Mr BEVIS(10.21 a.m.) —This budget is a budget that clearly is without direction. It is a budget that is without leadership. It is a budget without a plan. I guess in many respects that is an appropriate thing. It is just like the Prime Minister (Mr Howard); it is a mirror reflection of his leadership—the meandering government that we have become used to in the last six to 12 months.

It is a budget that does nothing to address the worsening economic situation that Australia confronts. It does nothing about the slowing consumer demand. It does nothing about the growing number of Australians out of work. It does nothing to create job oppor tunities. It certainly does nothing to provide job security for those Australians still in employment.

We now face a lost year, a lost opportunity. This is the Clayton's budget—some people will recall the old Clayton's drink—this is the budget you have when you are not having a budget. This is a standstill, a waste of 12 months, a lost opportunity, for the Australian people.

The government heralded the budget for its drive to return Commonwealth budgets to surplus. Indeed, just about every speaker on the government side makes a point of talking about this as the feature. There is not much else they could hang a hat on in a debate on the budget other than to refer to that. But even in that area the government has misrepresented the situation.

The budget papers themselves identify that the underlying deficit in 1997-98 will be $3 billion or 0.6 per cent of GDP; that is, we are still running a deficit this year. On the budget's projections, that is, if everything the government says will occur does in fact occur—I will go to that in a minute because they did not do too well last year predicting how the economy would go—we have to wait until 1998-99 before the government will find itself in surplus.

That is normally coupled with rhetoric from Liberal-National Party members telling the parliament what a terrible legacy they were left with, what a terrible debt the former government put in their hands. It is about time we dispelled that in cold hard facts. There have been only three surplus budgets recorded by the Commonwealth since the Second World War. I do not have records going back beyond that. I think the accounting system changed around 1950 anyway. Unfortunately, the budget papers that this government produces stop at 1984-85. When we were in government we produced tables that went back to the 1950s so people could get a good idea of how the government was performing compared with previous governments.

The simple fact of the matter is this: from the end of the Second World War until now there have been three surplus budgets. This budget, on the government's own admission, will not be a surplus budget. They will be in debt again this year. The only three budgets that any Commonwealth government has delivered in the period since the Second World War—in 50 years—with an underlying surplus were in fact Labor government budgets of the Hawke-Keating period. They were the budgets of 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. In 50 years the Commonwealth has managed only three surplus budgets and every one of them was a Labor budget in the last period of Labor's term in office.

This government has inherited an economy and a budgetary situation for the Commonwealth which is historically at its best. When we came to office in 1983, inheriting a budget and an economy from the former Liberal government, whose Treasurer at that time was John Howard, we inherited a deficit that amounted to $24 billion in today's terms—more than 2½ times the deficit that they inherited and that they complain about. The undeniable fact is that the only governments that have produced a surplus, the only governments that have managed not to draw on overseas or public funds to fund their budgetary outlays, have been Labor governments led by Paul Keating or by Bob Hawke.

We should put paid to the argument that government members trot out every debate on budgetary matters, and usually in question time as well, to try to cry poor about their situation. In fact, their situation is remarkably good—so good that, were we in Europe, Australia would be one of, I think, three countries that would be eligible to enter the European Union currency. Most of the countries in Europe have a much worse budgetary and debt situation than does Australia. Australia sits at the top of the international list in terms of the range of tests that the European Union applies for entry into the common currency. Our position is indeed a good one.

The other interesting thing out of the budget papers that I am always keen to look at is the government's own assessment of what they think will happen in the economy, how they think things will go. The two key measures are the estimated performance of gross domestic product and what the government sees as the unemployment rate. Gross domestic product—that is, how much the national cake will grow by, how much more wealth we will generate in this country, the growth of the things we make—in the last year we were in office grew by 4.1 per cent. Last year, the first year of the Liberal government, that fell to 3.25 per cent on the budget's own estimate. A year ago when the last budget was introduced the government and the Treasurer said that they would get growth going along at 3½ per cent. That is, their aim was to have slower growth.

We had it running at 4.1 per cent just two years ago. Last year their ambition was to slow the economy down to 3.5 per cent because they were not capable of maintaining the growth. Growth is critical if you want to maintain jobs, particularly with an increased participation rate with more Australians wanting work. Last year they set out not to make the economy grow faster than it did in our last year in office, not even to make it grow as fast as we did, but to slow it down to 3.5 per cent, and they could not even do that. Their own budget now shows it running at 3.25 per cent. It went from 4.1 per cent under us to 3.25 per cent in the space of a year. They have slowed the economy down. That is why jobs are not available, that is why people are losing job security and that is why the unemployed are finding it hard to get a job.

