Mrs CROSIO(1.24 p.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I congratulate you on your appointment to that high office. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend both the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) and the member for Longman (Mr Brough) for delivering their first speeches to the House and to wish them well in their future endeavours.

I would like to also place on record, before commencing my speech in the address-in-reply debate, my appreciation to both the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) for representing the members of this House in the ceremony this morning in Tasmania and letting the people of Tasmania and Australia know that we share their grief.

Given the address-in-reply as presented by the Governor-General yesterday, I cannot help but recollect that the Prime Minister, in his acceptance speech on the night that he and his government were ushered into power, promised to lead a government for not only the people who had voted for him but also those who had voted against him. He asserted then that he would carry out his party's policies, which have been given an emphatic mandate, with fairness and understanding. His comments were the natural extension of a theme which he had returned to time and time again during his tenure as opposition leader: the need for politicians in government to act with honesty and truthfulness at all times.

While championing integrity in public office, the Prime Minister repeatedly accused our Labor government and its leaders of dishonesty while in office. As the Leader of the Opposition, as Mr Howard was then, he said that Labor had let Australians down and that he would return honesty to government. In what was to become one of the most often quoted phrases in this House over the previous 12 months, he said:

We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme and truth is never disposable in national political life.

Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, during the 1996 election campaign, the now Prime Minister spoke of the importance of building confidence between the Australian people and their elected representatives—`Promises were made to be kept, not broken'—and in quasi-religious tones he spoke of the covenant of trust between the people and the politicians.

When his opponents or the nation's journalists raised questions or concerns about the coalition's ability to deliver on its promises, our now Prime Minister's decisive statement was that Australians could rest easy in the knowledge that all of his commitments would be kept—no ifs or buts about it. The deficit, whatever its size, said the Prime Minister, would be shouldered before a single one of his promises would be broken. He said, `The public good is not measured in dollars and cents; it is measured in trust.' The rhetoric flowed and the people believed.

Now, if the nations' newspaper reports are correct, Australia stands on the threshold of the most savage cuts to public expenditure ever carried out. During his first year in government our Prime Minister hopes to shave $4 billion off the nation's deficit, followed by another $4 billion in the next year. If the entrails have been read accurately, 15,000 public servants are to be sacked and government programs will either be cut or have their budgets shaved to such an extent that they will become ineffectual.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) has been quoted as saying that `at this stage' the coalition's promises can be broken, which I think we can read as meaning that all bets are off. It is my belief that, if the coalition succeeds in realising its $8 billion goal in this fashion, the nation will be scarred beyond all recognition. By the end of its term the coalition may well lead a country with its bankbook in the black but it will have shown Australian people that its heart is cloaked in the same absence of colour. While we may face the new millennium, to use the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer), as a `leaner' and `meaner' nation, I fear we will find ourselves living in a society which as a result is a much meaner place.

I am not here today to catch the Prime Minister in deceit. I do not wish to make light of the difficult decisions facing him or his government—matters that we in the Labor party have grappled with for 13 years. Nor am I here to wish him failure, for that would then mean wishing the same on the people of Australia. I am here today to remind the Prime Minister and his government of their duty to themselves and to the people of Australia to govern for all of us and of the covenant of trust which the Prime Minister enjoys with the Australian people and which he is in danger of shattering if he fails to keep his promises.

I want to also remind the Prime Minister of his words and of the context in which he made them. I want him and his government to understand that to go ahead with their planned program of cuts and sackings would be the most complete abrogation of the nation's trust by an elected federal government since Federation.

Of all of his election promises, the one which the member for Bennelong and his coalition stood by with the most firmness and determination was the one that none of his pledges would be broken. How often we heard it! It was a tired old political cliche perhaps, but it was one which the now Prime Minister sought to impress upon the electorate, using his reputation as a supposedly honest and decent politician.

He went one step further to convince Australians of his earnestness. He went on and said that, if in government after election day, rather than break any of his promises he and the coalition would tolerate a budget deficit of whatever size. Now, if what we hear about the government's plans for a wholesale slaughtering of public servants' jobs for the sake of the deficit is true, that would mean a major betrayal of that central election promise, and a betrayal also of his colleagues' promises.

Taking up the Prime Minister's line of putting people before the public purse, the member for Ryan, then shadow minister for public administration, now Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore), put out a press release on 26 February in which he said, `There will be no mass sackings of public servants under the coalition.' The member for Ryan could have said, `There will be no mass sackings unless there is a budget deficit—and then we will cut left, right and centre.' But he did not. His continuing line leading up to the election was that such criticism was part of a Labor smear campaign.

Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I object to the use of those words and I ask the member to withdraw them.

Mrs CROSIO —Which ones?

Mr Cadman —You know the ones. You withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! The honourable member will withdraw.

Mrs CROSIO —I would ask the Chief Government Whip to stipulate what he wants me to withdraw. The `mass sackings'? I withdraw that. The `budget deficit'? I withdraw that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw without qualification.

Mrs CROSIO —I will ask through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, what words? Are they the words from his press release, the words that I can produce here today and read out where it says that there will be no mass sackings?

