Mr TRUSS (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (4:35 PM) —This is a very important piece of legislation which delivers a significant element of the government's new tax system. It provides enormous benefits for families. I thank those honourable members who have contributed to this important debate, in particular the government members who spoke such as the member for Menzies, the member for McPherson, the member for Cook, the member for Dunkley, the member for Hinkler, the member for Moreton and the member for Blair, who were speaking on behalf of everyone on this side of the House when they highlighted the importance that this government places on families and how these two bills, as a part of the government's tax reform package, will deliver real benefits to all Australian families.

The two bills will provide a long overdue simplification of the system for providing assistance to families. Twelve forms of assistance will be reduced to three: the family tax benefit part A, the family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. Australian families will benefit by well over $2 billion a year from these changes to family assistance. The bills will also improve the work incentives for families through changes to the government's family tax initiative and to the family allowance income test.

When you have legislation before the House that delivers such unambiguously good benefits to the families of Australia, it is amazing that such reforms should be criticised. But, true to form, the honourable member for Lilley whipped himself up into a frenzy to try to find fault with this legislation and to criticise the initiatives being introduced by the government. He himself offers absolutely no vision. The frenzy that he whipped himself up into this morning contrasted dramatically with the lack of interest and the lack of content of his `New Directions' speech to the Evatt Foundation just a few days ago. The only real contribution the Labor Party and their spokesman can make on these issues is to acknowledge that Labor got it wrong when in government. It seems they have at last been prepared to embrace some mutual obligation principles. I suppose that is welcome, although Labor is way behind the times in coming on board with those sorts of issues.

Once again, the member for Lilley repeated some of his tired old arguments about the tax reform package and youth allowance. It seems he wants to deny families the benefits of tax reform.

It was ACOSS which said just a short time ago—I do not quote them exactly, but I certainly quote the intent of their comments—that you cannot deliver decent social policy unless you have a sound economy. What we have seen in this budget and in this legislation is that there is a real social bonus available from good economic management. That good economic management, which has delivered us balanced budgets and small surpluses, is now flowing through to the people by way of tax cuts and the real benefits that are associated with this particular package.

The member for Lilley criticised the government's compensation package for pensioners. How on earth can anyone from the Labor Party criticise what this government is doing for pensioners? This is the government that put in place a legislated guarantee that pensions will be at least 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. In addition to that, the compensation package, as a part of the new tax system, offers real increases—permanent increases—above the CPI for all pensioners—real benefits for the disadvantaged in our community. It does concern me that the member for Lilley can make such dishonest statements. He knows that the ALP never provided a guarantee to pensioners. He was content when in government to see the relative value of pensions fall. We have acted in government to reverse that trend.

The government has ensured real increases in the value of pensions, and those are important elements of the tax package we have put before the Australian people. Unlike ALP promises, our commitments are met, and we do it without adding to government debt and without hidden tax increases—methods the ALP adopted when in office. They quickly brought in increases in the wholesale sales tax and axed the l-a-w tax cuts. In fact, when they promised the people they were going to reduce taxes, they actually put them up. It is offensive now for Labor to pass judgment on a government which actually delivers on its election promises and which provides real benefits to Australian families, particularly low income families. Low income families got absolutely no compensation from Labor when they hiked taxes. They also provided no compensation to pensioners and others when they increased taxes.

The honourable member for Lilley is also keen to overlook the $13 billion a year in personal income tax cuts, in addition to the $2.5 billion provided in this bill. Those sorts of things are very, very significant rewards—real dividends to the Australian people from our economic good management. The shareholders of this country are going to get a real return for the good management that their board of directors, the government of this country, have been providing to them over the last three years.

The member for Lilley also made some comment about sole parents. Sole parents will benefit from the lower personal income tax, the increases in income free areas for pensions, the family tax benefits and the lower taper rates that are to be introduced. The member should also note that the tax reform package does not alter existing payment arrangements for child-care centres. He also seems to be confused about the increases to the maintenance free area contained in the tax package legislation.

But, as always, when the honourable member for Lilley gets to his feet it does not take him long to drift off the subject and get back to his old familiar theme of inaccurate criticisms about the performance of Centrelink—quite frankly, absolutely dishonest claims that seem to flow from him with monotonous regularity. Yesterday the honourable member for Lilley put out a media release, which he repeated in his speech today, entitled `Centrelink bombed with massive $1 billion cut'. Putting aside the fact that virtually every paragraph has a statistical error in it—

Mr Swan interjecting—

Mr TRUSS —You said you quoted from the portfolio budget statements at page 187—but you could not get any of the numbers right. They are all wrong. You quoted the page, but you could not even transcribe the numbers. In fact, the basic premise of the member's assertion that there is a $1 billion cut is absolutely wrong, absolutely false. I guarantee to the House that the claim of the member for Lilley that there are further massive funding cuts in the 1999 budget to Centrelink is completely false. There are no new budget cuts to Centrelink in the 1999-2000 budget—no budget cuts, no new cuts whatsoever. All the statements reported on page 187 that the member refers to have been previously announced. They are a part of the dividend that the government expected and announced, at the time Centrelink was established, would be delivered through a more efficient delivery of government services with a one-stop shop.

