Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I address my remarks to the private member's motion in relation to the fuel excise, I cannot help but feel the need to give Senator Lines a lesson in economics 101. The senator has made a heap of comments about people on low-incomes, on welfare payments and the like who are unable to afford this increase in their weekly expenditure, but Senator Lines has failed to realise that there are many payments made to people in Australia that are funded by the government. I think you can supplant the word 'government' with 'other taxpaying members of the Australian public', because we need to remember that governments do not have money of their own; they only have the money of the people of Australia.

In order for us to pay the welfare payments and to have all the things that Senator Lines would like us to have, we must have revenue sources, unless Senator Lines is suggesting that we continue to increase our budget debts and deficits to such an extent that we spend all of the money raised from taxation on paying off the interest on our debt. Whilst Senator Lines can come in here and make these sorts of comments, she has to realise that there are two sides to a ledger. There is the income side and there is the expenditure side. Somewhere down the track, you have to bring it to account. You cannot keep forking it out, without having some sort of revenue base. If Senator Lines spent a little bit more time thinking about where the money comes from to pay for all these things that she would like Australians to have, then we might end up with a more sensible debate than the one we have just had.

There are a couple of other comments in Senator Lines's speech that warrant a comment on the record, of which one was this assertion that our farmers and primary producers were somehow rich people. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, coming from a state that relies so heavily on agriculture and primary production as the basis of its economy, would understand that many of our farmers have no income at all. They may have some assets but those assets, at the moment, are so devalued—because of debt, poor commodity prices in a lot of Australia and the high Australian dollar—that these people are well below the poverty line. Some of them earn no money at all, though there are those that are lucky enough to be able to draw on their savings. To make an asinine comment about 'rich' farmers being somehow able to pay for any increase in fuel, whereas people who live in the city—those 'poor' people—will in no way be able to cope is the most outrageous comment I have ever heard.

Finally, before I move onto the substantive matter before us, I will quote Senator Lines. If anybody wants to, they can have a look in Hansard to see that this is exactly what she said:

… people of Western Australia do not need more roads …

Maybe the people of Western Australia do not want more roads. I would be interested to test that one in the marketplace—and I am sure my colleagues from Western Australia possibly will—but I assure Senator Lines that people across the rest of Australia want more roads. They want more roads, they want better roads and they want safer roads. Maybe we should test the statement that the 'people of Western Australia do not want more roads', because it would come up with some very interesting results.

I turn to Senator Bullock's substantive motion before us in relation to the fuel excise. I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody in this place—whether they be Labor, Greens, crossbenchers, Liberals, Nationals—when I say that we would all like to see increases in spending. We would all like to increase the spending on market access to our primary produce so that we can get better access to markets for our producers in Australia. We would love to see an increase in spending on research and development, innovation and technology—the things that, in the past, we have been world leaders in and things that have made Australia the great country it is. We would love to be spending more on that. I would love to see an increase in funding to the NBN to accelerate the roll-out of the NBN, particularly to country areas, because there are parts of this country and parts of our home state in South Australia where people do not have any internet connectivity whatsoever. It would be fabulous to spend more money there. I would absolutely love to see the deregulation of the higher education sector without the need for government funding being cut. I do not move away from the fact that we need to deregulate, but wouldn't it great if we could go to a model of deregulation without reducing the amount of funding that is made available to the higher education sector? That would be terrific. We could increase funding for all things that improve public amenity and public good, such as the arts, so that we can enjoy ourselves and have access to wonderful artistic and cultural activities. We would all love to see that.

I would love for us not to be in a position where there is a need to change the indexation situation on fuel. Unfortunately, we do not have any choice, and I go back to my opening comments in relation to economics 101—that is, if you want to spend something, you need to have the funds. We on this side of the House do not believe that you just keep borrowing on the never-never, if you want to have all the things that I just talked about and the myriad other ones that, I am sure, every senator in this place and every member in the other place can come up with. Every lower House member would love lots of things for their electorates. We all want a wonderful country to live in. We have a fabulous country to live in. We have a fabulous country with a wonderful standard of living. But of course we would all like to think that that standard of living would never be challenged. Well, the only way that that standard of living will not be challenged is if we have an economy that is robust and self-sufficient—that is, an economy that is not constantly being burdened by the debt interest that we have to pay on an ever-burgeoning budget debt and deficit.

