Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's always great to listen to Senator Bernardi, and it's great to follow him in this debate. I'd have to say that a lot of what Senator Bernardi has said I have no dispute with at all, and I think many on this side of parliament would agree with much of what Senator Bernardi said.

He talks about an honour board for those who have done something about reducing debt and getting the finances back into action. Of course, the first nominee for that would be Mr Scott Morrison, who has achieved that sort of approach to Australia's economy. I very much agreed with Senator Bernardi when he said that the coalition government was very proud of its economic track record. We are.

Senator Bernardi and I were both members of a government some years ago that actually paid off debt, that actually ran the books at a surplus. For many years, the Howard government managed the books of the country so that we were able to put aside credits. We had surpluses for several years and, when we left office in 2007, there was $60 billion in the bank—$60 billion in credit, in the piggy bank. And that was as a result of good work by the coalition government, of which both Senator Bernardi and I were part in those days.

Had we stayed in government, that financial management would have continued and the surplus of $60 billion would have grown. But, unfortunately, the people of Australia elected Mr Rudd, with a lot of promises and a lot of excitement. We then saw the country's finances dip into almost financial ruin. We saw deficits that, as Senator Bernardi rightly said, rose every year under Treasurer Wayne Swan, supposedly the world's greatest Treasurer. Those of us who were around then will recall that each budget Mr Swan would promise that in the next year we'd be moving into surplus, if not the year after. Of course, we never did. Each year the budget deficit went up. So that's why I think we should nominate Mr Scott Morrison, our current Treasurer, for this honour board that Senator Bernardi talks about.

In 2017-18, the deficit has been reduced to $18.2 billion, and next year it will be reduced to $14.5 billion. That's the smallest deficit since surpluses were delivered back under the time of the Howard government. The budget is forecast to return to balance in 2019-20 at $2.2 billion, increasing the projected surplus to $11 billion in 2020-21 and $16.6 billion in 2021-22. They're not just words. We've shown over the last few budgets that we can bring down Labor's deficit, and we estimate that we will continue back to the old Howard government days of having surpluses and putting money aside in the piggy bank.

Senator Bernardi mentioned just a few programs of what could be done and what couldn't be done. But, of course, this government has done the work and not just talked about it. It has not just made fine speeches but actually done the work. In the Labor years we saw those surpluses I mentioned that the Howard government had accumulated evaporate into deficits, with Australia's gross debt increasing at an average rate of 33.9 per cent a year. If the coalition government, when it took office, had continued to build on that debt at those levels, the gross national debt would currently have reached $1 trillion. But the Turnbull government is acting to ensure Australia's financial sustainability by returning the budget to balance in 2019-20 and tackling rising debt.

Since the coalition came into government we've acted to cut growth in our gross debt by over 75 per cent to less than eight per cent in the last budget. So we've turned the corner on debt, with net debt expected to peak this year at 18.6 per cent of GDP and, over the forward estimates, net debt is expected to decline by over $30 billion to be at about 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2028-29. For the first time in many years the government no longer needs to borrow to pay for everyday expenses. Senator Bernardi mentioned rightly that under the Labor government we were actually borrowing money just to run the normal functions of government and we were actually borrowing money to pay interest on the money that the Labor Party government had borrowed previously.

Important programs, such as Medicare and NDIS, and funding for medicines, schools and hospitals are all essentials for Australia and Australians rely upon them. That's why the coalition government is ensuring they are funded sustainably and not through borrowing. Government borrowing is instead funding productive investments in priority infrastructure and upgrading our defence forecasts. That is, of course, an appropriate use of borrowed money: for infrastructure that makes our country more productive, and for defence projects that not only keep Australia safe but are building a substantial defence materiel industry in this country—something Labor talked about for six years and did absolutely nothing about. Under the coalition government—the Turnbull government—that defence industry manufacturing is ramping up, and we will have a defence industry shipbuilding program in place in this country for the first time for a long time. This is all about creating jobs, strengthening the economy and ensuring Australia remains internationally competitive.

Labor are shameless and hypocritical when it comes to debt. Mr Shorten should clearly set out which infrastructure projects and major defence projects he would scrap if elected. He should also come clean on whether he would draw down on the Future Fund early—a decision which could only drive up debt for future generations of taxpayers. Mr Shorten is promising the world to everybody but says he's going to make cuts to pay for it. We know, because he is a Labor leader, that he's not to be believed. If he is serious about it, he should say which of the infrastructure projects he is going to cut. Is it the Pacific Highway? Is it the Bruce Highway? Is it major bridges that are being built? Is it defence expenditure? Which are the projects that Mr Shorten would cut to fund the extravagant promises that he is already making? He also should clarify whether he would draw down from the Future Fund. That, of course, would be disastrous for this country.

