John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

But the problem is: will he stay? That is the real worry that is on everybody’s minds—nobody wants to see the nice lady Julia Gillard take over. That is the worry around Australia. If Mr Rudd goes down the path taken by his Labor mates in the states and territories, it will be very, very expensive for the taxpayers of Australia. It will mean increased taxes. We have already seen in the budget taxes and costs that are going to go up. Potentially, 385,000 extra people are going to go onto the state hospital system. It is worrying because the money is not there to fund it. What is going to happen? Increased queues, decreased service and more anxiety for families.

It will be interesting to see whether the rhetoric of reining in inflation can be matched with similar restraints to keep the Commonwealth salary bill under appropriate restraint. It is going to be a challenge. I think it is going to be very difficult; in fact, I think it is going to be impossible. I am not full of confidence, as I said, because it would be out of character for Labor governments to exercise this sort of restraint based on past practice and on the very recent history of Labor state and territory governments. Of course, it has been very fortuitous for the Treasurer to inherit a budget situation in such a well-managed state, but the real test will come next year or the following year when the government will be living beyond its own resources.

There have been certain surprises in this budget. Mr Garrett’s famous and loosely released comment that ‘all will be changed after the election’ must be seen in a very serious context. Here I note the problem in Tasmania—the problem that $37.3 million which was allocated to the Tasmanian health service has been shown as a saving. I have got a problem because there is a lack of transparency. The budget paper that I refer to calls it a saving of $37.5 million because they did not fulfil their undertakings. I maintain that it is a transfer because Senator Ludwig indicated that this money had been transferred to other health services. How can you call it a saving but use it as a transfer? It is not a saving; it is a transfer from one program, which was not told to the Tasmanian people beforehand. So one section got let down hopelessly. Why try to confuse people by listing it as a saving? You are not being transparent and I think somebody is—no, I will not say what I thought because I do not want to cast aspersions on an honourable senator. It is not clear and it is not satisfactory.