But back to the substantive motion from Senator Bullock. The government is trying to balance the books. The first thing we have to do is actually get rid of the deficit. Economics 101 actually says that, unless you are actually earning more than you are spending or if you are earning at least as much as you are spending, you will actually be increasing your debt. It is a pretty simple equation. I am sorry that nobody on the other side seems to get it.

The government want to balance those books so that our debt is no longer increasing and then move to a budget surplus so that we can start paying down that debt. But, at the same time, it is extraordinarily important that we also stimulate economic growth because the only way that our tax receipts will increase is by providing an economic environment in which the growth and productivity of our private sector is sufficient to generate that sort of tax income.

The government find it necessary to do this. I will not go on ad nauseam about this but, unfortunately, this situation was not of our doing and for those opposite to sit here and be critical of us for trying to be sensible, rational and good economic managers I really do think is a little bit rich. We inherited an extraordinary situation and now, in the height of audacity, those opposite turn around and give us a hard time for trying to fix it.

But back to roads. With respect to the small increase in the price of fuel—and do not get me wrong, I do not want to see any price rise in fuel—I can let you know, Senator Lines, with respect to your throwaway comment, 'Those opposite wouldn't have any idea as to the last time they paid to fill up their car,' that, like you, when I fuel up my Commonwealth government-provided car, the Commonwealth pays for it, just as it does when you fuel up your car, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Commonwealth pays for that; the taxpayers of Australia pay for your fuel, as they do for Senator Lines. But do you know what? When a farmer goes to fill up his fuel tanks—

Senator Payne interjecting—

or her fuel tanks—in my case, as a female farmer, and Senator Payne also has a property—on their farm or we fuel up our vehicles that we use as part of our primary production, do you know what? We pay for that. I do not know that Senator Lines is in much of a position to be throwing over here and suggesting that, somehow, I am going to be immune from the slight increase in the fuel excise. I will be one of the people in this chamber who will probably be most impacted by the increase in the price of fuel because I run a number of tractors and vehicles on the road, and equipment and machinery on my primary-producing property. We do receive a rebate, but we still have to pay for the fuel. So I would just like to draw Senator Lines's attention that she is in no position to be throwing over to this side of the chamber and suggesting that, somehow, we will be immune from the impact of these changes. We will not be immune.

Back to roads. We need to have roads of the 21st century, because roads and transport infrastructure is so tremendously important in this country. Coming from a state where the majority of our economic activity is actually generated in country areas and where we are very reliant on primary production and mining, it is extremely important for us in rural and regional areas, particularly in South Australia, that we have good transport infrastructure, whether that be roads, ports or infrastructure that supports those things. For us to shy away from that, I think, would be irresponsible because, unless you actually make the investment now, you have no hope whatsoever of being able to realise the economic activity into the future.

Over the last number of years we have seen a lack of funding in my state, not just by the previous federal government. Because the government in my home state has neglected road funding to such an extent that it has such a huge backlog of road funding, it is seeking to reduce the speed limits because our roads are no longer safe to drive on at the current speed limits. So we do have to realise that there are things that we have to do—money that we have to spend—in support of promoting growth and economic activity, particularly in our primary areas.

Much has been said about the fact that the change in indexation and its likely impact on the price of fuel is a small amount. I am sure nobody wants to spend one cent more on anything than they have to. But if you look at the broad base of this particular change in our taxation regime you will see that everybody will be paying a little bit. This measure is not about smacking one particular group in our community; it is about ensuring we make everybody lift just a small amount of the burden. In so doing, hopefully, we will be able to see the expenditure that is necessary into the future so that we can have all the wonderful things that Australians have become so used to having.

In speaking on this motion from Senator Bullock—I like Senator Bullock—I am sure everybody else in this place would love not to be sitting here and debating this particular motion. However, the cold, hard reality is that we have been left in an absolutely untenable position because of the budget where we have been forced, because we are sensible and responsible economic managers, into a situation where we are having to undertake changes to our taxation regime and deal with matters in the budget which are not particularly palatable to the public. But do you know what? At the end of the day, you cannot keep on conning the Australian people by giving them more and more when you are borrowing on the never-never to pay for it. It is regrettable that we even have to be sitting here having this debate today and it is regrettable that we have found ourselves in this situation where we find it necessary to find alternative means for generating revenue to pay off the most outrageous debt and deficit situation that has been inherited from those opposit

I just hope that maybe one day those opposite will sit down, listen and realise that if you do not have the money to pay for it you should not be having it. At the end of the day, if you do not balance your books, you just end up in a nasty situation where it all ends in tears.