Mr RUDDOCK (Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (5:46 PM) —Let me first just thank the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) for her comments in relation to the social security issues. I will deal with them fairly shortly, primarily because I think the speech was one which canvassed issues quite widely. From listening to the honourable member's comments, I conclude that I could well have engaged her as my speech writer for those speeches I made about the many decisions which at that time were taken by the former government when it was in office. I will not delay the chamber long; I will use the balance of the time and then resume my place.

As I was listening to the honourable member's concerns about some of the changes we had made to the social security system—changes which I see largely as being designed to maintain the integrity of that system—an interesting point occurred to me. We have made these changes to address the sorts of issues that need to be addressed if you are intent upon ensuring that the scheme is one which is fair, remembering that it is not an universal scheme in terms of pension eligibility and that it has maintained assets and income testing, the introduction of which the Labor Party, in part, was responsible for—particularly the testing in relation to assets.

I found the honourable member's comments a very interesting set, especially when she made the suggestion that a number of initiatives which have been designed to maintain the integrity of that system, particularly in relation to the assets area, should be opposed. I take it that, having raised the criticisms, that is what the honourable member was intending. Yet you have to marry that up with the sorts of commitments that the Labor Party is making.

Is the Labor Party about taking each of these matters through in a budget context and restoring each of them? That would have implications for a budget that a Labor government, if one were to come into power, would be obliged to implement. It also would have an impact upon the budget surplus. It would be interesting to know whether the honourable member is adhering to the line that you can make these sorts of criticisms but they are not matters which you would seek to address in office.

Another interesting point that occurred to me as I listened to the honourable member's observations was the reference to the impact of our measures in cutting millions out of the system for the unemployed. First, she disclosed in her own comments that the unemployed are down, at the moment under eight per cent, and then she suggests that there are additional people on benefits. That seems to me to be mutually inconsistent with the proposition that you are advancing—that we are stripping benefits away from the unemployed, and yet at the same time the number of people on benefits allegedly is going up.

As for comments that have been made in relation to JET and the other matters pertaining to compensation and also to young unemployed, I will pick those up if time permits. But, if not, if the honourable member wishes, I will give a more detailed response.