Mr HOWARD (Treasurer)(3.31) —The real shallowness of this motion was best illustrated about one-third of the way through the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who, in his contrived rage and finger poking rhetoric, said: 'You altered it all'. Four or five times I interjected: 'Are you accusing me of altering the figures or are you talking about something else'. For a moment he said: 'The figures'. Then he got a bit worried about that, and so he ought to because it is untrue, and he shifted his ground and started to talk more generally, and for 5 1/2 minutes we had a lecture about tax avoidance. That is how empty the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland was. For 5 1/ 2 minutes in the middle of a debate about unemployment figures we heard a speech about tax avoidance. Of course the speech of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), whose thunder had been stolen by the intervention of the motion moved by the honourable member for Blaxland and whose speech in support of the suspension of Standing Orders was about as relevant as the 5 1/2-minute speech of the honourable member for Blaxland to which I have just referred, was also caught thoroughly hopping by this exercise by the honourable member for Blaxland.

Let us put aside the rhetoric and let us put aside the personal abuse for which the Opposition, in terms of accusation of lying, untruth and misleading, has scaled new heights over the past few months. I thought the honourable member for Wills might have been a little above some of that. Of course, his stocks are now so low with his colleagues that he has to get down with them on that subject and that approach. I thought a little better of the honourable member for Wills but he has fallen foul. He has to get into it and say: 'They are all crooks, they are all liars and they are all trying to mislead the Parliament'. Even he has to get into it now. He must have felt absolutely terrible when he had to write that letter.

The truth of the matter is that we are dealing with a serious situation. We are dealing with a situation in which the employment position in Australia has deteriorated and deteriorated very severely. The one and only point that is at issue in this debate is whether I, on having been given an employment forecast by the Department of the Treasury, instructed that it be altered because that employment forecast was too bad. That is the accusation that has been made by the honourable member for Blaxland. Let me hear now whether I misrepresented the honourable member.

Mr Keating —You changed the meaning and impact of it.

Mr HOWARD —He says that I changed the meaning and impact of the statement. The honourable member would do terribly in a witness box.

Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will the Treasurer table the Treasury document? It will then be all clear.

Mr HOWARD —The honourable member would do brilliantly in a witness box with that sort of performance. He talks about people not being able to answer straight. The honourable member introduced the motion into this house. Talking about misleading figures, I gave the honourable member for Blaxland an opportunity to say whether he was accusing me of cooking the books. I stopped speaking. What did the honourable member do? He backed and shoved and he said: 'You are altering the meaning and impact of it'. He has not got the courage to accuse me of cooking the figures.

Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. I contend that the Treasurer took the figures out. It is not a matter of altering them.

Mr SPEAKER —I will call the honourable gentleman on a personal explanation later .

Mr HOWARD —I have now taken the figures out! I have not cooked them; I have not altered them. I have now taken them out. The honourable member for Blaxland, once again, is shifting his ground. I think that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) is looking better every day as the shadow Treasurer so far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned.

The fact of the matter is that on 8 October this year I was advised by my Department that, primarily on the basis of the figures then available for the early months of the financial year, it had concluded that the Budget estimate of unemployment benefit recipients was a considerable understatement and that substantial additions to estimated outlays would be involved. That is the advice I was given by the Department on 8 October.

The other piece of misinformation being put around by the honourable member for Blaxland relates to the role of Professor Hewson, who is a very valued member of my staff, has been a valued member of my staff, and has been an economic and political adviser to me in the whole time I have been Treasurer. Professor Hewson does, of course, assist me in going over submissions put to me by the Treasury. What else would an economic consultant do? What on earth does one employ somebody in a political and economic role on one's staff for other than to do that? Why would one not do that? Anybody in the Labor Party should not be heard to say that a person should not have private office staff capable of giving a bit of advice.

