Senator MASON (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (17:15): I was upstairs in my office having a cup of Earl Grey tea and listening, as of course I always do, to Senator Cameron's contribution on Senator Carr's motion about Australian jobs. Senator Cameron's contributions are feisty, sometimes eloquent but always interesting. He said that when Senator Mason came to the chamber he would blacken the name of the unions, the workers and the car manufacturers. I just want to assure the Senate that that is not my aim, but I do not have any problem with blackening the name of the Australian Labor Party. That is a very different issue. The opposition's solution to problems in the manufacturing industry, particularly the car industry, was their traditional solution to every problem. Which is? To throw money at it. It does not matter if it is health, education or welfare—the Australian Labor Party, like so many social democratic parties in the West, believes that you solve economic and social problems by throwing money at them. They threw money at the car manufacturers. Did it work? No, it did not. Did they nevertheless keep throwing money at the car industry? Yes, they did. In 2012 Ms Gillard announced $34 million for Ford, saying that it would create 300 new jobs. That was just a couple of years ago. What happened then? Ford got their money but instead of 300 new jobs 330 employees actually lost their jobs within eight months. Also in 2012 Ms Gillard announced $215 million for General Motors Holden, saying it would secure Holden's future in Australia until 2022—for the next 10 years. What happened next? Holden got their money but within months 670 jobs were lost. All up, from 1 January 2011 through until 31 December 2013 the Labor government provided a total of $660 million in funding assistance to the three major motor vehicle producers. The question the Australian people have to ask, that this parliament has to ask and that this Senate in particular has to ask is: was that money well spent? Clearly, it was not. The Labor Party does not worry about that. It is only $660 million. That is spare change! When you are running budget deficits in tens of billions of dollars and government debts in hundreds of billions, who cares about $660 million? Labor certainly doesn't. This puts us into more and more debt that the next generation will have to pay off. Labor does not care about that. More than a couple of times in this place I have discussed Labor's history of debt. The hole in Labor's vision for our future, for the future of our country and our children, is the same hole that swallowed governments in Western Europe and North America. That is the idea that debt really is okay. Labor would argue, 'That is infrastructure.' That is true. Of course, money can be borrowed to develop infrastructure that can assist the next generation. But there is a problem. Labor's debt was not created because of infrastructure; it was created on the back of recurrent expenditure. That was the problem—just like Western Europe and North America: the same bloody hole that those democratic nations fell into. That is exactly what started to happen in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments. There is a history. This is not new. This is Labor's history. It has been since 1904 with John Christian Watson. From Chris Watson all the way through to Mr Kevin Rudd, the last Labor Prime Minister: every time Labor leave government in this country they leave Australia further in debt. There has not been one exception since 1904. Every time Labor leaves office, Australia is further in debt. This is an economic issue, of course it is, because government borrowing can distort economies. It can distort the private sector and it means that the interest bill has to be catered for. That is true. There are economic issues, but there is a greater issue. The Labor Party and too many governments—some, I concede, Conservative and Christian Democratic governments in Western Europe—have made this mistake. There is a moral issue as well. The Labor Party has never had any problem in passing down debt to the next generation—our children and, indeed, our grandchildren. If it were all for bridges and roads, you could perhaps justify it, but it is not; it is recurrent expenditure. The coalition believes that generations should live within their means—more or less, subject to infrastructure costs. If you want to spend more on health, education and welfare, you know what you have to do: you have to tax more. One thing the greatest Treasurer in Australia's history— Senator Farrell: Paul Keating! Senator MASON: the Hon. Peter Costello said is: intergenerational inequity is intergenerational theft. Senator Farrell: That makes no sense at all. Senator MASON: Generations should pay for themselves—I will just mention this for Senator Farrell's benefit based on his interjection—with the exception, of course, of infrastructure. But, as I have asserted, that is not where Labor's debt came from. It certainly did not come from infrastructure; it came from recurrent expenditure. And that was the great moral failure—forget the economic failings of the Labor Party when they were in government; forget them as they were awful—of the Labor Party. It is the moral failing that people do not talk about sufficiently. Somehow it is all okay to plug our children and our grandchildren with the debt of people living the high life on health, education and welfare. That generation cannot afford it. I know my friend Senator Cameron always rails against cuts, as Mr Rudd did in the last campaign. 