Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 and the associated bill, I would like to outline the general budget context in which we are forced to put forward such changes to social security in this country. Most Australians would know that Australia does indeed find itself in a circumstance that is unprecedented in our history. We have a significant national debt, some hundreds of billions of dollars, whereas only six or so years ago we had zero net national debt—from zero to several hundred billion dollars of excessive spending in only six or so years.

It is the unfortunate remit of this conservative government to redress the economic damage that has been done to our society and to the budget—to our nation's books, if you will—by six years of spendthrift government. In doing so, there are tough choices that need to be made. Make no mistake about that. The government has made it clear that everyone within the community is going to have to do a bit of the heavy lifting.

I am on the record as saying that I do not agree with all of the measures put forward in the budget, but I do have to say that it has the balance about right, because it does apportion responsibility to those who successfully earn and to those who receive often much-needed benefits, by instilling in them ideals like mutual obligation. Perhaps we can limit some benefit increases for the purpose of maintaining a more cohesive and sustainable whole of nation. That is the essence of what we are discussing here.

But, of course, there are people, irresponsible people, who believe that it is okay somehow for this generation to take and take and mortgage the future—to say, 'It does not matter. I am not going to be around. I am going to let my children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren pick up the slack, because I am not prepared to wear any of the pain now.' I think that is wrong—it is morally wrong. It is incumbent upon all of us to accept our own responsibility today so that we can take a bit of the heat out of our children's future.

Gross government debt in this country is forecast to be $389 billion in 2034-24. That is if we can pass the budget measures this government is proposing. If we do not, if we continue down the previous path—the Labor/Greens alliance path—the gross government debt would be almost double that, at $667 billion. That is the extraordinary legacy of having governments that do not have a clue about how to manage money.

Let us make no bones about it, the bill we are talking about here deals with social services, and it deals with much needed change in social services. The reason it is such a substantial bill and has such an important impact upon our budget bottom line is that this year's budget, the 2014-15 budget, has over $146 billion in social security spending in it. That is about 35 per cent of whole of government expenditure.

In the 2013-14 year, spending on the age pension alone—a much needed and very important pension for so many in our community, is scheduled to reach $40 billion for the very first time. Given the demographics of this country—that we are ageing and living longer, and thank God for that—we are going to have more and more people who will be dependent on either private means, or on public means when private means are not available, to sustain them through their retirement years. The upshot of this is that, based on demographics, we are going to have fewer people working and being able to pay the taxes to sustain these sorts of expenditures. These are very important things for people.

So there is $40 billion in age pensions. We know that $19 billion or so is scheduled to be spent next year on family tax benefits. Once again, these are a very important component of sustaining family life in this country. I would prefer government to take less tax in the first place, and allow people to keep more of their own money. That is a philosophical disposition. I would love to see things like income splitting or tax-free thresholds increased for single-income families. There is a whole range of measures in which things could be done, but I have to address myself to the matter in hand. Successive governments have said that the family tax benefit is one way of addressing some of the imbalance in our community and within our tax system. So we have a substantial amount of money, $19 billion, being spent on family tax benefits in the last budget. Then there is another $10 billion—these numbers just roll off the tongue, I know—being spent on assistance for unemployed and sick Australians. That is a truly significant amount of money. We have worked out that with the ageing population, the ratio of working age Australians to pension age Australians is going to fall from the current ratio of around 5:1 to around 2.7:1 by the mid-century. I will be a pensioner by the mid-century if I am still alive—