to finance the social democratic project, this modern Labor will take money from those yet to be born and our children. They will take money from them because they cannot pay the deficit. Every time the Labor Party get into office they leave Australia further in debt. They have done that every time they have been elected since 1904. There has never been an exception in the history of the Labor Party—not once in 110 years. They always leave Australia further in debt, and it has got a lot worse. It got so must worse in the Rudd and the Gillard years when they deliberately and wantonly took money from children who are not yet born and people who cannot yet vote to pay for the services and to secure the support of the electorate. It is the most pathetic vote-buying performance.

They are not the only ones. Western Europe has been wallowing. The social democratic parties of Western Europe have done this for years and they are condemned for asking future generations to fund the health, education and welfare bills of the current generation, asking our kids to look after us. It is the worst part of social democracy. I am quite happy to have a debate with anyone about who should be paying the bill, but there is the farce that the Labor Party comes back with every time about how unfair it is. I will tell you what is unfair: you lot over there forcing future generations to pay for your electoral promises. For your electoral promises, you want your children and your grandchildren and kids yet born to pay for your bill. It is a moral disgrace.