Mr Cadman —On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: you heard the words that are unparliamentary that the member used, and I heard them too. I ask her to withdraw them.

Mrs CROSIO —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will repeat the words for your judgment and I will then withdraw unequivocally. I will repeat exactly what I said. I said, `The press release on 26 February—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no necessity to repeat—

Mrs CROSIO —I used no words that are unparliamentary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw.

Mrs CROSIO —Mr Deputy Speaker, for the sake of time and at your direction, because it will be recorded in Hansard —

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw.

Mrs CROSIO —Withdraw what? I can only withdraw what you tell me I must withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw.

Mrs CROSIO —The member for Ryan's press release is on the public record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw.

Mrs CROSIO —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the honourable member's press release that is on public record on 26 February. He obviously made a mistake.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume addressing the question that the address be agreed to.

Mrs CROSIO —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the same day as that press release that I will not talk about came out, the then Liberal member for Canberra, Mr Brendan Smyth, also released a press release. I do not know whether I am allowed to mention him now as he is no longer a member, but I must thank him for vacating his seat in March to allow me to now sit next to the new Labor member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis). His press release stated that only 2,500 public servants would lose their jobs under a coalition government and that these job losses would be a gentle process. Mr Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of the Chief Government Whip I can read that out as well, in total.

The now Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, has agreed with his coalition partners, although at first glance he would seem to have completely contradicted them both. Five days before the member for Ryan's press release, the now Deputy Prime Minister was quoted in the Riverina Herald as saying that Australia needed lean and mean government and `if that means 20,000 fewer public servants, so be it'. When questioned about his statement, the now Deputy Prime Minister of this country denied that he had ever used such a figure and said that any reduction in the number of public servants would be through natural attrition. The Deputy Prime Minister was given the chance to come clean on coalition plans for the mass sackings of public servants but he chose to deny any intentions of the kind.

Two coalition members, one of them now the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and the other a former coalition member of parliament, stated quite publicly that there would be no mass sackings of public servants. If the Prime Minister takes the axe to the Commonwealth administration in the fashion that many now believe he intends to do, he would therefore also be breaking not only his word but also the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the present Minister for

Industry, Science and Tourism. And remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these statements were later supported by the Prime Minister's pledge that all promises would be kept, no matter what the budgetary bottom line, once he was in government.

There would be a betrayal of trust in other ways. By cutting government expenditure to such an extent, the Prime Minister would be jettisoning a whole raft of commitments and promises made by him to the Australian people, and would savage the trust that he says he wants to consolidate between Australians and their government.

Let us look more closely. In that same press release—and I am sure I am able to mention it because it is on the public record of 26 February—the member for Ryan on behalf of his leader in the coalition stated that a coalition government would `act to improve public administration as a means of bringing about an improvement in our system of government'.

Rather than delivering a more efficient and improved public administration, the mass sackings of public servants would lead to irreparable damage in a sector which is essential for the continued success of our parliamentary democracy. The member for Ryan recognised the link between sound government and a sound Public Service in that same press release. He should now also be able to recognise that when public administration suffers so does good government.

While savings of a sort are possible in the public sector, the idea that the government is able to get the kinds of savings it wants by cutting indiscriminate chunks away from an already very lean Public Service is ludicrous. Let us look at it this way: if you were to sack every public servant in Canberra you would make savings of only $1.5 billion.

The message is clear: cutting public servants on the scale envisaged by the Prime Minister will not deliver the savings he feels are necessary. So where can he and his government hope to cut the remaining $6.5 billion? I shudder to think. To slash the Public Service to the extent that the government is said to be planning would be to compromise all the things that the member for Ryan promised the coalition stood for. He spoke then of a service which could give `professional advice', of a more `efficient and professional sector'. He said that the coalition recognised the needs of `the public and of the service'. Quite obviously, any such professionalism would be jeopardised by the mass sackings.

The truth is that the Australian Public Service has been reduced by 18 per cent over the last seven to eight years as a result of efficiency demands placed on that sector by the previous Labor government. There is simply nothing more left there to cut. If much more goes, we will all suffer with it. If the government chooses to target the Public Service in this fashion it will be sending a powerful message to the rest of Australia—that the sector is full of deadwood. It would be perpetuating the reprehensible notion that public servants spend their days making cups of tea and eating Iced VoVos, and because of that they can be got rid of quickly. Regarding the Public Service in such a fashion is an insult to the legacy of such great Australians as Nugget Coombs and Sir Robert Garran. If the government continues in this vein it can consider itself a contributor to the destruction of the service's reputation and, more importantly, its morale.

What are the government's commitments to rural Australia? During the election campaign, the coalition promised Australians living in rural areas that their government would ensure people have fair and equitable access to housing, health, education, communications, new technology and government services. Do they seriously think that carving $8 billion worth of savings from the public purse will help deliver such benefits to rural Australia, benefits they have promised to pass on and protect? Of course they do not, because cuts on that scale would devastate rural Australia. That is something which I am sure my honourable friends in the National Party recognise and are certainly getting increasingly nervous about.

