Mr BARRESI —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What are the implications for the future sound management of the economy of failing to deal with the $8 billion `poisoned chalice', the $8 billion budget black hole, left to this government by Labor? Would the government ever consider as a deliberate policy choice at a time of sustained economic growth, ignoring the opportunity to eliminate the budget deficit?

Mr FAHEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have noted on a number of occasions now that the Leader of the Opposition gets a little upset when this side of the House refers to the deficit this government inherited as Beazley's black hole. He also gets upset when it is referred to on this side of the House—

Mr Allan Morris —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. There is a form of the House which enables ministers to make statements. In previous parliaments this has been raised. I suggest he make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The minister will answer the question.

Mr FAHEY —When members on this side of the House refer to the deficit we inherited, they say those who are concerned about it should send the bill to Beazley. If he does not like those sayings, perhaps he should consider a comment that was made in an article by Terry McCrann. It was dated 16 April and the title was `Beazley inherits his $8 billion poisoned chalice'. The reference in that article was to the fact that the budget did not just turn sour in the space of two days. We found out two days after we got to government what the true state of the economy and the accounts were. The Leader of the Opposition used a certain defence in respect of that. About that, Terry McCrann said:

. . . and you, Beazley, were part of the small cabal that set out quite deliberately to lie to the voters through the campaign by declining to have them updated and released.

Deliberately lie. If he does not like that, perhaps he should refer—

Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask that the statement `deliberately lie' be withdrawn.

Mr Howard —Why? He read it.

Mr Beazley —No, he read it—then he went and repeated it, himself. I want that second accusation withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER —Minister, the Leader of the Opposition has found your comments offensive. I invite you to withdraw your comments.

Mr FAHEY —I withdraw the comments I made and rely upon the quote.

Mr Beazley —I take the point that he should withdraw unreservedly.

Mr SPEAKER —I ask the minister to withdraw in the appropriate and proper manner.

Mr FAHEY —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. On 13 March, Alan Ramsey wrote an article entitled `A surplus—of Labor fantasy'. He said:

Keating, Willis and Beazley, as the key co-conspirators, went through the election campaign telling people Labor's day-to-day handling of the economy was in surplus and would remain in surplus.

He went on to say:

This is what is known in acceptable parliamentary language as an "untruth".

We now know the real reason for the deficit. The shadow Treasurer yesterday, while musing on the fact that there is a deficit in the economy, told the people of Australia and the people of this House that there is a reason for it. What he said is quite illuminating. He asked a rhetorical question:

How come the budget is not in better shape after 4½ years of sustained growth?

He said:

Let me answer it by saying it is not a product of mismanagement . . . it is a product of deliberate policy choice.

That was the answer given by the shadow Treasurer, that the deficit is a product of deliberate policy choice. The people of Australia would like to know whether the foreign debt which blew out under Labor from $23 billion to $185 billion was a product of deliberate policy choice. What we have inherited is the responsibility to clear that deficit. That is why the Australian people put us in government, to make sure that we take the pressure off interest rates, give small business a chance to increase growth in employment, and give the economy a chance to grow. That is why Labor was thrown out.