The suggestion that in some way Professor Hewson reduced the unemployment estimate figure is absolute nonsense. In reality, at various stages of the discussion, Professor Hewson raised with me the question of whether the unemployment estimates which were being submitted might in fact not have been a little too optimistic in all the circumstances. Nonetheless, they were the figures that were submitted. It was a firm determination on the part of the Government that, in relation to the actual figures to go in the Estimates, we were going to adopt the figures submitted to us by departments. I do not say this critically of the Treasury. I have had my differences with the Treasury and no doubt I will have differences with it in the future, but I respect it very greatly as a department. It, like any other department, can get estimates wrong. It, like any other department, can give wrong advice. But in the five years in which I have been Treasurer of this country I believe that I have always been the beneficiary of competent, professional advice, even though on occasions I have not agreed with it and even though on occasions it has been proved to be wrong. Let us put to one side completely and utterly any question of my criticising the Treasury or distancing myself from the Treasury.

Let us get one thing straight. The figures that went into the Budget Papers were departmental figures. They were not adjusted by Professor Hewson or by anybody else. They were departmental figures. The explanation that can very readily be given is that the Budget estimate was derived from the Treasury's forecast of actual unemployment, as measured by the Commonwealth Statistician, converted to unemployment benefit recipients by the use of a ratio which, of course, also had to be forecast for 1982-83. This ratio, which represents the proportion of the unemployed receiving unemployment benefit, had increased substantially over the past decade from 23 per cent in 1971-72 to 79 per cent in 1981-82. However, it had been fairly stable in the last few years. For the Budget estimate the Treasury assumed that there would be only a very moderate increase to 80 per cent.

The figures for the first few months mentioned above-this is speaking as at a time after 8 October-suggested that the ratio had risen to about 88 per cent. The reason for this marked and sudden shift appeared to be that a substantial part of the increase in unemployment had occurred amongst adult males. Males have a considerably higher propensity to seek the unemployment benefit than do females. In fact, the number of males in receipt of unemployment benefit was about 110 per cent of male unemployment as measured by the Statistician. For females the proportion was only about 60 per cent. I should add that the improbably high figure for males reflects the different definitional basis of the two sets of data which could be taken as being indicative of substantial numbers of part time employees receiving unemployment benefit. Hence, with the increase in unemployment being concentrated among males, the proportion of the unemployed receiving benefits had risen substantially.

The Treasury observed that whether the increase in the ratio would be sustained , would increase further or would decline, was difficult to gauge. Its analysis of the experience of the 1970s did not provide much guidance. The concentration of the increase in unemployment among males may have had much to do with the shake out in the labour market following the wage surge and the concentration of that in the manufacturing and construction industries. Future increases in unemployment might be more evenly distributed across males and females. There was generally a seasonal decline in the ratio from December with the annual influx of school leavers. The Treasury was inclined to revise its estimate on the assumption that there would be no further significant change in the ratio this financial year.

That is the explanation of what happened. Honourable members opposite can choose to disbelieve that. They can say that, therefore, I misled the Parliament , that I was in a conspiracy with my Department, that I was in a conspiracy with my colleagues in the Cabinet or that I was in a conspiracy with my colleagues on my staff. Honourable members opposite can choose to argue that until they are blue in the face but they will not get to first base because the fact remains that people on that side of the House who are honest know darn well that this Government and I, in particular, on this issue have not been guilty in any sense , shape or form of misleading the Parliament. I am happy to stay here until doomsday and debate that point with the honourable member for Blaxland, the honourable member for Wills, the honourable member for Gellibrand, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) or indeed anybody else.

I like debating with the honourable member for Blaxland because he really is such a marvellous performer in the witness box. He has that infinite capacity to shift his ground according to changing circumstances. He has that great capacity to start like Emile Zola, saying: 'I accuse, I accuse'. That is how he starts. But as time goes on and he realises that he has gone in a little too deeply he finds that he has to back back a bit. He is probably being tugged on the coat tails by his recently acquired mate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). He is being tugged a little by the Leader of the Opposition who is saying: ' Steady down Paul, you might be going a bit too far'. He realises that he is a bit far in. Of course, what does he say when I put the blunt question to him asking: 'Are you really accusing me of altering the figures?' He does not say: ' Yes, I am'. No, he says: 'I am accusing you of altering the meaning, the thrust and the impact of Statement No. 2'. I say that this motion moved by the honourable member for Blaxland is a sham motion. It is a hollow motion. If the Opposition really cared about unemployment it would not move motions such as this. I now move:

That the question be put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.