Rather than ensuring equal access to government services, the coalition will facilitate the widespread deterioration of services to pensioners, universities, schools and all organisations in rural Australia where Commonwealth budget support is granted. Only 15 per cent of the people employed by the Commonwealth are employed in Canberra. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the Commonwealth employs twice as many people in New South Wales as it employs in Canberra. When you consider the small businesses—the sandwich shops, the small grocery stores—in the country towns and rural centres who depend on the patronage of these people whom the government seems hell-bent on discarding, it truly begins to beggar the imagination.

I would like to go further on this point. During the election campaign, our Prime Minister often spoke of the coalition's distress at the number of Australia's unemployed. He and the members of the coalition called it a national disgrace. When the then Leader of the Opposition's shadow minister for employment, Dr David Kemp, launched the coalition's employment policy he said, `We are promising to create many jobs, many more real jobs, than Labor.'

Having expressed their indignation at unemployment levels and their commitment to reducing such levels when their turn came around, could the same people and the same party now make significant contributions to them and then say that they have kept their promise to reduce unemployment? I would think not. Would adding some 15,000 public servants to the queue in the Department of Social Security correspond with the promise by Dr Kemp and our Prime Minister to reach full employment in Australia? It certainly does not look like it to me. It is, in fact, horrendously inconsistent with such statements.

And what of the pledges by the Prime Minister on the environment? Since he launched the coalition's environment policy early in the election campaign, he has endeavoured to portray himself as a convert to the environmental cause. Apart from links with the sale of Telstra, his environmental policy and his personal statements were met warmly by our nation's environmental groups. He, in turn, convinced a number of Australians of his `pure' environmental intentions.

In one of his first press releases of the campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition stated:

A Coalition Government will act decisively to preserve Australia's natural heritage and its great productivity potential for future generations. A Coalition Government will achieve real action on environmental protection.

Real action indeed! During the coalition's first seven weeks in office, Australians have learnt that this Prime Minister is giving serious consideration to scrapping the Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency. Some say that his serious consideration has actually developed into a firm intention. In fact, it has been reported that the EPA staff have now been given verbal notification that their agency would be abolished, saving $20 million and shutting down 150 workers, the majority of whom are based in Canberra. The savings to the government are clear—but what of the cost to Australia as a whole?

The Environment Protection Agency, established by the Labor government in August 1991, oversees 15 federal acts and was pivotal in the previous government's move to develop national environmental standards related to water quality, air quality, fuel standards, control of hazardous waste and pollution. The EPA polices a number of environmental standards that Australia is committed to via international agreement, such as those for ozone protection, wetlands preservation, greenhouse emissions and the transportation of hazardous waste—a role that the state agencies certainly cannot mirror. Let us not forget that the EPA is responsible for the carrying out of environmental impact statements for the Commonwealth. It is the EPA that would conduct an environmental study on the impact of opening Jabiluka, the uranium mine in the pristine wilderness of Kakadu. Of immediate interest also to my own constituents, the EPA is responsible for conducting a thorough environmental impact statement on the proposed Badgerys Creek airport.

In light of his commitments on the environment given during the election campaign, does the Prime Minister now honestly think that Australians will view the scrapping of the EPA as a sign of a government living up to its promise of achieving real action on environmental protection? It would be an insult for him to even pretend that he does.

Not that the government will admit to breaking its word should it choose to cut the agency. You can be sure that the government will talk of the evils of duplicating federal and state services. It will say that the state EPA bureaus will be able to take on more responsibilities in order to match the duties of the current Commonwealth agency. Yet we all know that each state and each state government has an agenda of its own. For instance, we all know that the Northern Territory government has long been a supporter of opening up Kakadu to further mining development. It, like any other state or territory government, will act in its own revenue raising interests and not those of other Australians who desire world renowned wilderness areas such as Kakadu to remain as untouched and unspoilt as they presently are.

The ramifications of the loss of the Commonwealth EPA are significant—not only now but for Australians of the future—and not one of them corresponds with the Prime Minister's firm vows and promises on protecting the environment.

The covenant of trust will be broken in further ways. I refer, of course, to the coalition's commitment to justice. In February, when the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Vanstone, released the justice policy for the coalition, it was trumpeted as the most comprehensive law and justice policy ever released by an opposition. Yet one of the main organs of justice of the Commonwealth government, the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, has been slated by the Howard coalition for cuts of something like $1.5 million—a 30 per cent cut to its present operations.

How does such a move meet the coalition's pre-election promise to `redress the inability of Australians' to access justice? It does not. Such a move would be in complete conflict with such an objective. The Commonwealth Ombudsman investigates complaints concerning the bureaucracies associated with the federal government. The office impartially investigates whether people have been treated fairly by such diverse departments as the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Australian Federal Police, and it audits the use of phone taps. Yet it will be another of the departments which this coalition government will slash from the hips. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Before I call the honourable member for Macarthur, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech—at least in this place—and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.