It's important to refute Senator Bernardi's claims in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. It used to be called one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It is still a magnificent spectacle. It's a magnificent living organism. It's something that has been very, very carefully managed by the Australian government, particularly coalition governments, since it was first declared a marine park by a Liberal government several decades ago. We have a commitment to ensure not only that the Barrier Reef remains well managed but that those international players, in their own somewhat benighted approaches to these things, who can affect tourists who come to the reef—not the reef, I might say—believe that the Australian government is doing things. We've committed substantial money to things like the crown of thorns starfish, research and the green zones. The Australian Institute of Marine Science—again, something that was set up by a Liberal government in the past—does wonderful work on the Barrier Reef. Those who would scoff are obviously from Sydney; they've probably never even been to the Barrier Reef. I, who live next to it, know that the Australian Institute of Marine Science does a wonderful job in managing all of our marine areas and particularly the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, over many years, has managed the reef very well. The lies by the Greens political party and some in the Labor Party that the reef is dying are simply that: lies. Yet, regrettably, the message from the Greens political party, the Australian Conservation Foundation and others that the reef is dead has been relayed around the world. This has meant that some European and North American tourists are not now coming to Australia, because they believe the lies of the Greens political party that the reef is dead. But I can take anyone to most parts of the reef and show that it is still a wonderful asset that Australia has and that it is being very, very well managed. My only regret is that there are some in Australia who continue, in a very treacherous way, to undermine Australia and its industries and the thousands and thousands of people who rely on the Barrier Reef for their living. These treacherous people within Australia will continue to tell lies about the Barrier Reef, when the government is clear—and always has been very clear—in its approach to protecting the Barrier Reef.

What I'm saying is not just said by me, of course. In my drawer here I have a lovely brochure put out by one of the marine conservation groups. I can't put my hand on it just now, but I have mentioned it in the past. A group of marine science and conservation groups—the more sensible ones—put out a very glossy brochure congratulating Liberal governments over the years on what they have done for our marine environment in Australia. The money that's recently been allocated to the Barrier Reef is a continuation of that. The only criticism I've received about those substantial investments in the Barrier Reef has been from people who live up there who have said to me, 'Ian, why are we spending this money, because the reef's pretty good as it is?' These are people who go out there every day of the week. Notwithstanding that, there are always things we can improve and there is always additional science we can fund.

I'm pleased to say that the Australian Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University in Townsville and Cairns are continuing to do work looking at practical things like seeing whether genetic modification would help reefs in Queensland to be like those in the warmer waters of the Red Sea, where corals abound but in very much warmer waters. There has to be work done on why corals can live in the warmer waters of the Red Sea but don't do so well in the Coral Sea—although evidence given to a committee that Senator Whish-Wilson chaired, from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, actually debunked the suggestion that the waters were warming in the Coral Sea. The evidence is on Hansard from a scientist from GBRMPA saying that the waters in the last two years have in fact been one degree colder than in the previous year. The money that we spend on the Barrier Reef is important for all Australians.

Senator Bernardi also mentioned that the coalition had ignored the plight of farmers. Well, he knows—he was a member of the coalition for many years—that this is a government which understands that farmers are the people who feed and clothe Australia, and not only Australia but the world, and we have always recognised the wonderful job that our farmers do within Australia and with the goods they export to feed and clothe the world. We are very conscious about droughts. Again as Senator Bernardi knows, and as the coalition and Mr Turnbull have recently demonstrated, where money is needed it will be provided. We will find it. Indeed, with the last $190 million, I think the Prime Minister said that, if more money were needed, more money would be made available.

Senator Bernardi did make a good point—that, if we had some more dams, if we had some better management of the huge amount of water that falls, particularly in Northern Australia, then some of the drought issues could be ameliorated. Senator Bernardi would know that the Turnbull government have done water feasibility studies in many parts of Australia, but I'll talk about Queensland. We've proposed the Rookwood Weir, with a feasibility study on the Hells Gates dam outside Townsville and Charters Towers, on the Burdekin River. We've proposed the Urannah Dam and the Nullinga Dam, feasibility studies being at Cave Hill and Big Rocks, on the Burdekin River near Charters Towers. All of those the Commonwealth has promoted, with considerable finance to those feasibility studies.

Unfortunately, under the Constitution, only state governments can do work on dams and on rivers and streams. So, whilst we can fund them and whilst we can urge, it needs a state government to do it, and regrettably in Queensland we have a Labor government that's kept in power by the Greens political party, which just finds dams anathema. Labor Party people agree that they should be built, but they haven't got the courage to stand up to the Greens political party, which keeps the Queensland Labor government in power. So we don't have any dams in Queensland. And, as much as the federal government can continue to promote and offer to pay for weirs and dams, until the Queensland government makes the decision, there's little that can be done. But I agree with Senator Bernardi: we should be doing more of that and, in that way, trying to droughtproof the country in these difficult times.

Whilst I understand the sentiments of Senator Bernardi's bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018, it's not one that really needs attention at this time, because the Commonwealth government, the current government, the Turnbull government, is doing what Senator Bernardi seeks. We are reducing government waste—expenditure on programs that Labor just threw cash at like confetti. In the Labor days, remember the batts in the ceiling? That wasn't planned at all. In fact, they put in batts that made houses catch on fire and indeed killed a couple of workers. Remember the school halls program? It wouldn't have been a bad program except that it wasn't managed, and the rip-offs that occurred in the construction of many of those school halls are legend. So we've cut back on wasteful expenditure.

We can now do the current work of government without borrowing, and that's why, of course, we have retained our AAA credit rating as a government from all three major credit-rating agencies, making Australia one of only 10 countries in the world to have that AAA credit rating. You don't get that sort of rating if the rating agencies think that the economy is mismanaged or that we need debt ceilings. They are looking at the actions of the Turnbull government. Actions always speak louder than words. We've reduced deficits in the last couple of budgets, and we're projected, easily, to return to surplus the year after next.