Mr ALLAN MORRIS (10:34 AM) —This current budget, which was brought down by the Howard-Costello-Anderson government, with its very rubbery figures, fiddles, extortions and false perceptions, brings to mind the words of the late Phillip Lynch. I would like to touch on the three most prominent of those. Firstly, there is the wonderful spectrum sale—the sale of fresh air. The way it is sold is very important to the budget—that is, as if it were an annual, normal transaction. That $2.6 billion is falsely used and falsely represented in trying to secure a budget surplus.

Secondly, there is that wonderful loan that has been given to the states which, when paid back, will be returned to them on the same day—in other words, a dodgy figure. It dates back to the best of the round robin schemes at the bottom of the harbour, but this time it is run by the government rather than by its friends. Thirdly, there is the deferment of payment on the profits of the Reserve Bank from this year until next year, the $700 million there. We all know—the markets know and the commentators know—that the real people who control the currency markets are now enjoying the games they are playing with the Australian dollar. They know that the surplus is a fraud and that, with the incoming GST and its effects on inflation, the government and the Reserve Bank have to protect the dollar. So between now and probably October and November of this year, we will see them move the currency up and down by 2c, 3c or 4c weekly or daily. They know that the government cannot afford to let it fall too far, so they will speculate against that and take their margins. Of course each time it moves up or down they will take their margin, because they know that at the end of the day the government and the Reserve Bank cannot afford to let it go too far. If the inflationary spike were to be increased by a currency devaluation then that would have even greater consequences.

The idea that interest rates will not go up is illusory, pollyanna-ish and of the best and most dramatic order. We will hear the government later this year saying that it was not their fault: that it was not expected and the markets are being unfair, that the banks are being unrealistic and that it is the jockeys at the screens doing it all. We will hear all this come forward. You can write the scripts now. They are probably already written and sitting in the drawer waiting to be read out. In September, October and November you will see the government trotting out the old lines, but the fact is that this is all of their own making. It is predictable, it is there and it is obvious.

In international markets we are seen as a country that is, for some peculiar reason, doing things to itself that it does not really need to do. I do not see any senior economic advisers or commentators saying that introducing a tax of this nature will end up being good for the country. I talk to exporters all the time. There is not a serious exporter in the country that pays wholesale sales tax on his main ingredients, because it is all avoidable. They know it and we know it. The public may not know it and therefore are being conned—hence the stupidity of those ads that are running.

This budget also has in it a number of other areas that need dealing with. But, before I get to that, I want to mention another aspect of the international scene where this government's priorities in spending are so distorted. It is to do with how we are seen in the world. Just recently, I noticed media comments that we appear to be distancing ourselves—pulling back—from the United Nations. That reinforces the perception that we are becoming one of the rogue countries that play fast and loose: we support organisations when they agree with us; when they do not, we blame them and disassociate ourselves. There has been a move by the government and government members for quite some years now—dating back to before they were elected to government—to a form of anarchy, which is usually preceded by the lines, `We govern ourselves, and what really matters is what we do.' In terms of the previous government, we saw that nonsense with treaties and what they would do about that issue. In actual practice, they have not done all the things that they have threatened to do, but they have demonstrated the body language.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing for me as a parliamentarian is what has occurred in terms of our liaison with other countries, other governments and other parliamentarians. We used to be seen as the fairest country in the world by most people I have ever met from overseas. That has now gone. We are increasingly sinking into a mire of intolerance, ambivalence and uncertainty. The fact that we are currently being featured by a number of UN committees, which are looking at how we do things, would have been unthinkable just five years ago. At the same time, the government is pulling back from the UN saying, `It's not really our fault; it's all their fault; this is a nasty international plot.' That is not just paranoia of the worst order; it is arrogance of the worst order, and in the years ahead future governments will have a lot of work to do to repair the damage.

We are a small country, but we were seen to have significance because we were always seen to be so fundamentally fair and decent. That is no longer the case now. I remember an interchange in Tromso in Norway just over a year go with the first president of the Sami parliament when we had a discussion with him about the rights of indigenous people. At the end of the discussion he said to us, `And what are you people doing to your Aboriginal people?' The leader of our delegation, as the speaker of the day, made some comment about it being a bit exaggerated and not really being true. He replied, `Don't tell me that; I know what's happening, I have many friends in your country, as we do all around the world. I know what you're doing and why you're doing it.' That was said in a little town in a small country on the other side of the world. What he thought of us was absolutely embarrassing—and he was correct. Furthermore, he was very gentle, very polite and very kind. He did not make a big thing of it—those comments were made at the end of our discussion, not at the start of it. I think that the events of recent times will come back to haunt members of this government.

The previous speaker mentioned the Family Court. I find that ironic. He was complaining about delays, but this government has cut the budget for the Family Court every year since it got in. It has cut legal aid virtually every year. The introduction of the Federal Magistrate is a con trick because it is being funded out of the Family Court. Since it requires its own infrastructure, the resources for court activities are reduced because a certain amount of it is now going into administration—and we are going through yet another downsizing in the Family Court. The reason for delays, apart from the fact that Family Court staff are leaving through exhaustion, disillusionment and disappointment, is that this government is intent on the Family Court not working. For example, in Newcastle we have lost a judge; we are going to lose a registrar and we are going to get one magistrate who will do other work as well as work for the Family Court. We are having our Family Court services reduced almost weekly, and to have members on the other side complain about the Family Court is absolutely appalling.

This budget will come back to haunt this government and it will haunt it for years and years to come. When it does, do not blame the world; accept your responsibility. It is your budget; you put it there and you are all defending it. Let us see how well you defend it in two and three years time.