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

I take it as a compliment that Senator Conroy should try that I not be heard. Let's have a look at what the International Monetary Fund had to say—not Senator Conroy, not Senator Smith; but what the International Monetary Fund had to say when it looked at our budget. It had to say:

The government's aim to return the budget to surplus in the coming years will help rebuild fiscal buffers and increase the policy scope to deal with adverse shocks, but will be challenging in light of current social spending commitments. Cuts in projected spending and/or increased revenues are likely to be needed, and early decisions on policy changes required would help preserve policy flexibility.

There is an element of this debate that has been missing for a long time. Australians know that the strong budget position that was left by the Howard government meant the next government could meet the challenges of the global financial crisis well. What we do not know is what economic calamity is around the corner. We do not know what the future looks like except that we do not have the capacity any more to respond to any economic calamity. That is a risk that this government thinks is too great to let go unaddressed. Let's have a look at what the secretary of the Treasury, Dr Parkinson, had to say. Senator Conroy, do you recall what Dr Parkinson had to say? No; Senator Conroy would want to erase it from his memory. On the need to reduce debt, Dr Parkinson told estimates:

I have been saying this. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has been saying this. The head of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has said this, most recently last week. If the two most senior economic bureaucrats in the country are saying, 'People, we have a challenge, and it's about time we had a serious community discussion' and the independent head of the Parliamentary Budget Office says the same thing, it is actually in the hands of the political class.

So what the secretary of the Treasury means is that it is up to me; it is up to Senator Abetz, it is up to Senator Kroger, and—