Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I take that on board, Mr Deputy Speaker. But it is self-evident to anybody who has been listening to this debate—and not only to this particular debate but to the general debate around a co-payment—to understand the rationale for the decision of the shadow Assistant Treasurer.

So it is that we see the Labor Party walk away from good policy. We see the Labor Party walk away from good economic policy, from good social policy and from an appropriate initiative taken to attempt, in some way, to make sure that Australia lives within its means with respect to the budget.

So the fundamental problem with the amendment that has been moved by the shadow Assistant Treasurer is that Labor is not proposing—either through this amendment or in the discussion that they have been having through the media and with the general community—to put forward any alternative plan for how Labor would fund the policy approach that Labor believes this country should be taking. It is one thing to be as populist as possible. In fact, it is understandable that an opposition, having been comprehensively rejected by the Australian public, would take the view that they need to do all that they can to attempt to appeal to the masses, so to speak, in their policies. But it is a separate thing for an educated individual like the shadow Assistant Treasurer to walk away from sound policy, to walk away from an approach that he himself was a fierce advocate for, for many years—a position which he took the decision to walk away from only in the last several days, knowing full well that it was done to benefit him politically. So the question that the constituents of Fraser can ask themselves legitimately, and the question that the constituents of Fraser can ask legitimately of their federal member, is: how many other matters of principle is he prepared to walk away from in pursuit of his political career? That is the fundamental question that the electors of Fraser can ask. How many other matters of principle is their elected representative willing to walk away from in pursuit of his ambition? Because it is crystal clear that he is prepared to walk away from this matter—something that he has believed in, obviously, for more than a decade.

Unfortunately, the approach of the member for Fraser—that is, the approach to reject sound policy in pursuit of short-term populism—is entirely consistent with the broader approach of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party's approach with respect to this amendment and, more broadly, economic policy, is to reject any adherence to sound policy and to embrace a short-term, knee-jerk reaction in the hope that they can in some way build some political credibility off the back of some of the short-term concern that elements of the community express with respect to the budget initiatives that were announced.

I have said on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others have said on numerous occasions, that we understand that this budget and the initiatives within the budget are not popular in all strata of society, and we understand that there are elements in the community that dislike some of the initiatives. But the fundamental, inescapable fact is that these decisions are a consequence of six years of reckless spending, of six years of poor economic management and of six years of a failed economic approach that meant the pathway this nation was on, where we were borrowing a billion dollars a month just to service the interest on the debt that Labor had accumulated, what was unsustainable. But for the fact that Labor had racked up so much debt and so much deficit in such a relatively short period of time, these kinds of decisions would not be necessary.

If Australia were as healthy today in an economic sense as it was when the Australian Labor Party was first elected back in 2007, these types of choices would not necessarily have to be made. But now, faced with a crippling debt burden and faced with a prognosis from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office that indicates that unless structural change is made now, Australia will not be able to respond in the future, this government has done the right thing and taken the decisions that needed to be taken in order to live within our means. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context