So what do they think is going to happen with growth in the economy in the next 12 months? The budget papers predict that they will have a leap from their current abysmal performance of 3.25 per cent and that it will grow half a per cent to 3¾ per cent. They have now set themselves a target of growth which, based on their efforts last year when their ambition was not to make the economy grow but to make it smaller—and they could not even achieve that low ambition—few observers believe they will achieve.

The interesting comparison is what the budget papers say our trading partners will do. Bear in mind that at the moment the Australian economy is operating at 3.25 per cent growth. The budget estimates that our major trading partners will grow their econo mies at 4½ per cent. So the people we do business with in the world will have a growth in their economies of 4½ per cent. What is the Howard-Costello government's plan for Australia? If they can reach it, it is to grow at 3¾per cent—three-quarters of a per cent less than our trading partners, a significant growth on the last year. Given their performance of being unable to even maintain the former year's growth, that is a fairly ambitious target.

Unemployment is the crux of government responsibility, particularly at this time, when we know from all indicators that the economy is slowing, that business confidence is poor and that job security is worse now than it was 12 months ago. The budget papers show that when we left office unemployment was 8.5 per cent in 1995-96. Last year, in its first budget, what was the Howard-Costello government's aim for Australia? What did it want to reduce unemployment by? The answer is zero.

Last year, the government stood before the people and said they wanted unemployment to be 8.5 per cent. They did not even set themselves a goal of reducing unemployment in the last budget, but they could not even reach that. They could not even ensure that unemployment did not get worse. The budget papers demonstrate that unemployment is now expected in this year to average out at 8¾per cent. It has gone up. So what do they say is going to happen in the next 12 months? They predict that unemployment will fall from its current high of 8.75 per cent down to 8.25 per cent. They reckon they are going to take half a per cent off unemployment while the economy grows at less than four per cent. There is no-one in the economic community who believes that is possible unless, of course, through other measures, such as removal of child-care support and a whole range of other things, they actually force people out of the marketplace—people who are looking for jobs today and say, `I give up. I can't get a job. Things are so bad I won't even put my name down and try to get a job.'

That is the only way they will get the unemployment figure down. They will get it down by reducing the number of Australians who are looking for a job, because the widely accepted view is that, to make unemployment fall in Australia, you need to run the economy at a growth rate of about four per cent. Even if all of their predictions come true—and, given that they got them all wrong last year, you do not hold out much hope that they will be right this year—and even if everything they wanted came true, their own estimate, their own target, is that the economy will grow at less than the required four per cent. No-one is going to take that seriously. These are the principles that underpin the budget, and the people of Australia, unfortunately, are going to bear the brunt of those false assumptions. No amount of rhetoric and no amount of spin-doctoring is going to make a difference to that sad fact.

The forecast that this government has given on unemployment is a disgrace. Jobs should be the priority. Job security is absolutely critical. Instead of talking about jobs and instead of talking about some of those facts to which I referred, most government members have announced with great fanfare the lower interest rates. I, like all people, am delighted to see the lower interest rates. They are a good thing for the economy. But what this government has lost sight of is that they are absolutely undermined by the loss of job security.

You have already seen that in the interest rate cuts that have occurred. If you had an orthodox view, a traditional view, about this, you would say that interest rates have come down, that there would be more growth, that people would spend more money, that the building sector would grow, that we would see job confidence up, and that we would see the Yellow Pages Small Business Index and all these things high. They are not. You do not need to read those surveys to find out. You just need to spend a day going around your electorate, talking to a few people in business, to know how bad things are. I spent a little bit of time doing that recently, and all bar one person I spoke to in small business said that this was the worst they had had for years.

It was interesting that they said they did not like my former government. They did not like Paul Keating. They were glad to get rid of us. But a number of small businessmen said to me, `We were better off when Paul Keating was Prime Minister. We are worse off now than we have ever been.' The truth is that only one small businessman I spoke to said he was doing well, and when I pointed out that that was a bit different from the reactions I had had from others, he—

Mr Martin Ferguson —He is handling bankruptcies!

Mr BEVIS —Someone said to me that he was a locksmith—he was changing locks after the bankruptcy people came through. This fellow was actually genuine and he was puzzled because he agreed, and he said everyone he knew in the business community was going backwards and was doing it harder than they had ever done it before. He was not quite sure why he was getting people in the door—he was just glad they were coming. That is the legacy that the coalition has produced. It does not understand that, while it destroys job security, interest rates are not going to have an impact.

