Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a lot of material to work with. I must say that I am deeply appreciative that this is not being broadcast, because Senator Lines has vilified business as the villains of everything that is bad and evil in this country when the reality is that they are the employers of all the people that she represented in her former life as a trade unionist. It would be a great day when we come into this place and see those former trade unionists in their majority on the other side take off their hats and start to be objective, because in the circle of life they represent only about 40 per cent.

We have had a number of contentions put, but let's reframe this motion because the Greens and the Labor Party have sought to politicise what is a very credible and responsible instrument of government. They have sought to politicise it for their own gain prior to two state elections, to seek the champion of fearmongering, bringing it out into the electorate, and still try to claim this position for the Perth Senate election on 5 April. So we have all this bleating. Let's reframe it, shall we, and just say that it is a political stunt from the other side.

It is absolutely and thoroughly reasonable for a government, having assumed government, to have an audit of the books. I see Senator Polley over there shaking her head. I guess she would agree with me that you need to do an audit after such an incompetent reign of Treasury by the frontbenchers of the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. Let me talk about why this is credible. Those on the other side might want to know that, in January this year, former prime ministers Hawke and Keating drew comparisons between the budget challenges faced by the current government—that is, your period in government, your reign—and equivalent fiscal challenges they had faced in office. Mr Hawke, who was one of the most progressive, reformist Labor prime ministers and arguably had one of the more successful reigns of Labor prime ministers in this country, said:

You've got to have a prime minister and treasurer, and a competent ministry which understands the issue and is prepared to make hard decisions.

So it is the same challenge. That is what Mr Hawke said.

Mr Keating was more pointed about the need to make tough choices. He said:

We had to cut spending across the board—social welfare, business welfare, everywhere.

He also said:

Sleazy, underhand politics and policies—of not offending anybody—was what got the country into trouble in the first place.

There you have it. You sit here and try to politicise this for your electoral gain. You want the opportunity to come out and beat this ideological position of cutting things. The reality was that, after the 7 September election, this government inherited a legacy of $123 billion in accumulated budget deficits from the Labor-Greens alliance in their reign and $667 billion in accumulated debt. Well done! That is why we have a Commission of Audit.

While you are out there vilifying the business people, I note with interest that the people who have been chosen to conduct the Commission of Audit have been vilified as well. It just does not make sense to me in any way, shape or form because those people have been brought together because of their business acumen and because they are good Australians who understand that there was a budget emergency which we needed to pull back from to take stock and have a look at every sector.

I recently joined this folly—the Greens-Labor sponsored inquiry into the Commission of Audit. The reality is that, when I first went there and heard from a number of government departments, it became very clear that some of those departmental officials felt that there were areas in their departments where they could reclaim and better utilise some resources. That was the feeling throughout. They said there may be some duplication across departments. Why wouldn't a responsible government have a look at these things?

While I am referring to those hearings, I point out that some of the witnesses who appeared highlighted the importance of the work of the commission. For example, Dr Peter Burn, the Director of Public Policy at the Australian Industry Group, said the work of the commission:

… is a very important task, and it is worth emphasising that it would be important regardless of the current position of the budget. It is perhaps most important in the context of longer term public finances in view of the accumulated impacts that demographic forces and rising health expenditures could have on Australia's public finances over coming decades.

That is not an emotional statement. That is from somebody out there who understands the drivers of this economy. He says that it is thoroughly appropriate to have a Commission of Audit. Yet we see those on the other side, in their usual form, wanting to rush these things out there. They want to beat their drum. That is not the way good governments run themselves. They have a look at the effects of these things. They do not put them in silos. They cannot put health in a silo, education in a silo and industry in a silo. They cannot do that. You have to embrace all aspects of the economy and ensure that they are represented properly if there is going to be some proven fiscal management. You must try to understand that.

This whole debate was further politicised when Senator Di Natale spoke with confected outrage about Senator Cormann calling for the release of information from the former government. That was in 2010. At that stage our economy had spiralled into a complete abyss and there was no way out. I know that Senator Cormann is now working with other coalition members. I will try to continue to expose this motion for the sham that it is.