'Oh, the coalition is going to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.' Why? Balancing budgets and generations paying their way are what we in the coalition believe in. In a sense the demographic incentives are all wrong. It is so easy to add to public debt, like the Australian Labor Party does. Just put it on the credit card and, you know, no-one really feels the pain. There might be an adverse op ed in the Australian Financial Review or The Australian, but basically no-one really cares. Just add to public debt, like they did in Western Europe, like they did in the United States and Canada, and no-one ever really complains. The tough decision is for a government to say, 'Generations should live within their means, and we have to cut to make sure they do.' That is a much tougher decision. If anyone thinks the coalition government enjoy cutting, they are wrong: (1) it is painful for people and (2) it is politically courageous. It is not easy to do; it is hard. We are doing it not because it is easy; we are doing it because we want to set up our country and our children and our grandchildren for a brighter future. Quite frankly, if I were a teenager living in Athens, Greece, then I would want to shoot every baby boomer and every politician I found. You have had governments for 30 years letting down their children and their grandchildren, and it is a disgrace! And somehow it is all okay to keep borrowing. Finally the day comes when the music stops and someone has to pay the bill—the IMF steps in or Chancellor Merkel says, 'Enough is enough,' and they have to pay the bill. We in this country want to stop that sort of expenditure before it gets to that stage. Sadly, it is only the coalition who will do that. We are the only ones who will stand up and speak for the next generation. The opposition will not do it. Do you know why? Because it is tough and it is politically difficult. Everyone knows that. It is fine for Mr Rudd and Senator Cameron, as he often does, to talk about cutting. Sure it is tough, but these are decisions, tough as they are, that we make for the future of the country. You could defend the $660 million that the Labor Party spent in three years if it actually worked, but it did not. All that money was spent—$660 million—and it did not work. It did not save a job; those manufacturers went out of business. Or maybe you could argue they did not spend enough? If, horror of all horrors—horror perhaps more for the Labor Party than for the coalition—Mr Rudd had been re-elected, and God forbid the horror of that, would Senator Carr stand up and say, 'We're going to give another $1 billion or another $2 billion to the car industry'? Would that be appropriate? It might prop them up for a bit longer, but in the end it would not save the industry. And that is the sad thing. I accept part of Senator Cameron's argument: it is not just about the union movement—and I have not said that—it is also about a high Australian dollar, the high cost of manufacturing, low economies of scale and increased competition in the market. I accept that, and I am not going to argue that it is all the fault of the trade union movement or, indeed, of Australian workers—I do not accept that; there are many other issues as well—but the Labor Party fundamentally failed, and that is what is so frustrating. What gets me is this. When I was at university the Hawke government were elected—and I do not mind saying this and I have said it before—and they were a great reforming government. The current government is not a reforming government in that model, in that Hawke and Keating— Senator Farrell: No, it's not. Senator MASON: It is not. Labor are stuck in a time warp. You have become a theme park for social democratic failure. Just like the British Labour Party, just like the social democratic parties across Western Europe: all you can do is tax and spend. No other policy agenda exists except more and more debt, and it is awful. One great thing about Mr Whitlam—and I know we criticise Mr Whitlam—was he cut tariffs. Do you know what he said? He said, 'Tariffs are a tax on working people.' And do you know what? Mr Whitlam was right. He took some tough decisions, and for that he is to be congratulated. But today's party is certainly not the Hawke and Keating party and is not even the party of Mr Whitlam; it is more the party of Watson, Scullin and Curtin. Labor's near future looks a lot like their distant past, and that is not a good thing for the Labor Party and it is not a good thing for our country. It is worrying: Labor want to save the Toyota Camry while being stuck with an FJ Holden mentality, and that is awful. I remember Senator Madigan's first speech for the Democratic Labor Party. He said in his maiden speech that there were good Labor governments, and I accept that—you have heard me say that before; I accept that—but