It is completely dishonest scaremongering of the honourable member for Lilley to go running around the countryside suggesting that there is an extra $1 billion worth of cuts in this budget. This is absolutely wrong. After it was pointed out to him yesterday that his statement was in error, he should have come into this House and apologised instead of repeating the dishonest claim in his speech. Indeed, the budget includes a number of new initiatives to enhance Centrelink services. Call centre operations will be boosted and there will be new measures to improve customer service. I believe Centrelink will continue to provide a really excellent service and deliver government services in the most efficient way possible.

Unfortunately, the member for Lilley has once again sought to frighten pensioners and those who are most vulnerable in our society with his inaccurate claims. In his speech he made a number of statements which have been pointed out to him as incorrect. But he does not worry about that too much. He trots out the same rubbish again. He repeatedly says that 81 per cent of callers cannot connect to Centrelink.

Mr Swan interjecting—

Mr TRUSS —No, not 81 per cent of callers that do not get through. It is not `callers' because many people repeat their calls. He also makes exaggerated claims about waiting times for appointments. Maybe his figures were never accurate, but he might be interested to know that as at 28 April, which are the latest figures available to me, the national average waiting period for an interview for Newstart is not 21 days, as the honourable member for Lilley says, but three days. There are many offices that you can call and have your interview on the same day. The average waiting period for the age pension interviews is now two days and for youth allowances is 2.75 days. No offices anywhere in Australia have waiting periods anything like 21 days. Appointments are available immediately for people in hardship. If you have an emergency situation and you phone for an appointment, you will be seen within 20 minutes. Even if you do not have an emergency situation, on average you can expect to wait no more than two to three days. In many places you can be seen the same day.

You have heard the accurate figures. I hope you have taken them on board and that we will not therefore see a repeat of your dishonest figures ever again. It has been pointed out to you clearly in black and white today what the truthful numbers are, and I expect that if you comment on these matters in the future you will use accurate numbers.

Mr Swan interjecting—

Mr TRUSS —You should use the accurate, truthful numbers. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Lilley is very keen on criticism but offers very little by way of vision for the future. Three years in opposition do not seem to have led the opposition to any kind of genuine reassessment of the failings of Labor policy and philosophy. The member offered 21 pages of emptiness last week about a new social policy for Labor. Very bravely he gave his speech to the Evatt Foundation—hardly a likely hostile environment—but even there they could not help but acknowledge the lack of principle. They were brought along expecting some great landmark new direction speech but got absolutely nothing for their money.

One good thing he did do was to confess Labor's role in creating in the past a culture of dependency and to acknowledge that Labor had got it wrong and needed to do a whole lot better in the future. Even in his acknowledgment of Labor's failings, he is somewhat belated. The British Labour Party abandoned unconditional entitlements in 1995 and the US Democrats in 1996. If he is accepting that there are some mutual obligations on people in our society, then that is at least a step forward, and we look forward to support from the opposition in the future when the government introduces further mutual obligations principles in the programs that we have been implementing over recent times.

As the member himself said in his speech, talk is cheap. I have been waiting for a sign of this new found recognition of the problems of dependency and the critical role of the family in the hope that that would result in some worthwhile new policies and a willingness to support the government's initiatives assisting families. A really good start, if the member for Lilley is keen on new measures to support families, would obviously be to throw your wholehearted support behind the legislation that is before the parliament at the present time. This would be a great start for an opposition who are genuinely suggesting that they are interested in new measures to support families. The best thing they could do to demonstrate their good faith in that regard would be to give wholehearted, enthusiastic support for legislation that will deliver $2.5 billion in extra benefits to families. Isn't $2.5 billion for families a pretty good start? I am sure you would want to support something as forthright and as unambiguously good for families as this tax package, particularly these two bills before the House.

The honourable member for Lilley has moved a quite extraordinary amendment to the second reading. He may not be the least bit surprised to learn that the government will not be supporting any element of it. Again, it is factually inaccurate. In paragraph (1) he talks about low income families and individuals being worse off. They will not be worse off; they will be substantially better off. The average family will be $52 per week better off under the new tax system. The opposition do not want families to be $52 a week better off. They also claim that the compensation is inadequate when it is quite clear that the compensation will provide a real boost in the spending power of pensioners and those less well off in our community.

Clearly, this legislation ought to be supported by all Australians who care about families, who want to see real benefits flow through to ordinary men and women and their children so that they can get a share of the economic bonuses that are coming from the good management that has been delivered by this government over the last three years. This is really groundbreaking, landmark legislation. It deserves the support of the House. I thank those members of the government who contributed so constructively to this debate. I urge the whole of the House to support this legislation with enthusiasm.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. [4.55 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

——

Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

——

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Bill read a second time.