Mr O'KEEFE (9:50 AM) —I would like to make some brief observations about the allocations in the budget for the primary industry sector. Some of these are specific points; some of them are more general points. Let me go first of all to the specific points.

There will be a lot of discussion between now and the next election about the government's AAA package. I will be continuing to make the point that we are supportive of all of the components of the AAA package, with the exception of the intergenerational transfer of the farm, which I will come to in a moment. They were previous Labor programs which were good policy and were funded at the levels that they have been funded at in these budget provisions.

If I remember correctly, on the day of the announcement of AAA, everybody, with great fanfare, announced their support for these programs and said what a fabulous figure $517 million was. By Monday, 24 hours later, even the National Farmers Federation was saying that there actually was hardly any extra money and there was nothing new. That is the fact: for all the cant that was preached about previous Labor government programs in this sector, the fact is that what the government produced with this integrated rural package was a rebadging of everything that was previously there and the funding levels were almost identical. Given that history, we are obviously quite comfortable with those programs and are committed to continuing them.

I take this opportunity to correct a mistake I made in the main chamber last night in the discussion on the intergenerational transfer bill. I quoted a figure which had come to me from the Senate that there were only 14 families who would be eligible to transfer, because the conditions were so stringent. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the original estimate put out by the government on launch day was 10,000. That has been revised down quietly in comments in various Senate estimates committees between last September and now. As of last night, we were being told the figure is 2,100 and that it is likely that 500 families will be eligible under the criteria. That is the figure that was arrived at in the debate last night from the government side.

My point is not as colourful as it was when I thought the figure was 14, but it is still immensely valid, as that figure of 10,000 has been revised down now to effectively 500. I refer to the comment by the New South Wales Farmers Federation in January when they said they had yet to find anyone who qualified. The legislation will be through the Senate shortly. The real test will be to find out how many there are. If those figures are correct, then it has been exactly as I described it—a sad hoax, because the expectations were created on launch day of 10,000 and it is down to a much smaller number than that. But I do correct the error I made in the other chamber. The figure of 14 relates to re-establishment grants that have been qualified for under the flow-on from farm family restart and re-establishment.

I wish to make a broader point. I am not quite sure how the minister is intending to deal with this, because he has not won many budget battles around the table with the Treasurer (Mr Costello). I am of the view—it is just a judgment—that the government has seriously underestimated the impact of the downturn in Asia. I am also of the view that the government may have underestimated the longer term flow-on of the climatic conditions we have been experiencing. If both those factors are correct—(Time expired)