there is nothing worse for Australia than a bad Labor government. We experienced that for six years. The great reforming ministers—Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and in this chamber, as you will recall, Steve, Senator Button and Senator Walsh—made tough decisions. I respect that. I respect it because it is not easy. I remember that when I was at university they cut government spending, particularly in the mid to late 1980s. They cut wages growth, with the accord and with the trade union movement. Senator Button had the car plan, which honourable senators will recall. You can argue about the timing. I think there were arguments between the Labor Party and the coalition about how quickly it should all happen. But the bottom line is that the direction was the right direction. Senator Button said that, slowly, over a 10-year period or so, assistance to the car industry should be reduced. The direction of the reform was correct. The timing—okay—there is debate about. I remember that Senator Walsh even convinced the Hawke cabinet that university fees should be introduced. Of course, the left of the Liberal Party went berserk, as they always do, 'This will stop students having access to university.' In fact, what happened? The Labor Party, and Senator Walsh, did the right thing. Three times more young Australians go to university now than did 30 years ago, when I went. It is a tribute to Senator Walsh that he did that. Money coming into government coffers has enabled our community to have so many university places for young Australians who otherwise would not have gone to university. So I am not here just to trash the Australian Labor Party. I actually think they have done some very good things in the past. Australia is a much, much better country now than it was in the 1970s and a lot of that is due to what Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and the relevant ministers did during that period. It is a much better country. Senator Xenophon mentioned Donald Horne, who said that Australia is a great country run by second-class people. I disagree. Both the Australian Labor Party and the coalition—the coalition backed Labor on this—reduced tariffs and unleashed the dollar, and there was significant macroeconomic reform in the eighties. Both parties endorsed it. And you know what—the public did not like it, because it was painful. I accept that—it was painful. Acting Deputy President Boyce, you would remember it. It was painful and things were awful for a while, but that restructuring of the economy set up Australia for 30 years of uninterrupted growth. We are the miracle economy. Without getting into the partisan debate about who deserves what, the bottom line is that, despite what Donald Horne said, from 1983 to 2007 there were remarkable, reforming governments that made this country and its economy the envy of the entire world. This country is not run by second raters, either Labor or coalition. That is rubbish. We did things that parliaments in Western Europe and the United States could not and would not do. They did not have the courage to do those things. I remember well, again going back to the 1980s, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, saying that Australia would be the 'poor white trash of Asia', that it would never be able to restructure its economy. Honourable senators will remember that. That is not what happened. We had the courage in this country, from 1983 up until 2007, to take really difficult decisions, and that set us up for a golden age. I am frustrated now by this once-great reforming party. I am, as you know, Acting Deputy President, one of the more vociferous and vocal critics of the Australian Labor Party in this place; I am no shrinking violet. But I do not mind acknowledging success and performance when it arises. The problem today with the Australian Labor Party, under both Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard, is that they lost the reformer zeal. They just lost it. And what has happened? Now it is all about blaming the coalition for the failures of the car manufacturers. If only the Australian Labor Party could return to what it was. The truth is that in this country politicians were actually ahead of an unwilling public and a self-satisfied professoriate. We were far, far ahead of them. I know the Australian Labor Party would not want to agree, but the big difference between us and the Labor Party, in that great reformist period of 1983 to 2007, was that we supported them in those major reforms. It did not help the farmers or many other people, at first. It was uncomfortable. But we supported the Labor Party, as we should have and as they deserved. But when the Howard government was going through its reformist period, every single time the Australian Labor Party thought they could garner some political traction, they objected to what the coalition government was doing. I recall the GST debate. This country had to reform its taxation system. A goods and services tax was appropriate. What did this lot do? Complained about it from go to whoa. The difference was that we supported Labor when tough decisions had to be made and when tough decisions were made they never supported us.