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

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak today on this matter of public importance. It is indeed a matter of very significant public importance. By listening to the contribution of other senators many might think that there was not a problem facing the Australian economy and that there was not a problem facing the budget position of the new, coalition government.

It was interesting to read, last week, that prominent Australian chief executives of some of our leading corporations had travelled all the way to London to talk about the Australian economic experience and some of the challenges facing the new government. I was surprised that they travelled all the way to London to talk about some of the challenges, because if they had stayed in Melbourne last week they would have seen the work of the National Commission of Audit and they would have understood my concern that, unfortunately, Labor and Greens senators have been too quick to abandon or to criticise the work of the National Commission of Audit. They have been too quick to ignore the very serious budget problem that faces our country.

I want to reflect on that problem for a moment, because I do not think I have yet heard other senators in this debate talk about the serious economic challenges facing our country—and, more importantly, the government—as we proceed towards the budget in May. Let me just give you a sense of the enormity of the challenge. Eight billion dollars a year is being spent on interest payments alone to meet the debt of the former government. That is $8 billion that could be used for education or to support regional communities like those that Senator Back represents. That $8 billion could be used to support more efficient health delivery. In addition to that, I have not heard Labor senators—or Greens senators, for that matter—talk about the increasing rate at which government expenditure is occurring. I am happy to stand corrected but, if my recollection serves me correctly, 3.5 per cent is the rate at which government spending has been increasing over the last five years. Into the medium term that is expected to increase to 3.7 per cent, at a time when our nation's revenue base is diminishing.

If we looked specifically at expenditure in health, we would know that health expenditure has been increasing at a rate of almost 4.5 per cent. Clearly, we have a challenge. What is different about this government's approach from the previous government's approach—the challenge was there prior to 7 September last year—is that this government has decided that it will tackle, address, amend and correct the budget emergency that the former government has left us with.

We hear a lot about Senate obstructionism and about the games that Labor and Greens senators play. Often senators on this side—government senators—are keen to draw the community's attention to the delay and obfuscation of senators opposite but it was interesting to note what Dr Chris Roberts said last week in London. Chris Roberts is the CEO of Cochlear. He said to an English audience that the Greens, who are economically and scientifically illiterate, were a great concern. He said that it was as if they wanted us all to be subsistence farmers and that they fundamentally do not understand how the world works. What Dr Roberts was saying was that it is very important that senators in this place understand and come to appreciate the enormity of the budget challenge that this government has inherited and has decided to address.

In addition to that it is important to note that we have had, I think, four hearings of the Senate inquiry into the National Commission of Audit so far. It is fair to say that they started with great gusto. I think that Labor and Greens senators were hoping to find a mass of information that they could use to go to the community to scare the community into believing that the government might adopt some ill-conceived or ill-thought-out recommendations. But we know that the National Commission of Audit is conducting its work to provide advice to government about the sorts of things that the government may choose to include in its budget in May next year.

We know that the government may decide to accept some of those recommendations. We know that the government may decide to reject some of those recommendations. Indeed, the government might decide to amend some of those recommendations. So, what we have here, in my humble assessment, is a very astute way in which to address the budget crisis or the budget emergency.

So, when Labor senators try to tell you, 'This is terrible; expect cuts. This is terrible; we are all doomed,' perhaps we should reflect on what former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said when he came to office. What words did he use when he was talking about addressing some of the budget issues that he thought were worthy of addressing? In the Rudd government's first 100 days it bragged that it had set up a razor gang 'to comprehensively review each Commonwealth government department and cut wasteful spending'. Those were Kevin Rudd's words.

What changed? Why was it okay for the former Prime Minister, on coming to government, to conduct a review of government expenditure but, lo and behold, it is not appropriate now? What changed? All that changed was the narrow perspective of Labor senators, aided and abetted by their Greens partners. I could go on and talk about the IMF and other contributions but I will leave it for another time. (Time expired)