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

It was extraordinary listening to Senator O'Neill and Senator Polley before her, because they talk about spending like money is just manufactured out of thin air. The reality is money comes from taxpayers. Those on that side of the chamber have demonstrated how poor they are at taking responsibility for other people's money. The only thing they can do is fritter it away and cast it amongst the deserving Australian people, and rack up of billions and billions of dollars worth of debt for generations to come.

Senator O'Neill was thrown out of the last government. She was thrown out of her seat in the last government because she could not accept responsibility. That government was the most spendthrift government ever. It was the worst government in the history of this country. That is the problem that Senator O'Neill has when it comes to credibility. It is the same with Senator Polley. They talk about how they need to spend more money on this and more money on that, but there is not one iota of responsibility mentioned in any of this.

The reality we have to deal with is that we have to prioritise. Senator O'Neill and Senator Polley, and most of those on the other side, need a swift lesson in our Constitution. They clearly do not understand the separation of powers. The hospital system, which Senator O'Neill has been whining about for the last five minutes, is the responsibility of the states. Of course the states have been terrible economic managers as well—most of them Labor states. In my own state of South Australia, the hospital system is in a parlous position. It has all sorts of problems because of the nearly 20 years of neglect under Labor governance. Yet those on that side of the chamber will say that somehow it is the federal coalition's fault. Well, it is not. They should check the Constitution.

You cannot suspend your knowledge of Australia's history and its constitutional arrangements when you come into this place. You cannot suspend your own common sense. Yet that is what those on that side of the chamber seem to think. They also seem to think they can suspend the law of economics, which is: unless you have money to pay for it, you have to borrow it. Those on that side of the chamber have set in path a motion of unsustainable spending from which we are still trying to recover—the hundreds of billions of dollars that they started spending, with promises of permanent programs that they could not fund and that they still cannot fund.

Their latest thought bubble is to start to decrease the capital gains tax to make us even less competitive for international investment; also to stop negative gearing. Negative gearing has been part of our tax system; it is a fundamental principle that is attached to it about people investing and being able to offset the costs of an investment and the income from that investment against the costs attached to it. Those on that side of the chamber said, 'No, no, this is just about housing.' But they neglected to mention the people who invest in commercial real estate, which provides accommodation for businesses to grow; they neglected to mention those who borrow to invest in private businesses—that is outlawed under that mob over there; and they neglected to mention those who invest in the share market and borrow money to invest—you are not allowed to deduct your expenses associated with that. All of these things have not been thought through. In their rush to ingratiate themselves with those whom they want great support from, they make these ad hoc decisions.

Those on the other side of the chamber need to grow up and take some responsibility for their own decision making and their own failings and come to the conclusion that the more government interferes, the more things go bad. That is simply what happens in this country, particularly under that mob. On this side of the chamber, we recognise that the one that governs least is the one that governs best.

If people can take more responsibility for themselves, if we take less tax from them, they will be able to make better decisions in their long-term interest than a government ever will. It is a simple premise. Instead of that, instead of responsibility, we get carping, whining and bleating. We get complaints. They look for those who are suddenly disadvantaged. Rather than trying to uplift them, they want to make them more dependent upon the bosom of government. They say: 'We will look after you. Come into our warm embrace.' But as they embrace you, they smother the life out of you. They are trying to crush the life out of Australia—their innovation, their business sense—and replace it with the government. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

If they want to come in here and be credible, then stop complaining about the implications of what you set in train. When you can do that and say, 'We got it wrong' then maybe people will listen to you, and maybe then you will be more deserving of people paying attention to what you have to say.