Mr BEAZLEY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald where the author of the NILS study, which you refused to table on Monday, Professor Wootten, states that, first, contrary to your assertion the projected rate of eight per cent of unemployment was not based on continuation of Labor policies? He says, `There is nothing in our model that is based on Labor policies.' Secondly, it asserts his view that there is nothing in your industrial relations bill which will `do anything in his view for unemployment'. Doesn't the report confirm that it is your policies, not ours, that leave unemployment at eight per cent? Are you comfortable and relaxed about an eight per cent unemployment rate for the next four years? Will you now table that report, together with the departmental advice to your government, that Labor was on track for five per cent?

Mr HOWARD —The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is no. As to the generality of the question, I think when we are talking about predictions about unemployment we ought to bear in mind a piece of advice that was given on this subject, and I would like to read it out. This piece of advice was given in 1993 and reads as follows:

Our commitment, as a government and as a nation, should not be to any arbitrary unemployment number or rate. Our commitment must be to the reduction of unemployment as rapidly and as completely as possible.

I must say that is quite a sound statement of principle with which I would agree. I am very happy to inform the House that they were the words of the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Kim Beazley, when addressing the National Press Club on 30 June 1993. Kim, you were right then. Why don't you be man enough to say that that is still your view?

Mr O'Connor —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 80 requires members to address other members by their electorate title. I suggest you bring the Prime Minister to order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —On the point of order, certainly standing orders do require members to address other members by their correct title. I take the view that, whether or not the Prime Minister was addressing the person individually now, while I am very strict in upholding that standing order, as you will know, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition probably in the theatre of question time should be entitled to a little latitude.

Mr BEAZLEY —I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that that quote referred to definitions of full employment, and at the same time the government was setting itself targets of 600,000 jobs and by the end of the decade five per cent?

Mr HOWARD —I am very grateful that the Leader of the Opposition has sought a response from me about the context in which the statements were made, because the truth is that the Leader of the Opposition over the years that he has been in parliament has spoken with two voices. When he was in government and he accepted some of the responsibilities of ministerial office, the Leader of the Opposition was inclined to address these matters a little more honestly and a little more candidly. For example, when he was addressing the National Press Club almost 14 months later than the speech I quoted from, he had this to say: `Privatisation fits in with the government's broader imperative to create jobs.'

Mr Beazley —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order which goes to relevance. As is appropriate with a supplementary, I asked a clear question related to exactly what the Prime Minister had to say, the particular quote that he was dealing with, which happened to be a quote relating to whether or not it was sensible to arrive at definitions of full employment. It is that question that he is obliged to answer.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! We are not going to debate the point of order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.

Mr HOWARD —In that same speech the Leader of the Opposition went on to say this—and listen to this absolute pearl of wisdom—`The government's commitment to the deficit reduction strategy meant that a halt to privatisation would result in a direct cut to government programs.'

I refer to these two quotes to remind the Leader of the Opposition and the parliament just how hypocritical the Leader of the Opposition comes to this debate. The truth of the matter is that when you were in government you were prepared to address some of these policy challenges with greater candour and greater clarity. I know that you are uncomfortable to be reminded of your past candour, but I can promise you that we are going to do quite a lot of it over the months ahead.