Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There we go: Senator Gallacher's interjection. Actually, I liked the commission of audit. I absolutely did and you should too. I just want to reflect briefly. This highlights a particularly relevant and important difference in terms of how this government wants to approach the issue of budget management and how Labor wants to approach the issue of budget management. I absolutely sit on the side of the argument that says we need to reduce government spending. I cannot believe that I am sitting on the same side of the debate has Paul Keating. Paul Keating has said that it is important for the government to tackle the issue of government expenditure. But where are Labor senators? Where is the Labor opposition? Why don't you support your former Labor Treasurer? Why don't you support your former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, when he at least can bring himself to the enormity of the task and the enormity of the challenge with all of his experience, and he says very clearly that the challenge for this government—indeed, it would be the same challenge if, heaven forbid, the Labor Party should win the next election—is to reduce the size of government expenditure. 'Why?' I hear you ask, Senator Williams? Because who pays for that ultimately? The taxpayer.

I want to reflect briefly on some commentary that was in The Australian on 5 March 2010 to take us back a little while and look at what was being said about the then Labor government's approach to tax policy. The headline in The Australian on 5 March 2010 says: 'Cabinet splits over tax, tactics'. I will quote briefly from that report. It says:

Several senior Labor sources have confirmed the cabinet differences over Mr Rudd's delay in releasing his promised "root-and-branch" examination by a committee led by Treasury secretary Ken Henry.

The article goes on to say:

Mr Rudd resists the view of senior Labor MPs that it "must be delivered before the budget".

And then says:

Mr Rudd said yesterday he had no timetable for the release of the document ...

It then quotes the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, as saying the following:

"Each thing in its season. We've got to do one thing at a time.

"On the tax system, yep, we've got more work to do, but on the timetable for it, were still working our way through it."

And the media report goes on to suggest that this reluctance to discuss tax was widespread:

Senior government sources said that, behind the scenes, no one in the government was talking about the Henry review, despite the promises of a "root-and-branch" examination of the tax system. Others described the Henry tax review, which Mr Rudd started, as being "as popular as a dead fish"—

Don't believe me, Senator Gallagher; it was in The Australian newspaper. You can faithfully trust what was written in The Australian newspaper on 5 March 2010.

In the brief minute that is available to me, I think it is important to get an important set of facts on the table. To date, Labor has promised taxes that will raise around $8.16 billion over the forward estimates, but, at the same time, has promised to spend $44 billion over that same time frame. To date, Labor has promised to raise $8 billion but spend $44 billion. From the tax changes it has proposed so far, Labor has already promised to pay for general budget plans, budget consolidation and unspecified health policy initiatives, and has already promised to fund unspecified spending initiatives, childcare reform and additional schools funding. Labor cannot be believed. To date, it has said it is raising $8 billion but has already promised to spend $44 billion. That might have a ring of familiarity because it sounds very much like the mining tax and the fraud that was committed over regional communities when there was no money to pay for their commitments. (Time expired)