To someone who does not have a job, it really does not matter whether interest rates are 15 per cent or five per cent. They are not going to buy a new car. They are not going to extend the house. They are not going to build a new house. For someone who has got a job but has just seen a third of the work force—their workmates—lose their job through a restructure, redundancy or government downsizing, they do not have the job security to think, `Yes, I'll go out and take a loan and I'll buy a new car or I will go on a holiday.' The simple fact of life is that, without job security, interest rates are totally undermined, no matter what level they are at. People today have no job security because of what this government has done in the last budget where it deliberately set out to reduce gross domestic product. It achieved it, it did slow the economy down, it has increased the number of unemployed and it has set about laying people off in their tens of thousands.

Against that background, interest rate cuts will not stimulate growth. It is a simple fact of human nature and it is one that appears to have been lost on this government. People will not take out a loan if they are not confi dent they will have a wage in 12 months time to pay the debt off, and this government has taken away from most Australians that security of employment. In the course of the last couple of months, we have seen announcements that go to 8,000 positions in Defence being abolished and another 13,000 positions in Defence under review—under the knife. We have seen another 20,000 Telstra jobs announced to go, as well as 4,000 department of employment jobs, in this budget. There is a supreme irony in that: while unemployment goes up, this government is sacking the very people in the department of employment who are there to help unemployed people to get jobs but 4,000 people out of the department of employment get the axe in this budget. And, of course, the government stands by and does nothing while the so-called Big Australian decides to lay off 2,500 workers in Newcastle.

To cap it all off, in a couple of months time you will close every CES office in this country—the very place where unemployed people have become accustomed to getting support, and you shut the doors! You have put out the `For sale' sign on the CES offices of Australia. What signal does that send to unemployed Australians? What hope, what opportunity, does that give them to get a job? Do not worry whether interest rates are five per cent or 10 per cent. The signal you send those people is that, firstly, you do not care and, secondly, you have no plan. Sadly, this budget reflects both.

Against that, there has been a bit of window-dressing. There have been plans like Green Corps, which is an interesting scheme. I was particularly interested in it for a range of reasons, so I put a question on notice to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Dr Kemp). I asked about the number of people participating in Green Corps, and I got a reply on 13 May. In my state of Queensland, the total number of people participating in the Green Corps program is 40. In the entire state of Queensland, 40 people are participating in Green Corps and you herald Green Corps as a major initiative to help people who are unemployed.

The real irony of this is that of those 40, 15 of them actually had a job before they went into Green Corps. So out of the 40, there were only 23 people in Queensland who were unemployed. So what has Green Corps done for unemployed people in Queensland? Twenty-three unemployed people in Queensland have been picked up in Green Corps. And how many of those 23 were long-term unemployed? Six. Six long-term unemployed people in the entire state of Queensland are being helped by Green Corps. Isn't that a magnificent achievement!

Government members have been putting out press releases all across Australia saying what a great initiative this is. The sad thing is that it is not just Queensland that is in this situation. Every state is the same. The total number of people in Green Corps in Australia is 240. The Labor Party's program of assisting unemployed people by way of environmental programs employed 13,000 people every year. Do you know how many you have got on Green Corps? Two hundred and forty. And do you know how many out of that 240, right across Australia, were long-term unemployed? Forty-two. You have helped 42 long-term unemployed people. Members of the Liberal and National parties, in debates and in press releases around Queensland, have been saying what a great thing it is. Quite frankly, it makes me a little sick.

I also want to comment on one of the planks that the government heralded with its budget: the savings plan. The savings plan means that, if you happen to have $60,000 in the bank, you can get a $450 tax deduction. When? In the year 1999. Just in time for you to buy your ticket to the Olympic Games, I imagine. But you have to have $60,000 in the bank.

I do not know about members on the government side, but I do not have too many friends or constituents who have $60,000 in the bank. The average person who has $3,000 in the bank at five per cent will get about $22 a year—about 50c a week. That will make a big difference. That will improve the savings. But the important thing is that this has been done at the cost of superannuation. Ordinary working Australians have lost their best chance at retirement funding, which was the superannuation scheme. You have traded that in for this program. What is worse, it has a negative effect on national savings. This will not increase Australia's national savings pool, and the government knows it. The Treasurer knows it. He has evaded questions on it.

What you are doing is transferring public savings to the private sector and you are doing it in a way which will probably be negative. Every review of these plans has come out with that assessment. You should be ashamed of the deception that you have endeavoured to place on the people of Australia in that measure. (Time expired)