Miss JACKIE KELLY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:14 AM) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you again on your elevation to that post. Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 are testament to the government's economic management. These bills deal with contingencies not foreseen in the 2001 budget. Who could have predicted the events of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism or, even closer to home, the bushfire crisis in New South Wales at Christmas? It says a lot about the government's economic management over the last six budgets that we are able to fund and deal with these problems without an adverse impact on Australia's financial position and standing.

Good government is a lot like good housekeeping: it is a matter of saving for that rainy day and for life's little surprises. Our good housekeeping has paid off. As the Treasurer recently told the House, Australia has exceptionally strong national accounts at 10 times the OECD average and 10 times the average of industrialised nations. Even the Canberra press gallery is finally recognising the achievements of John Howard. Dennis Shanahan recently wrote in the Australian:

Shanahan, not always kind to the government, is correct. Years from now, though those opposite continually carp to the contrary, the Howard years will be seen as an era of prosperity, a time when Australia walked proudly on the international stage with control over domestic firearms, enforcement of the human rights of the people of East Timor, the most successful Olympics ever and, recently, our role in the war on terror. It will be seen as a time when good sense, understatement and a quiet sense of purpose guided the Australian government.

This government has made the tough decisions. We have reduced by $56 billion the $96 billion debt left by Labor, $80 billion of which was racked up in their last five years of government. We implemented the most ambitious taxation reform agenda this country has ever seen. The current Leader of the Opposition, like Mike Tyson at a pre-fight media conference, said the GST would king-hit the economy, that the GST was the worst thing ever to happen to Australia and they would roll it back. Some king hit! We have just seen for 2001 a growth rate of 4.1 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition has shown that, as shadow Treasurer, his economic analysis left a great deal to be desired and, as a political tactician, his dream of surfing into office on the people's discontent with the radical changes was completely flawed unless you offered those people real policy alternatives and not just 97 per cent of what they already had with any goodies coming after the 2004 election.

The bills we are dealing with today fund real policy commitments, such as the allocation of funding to the Department of Defence for its war on terrorism and the costs associated with the increasing illegal entries into Australia, as well as—importantly for my electorate— the extension of the first home buyers grant and the introduction of the first child tax refund, an election promise which was extremely popular. I would like to devote my attention to the last two because they are of great importance in my electorate of Lindsay.

I believe that there is more to politics than economics and there is more to life than politics. As we rejoice in Australia's really good economic figures and as we debate these bills which appropriate funding to government departments, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking purely in financial terms. Sometimes, the bean counters seem to forget that good national accounts translate into real benefits for Australians. A growing economy means increased employment, investment and business opportunities. Low interest rates put money back into the pockets of families paying off the mortgage on the family home. In 1996 the average home loan interest rate was 10.5 per cent and by 2001 it was 6.3 per cent. That constitutes a saving of $350 a month—that is $4,000 a year—on an average home mortgage of $100,000.

In my electorate, where the average home price is now $200,000, low interest rates are incredibly important to first home buyers and to young couples starting out on that path to ownership. The first home buyers grant is making a real difference, saving buyers up to $8,000 on their home mortgage, plus giving them the opportunity to take advantage of a $10,000 first home buyers grant—if it is an established home, then that is $7,000. Low interest rates also allow small businesses to take risks and expand. A vibrant economy can make a real difference to the happiness, wellbeing and self-sufficiency of countless Australians. The package of appropriation bills we are debating today contain several financial measures that can only have a positive impact on the most basic unit of society, the family. These days, the family is defined by numerous constructs—it might be your traditional mum, dad and kids arrangement or it might be a situation where you have a separated home of single parents or it might include stepsiblings or half-siblings.

Let us talk about the first child tax refund. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002, the government is devoting $7.2 million to the first child tax refund. This is another example of the Howard government delivering on its election promises. Incidentally, on Tuesday this week the government also delivered on another of its election promises, when Senator Abetz announced that the Commonwealth is committed to protecting all the areas on the former ADI site at St Mary's that are listed on the Register of the National Estate. That is an election promise that was important to the people of Lindsay and this week we delivered on it because we are in the financial situation to be able to do so.

Back to the first child tax refund: when a mother leaves the workplace, the family will invariably experience a fluctuation in income. The first child tax refund effectively allows a mother to average her income over a few years to cope with the loss of income resulting from a decision to stay at home after childbirth. I was very keen on that promise because, if I had not been returned, then one option I would have had was to stay at home with my impending child, and I may have been eligible to access this rebate. It is based on the tax payable on all non-investment income in the year of or the year prior to the birth of the child. Low-income mothers or mothers not previously in the workplace will receive a minimum refund of $500 a year. We all know that every little bit helps. Those that earn over $52,000 will be able to claim back a refund of $2,500 a year in tax paid previously.

The refund will be available from 1 July 2002 and will apply to a family's firstborn after 1 July 2001, so I qualify. Even though I had a child in January 2000, it is applied to the first child after 1 July 2001. The refund is part of the government's attempt to ease the financial burden of the first child. It is true that with your first child you have enormous expenses getting the prams, cots, bassinettes and everything. I am sure second children are poor cousins because they all get the hand-me-downs. I do not think I have purchased much for this child, the poor thing. It will be using all its sister's goodies.

The government recognises that women have competing concerns. Women are very educated in today's society—more so than ever before in the history of Australia—and there are competing areas of interest between career and family. I do not like to categorise females as either stay at home or working. Throughout our lives we will move—when we leave school, we may work; we may then move into a situation where we wish to stay at home; and we may then move back into the workplace. I always stress that something as simple as a car accident might find you back at home—you could have a special needs child and be out of the workplace. If you lose a spouse, you could find yourself back in the work force. It happens very quickly, and throughout life females find themselves transiting between career and family, having to balance those competing concerns.

Our goal is to ensure that if a woman chooses to devote her life to a particular career, then she should have all the possible opportunities. By the same token, if a woman wants to start a family and focus centrally on that, then the government should ensure that that choice is supported. We all know that the family is the building block of society. The government recognises this fact. I know that John Howard does because he has been incredibly supportive of my decision to find a balance between the competing demands of family and work. It is another example of economics going beyond mere dollars. It is about having a real impact on the nature of Australian society. 62.8 per cent of mothers with children under 15 are in the work force. Young mothers play a crucial role in both the economy and the home. Child care is an issue of growing importance to thousands of Australian families. The Howard government has also delivered on child care. Over the next four years we will spend $6.7 billion on child care, which, as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs points out, is a 36 per cent increase on what Labor spent in their last six years. We have also seen the cost of child care fall by over 13 per cent. The Howard government has made it that much easier for working mothers and families where both parents are at work.

This government's Workplace Relations Act 1996 provides for a cooperative workplace which assists employees to balance their work and family responsibilities effectively through the development of mutually beneficial work practices with employers. It aims to help prevent and eliminate discrimination based on family responsibilities or pregnancy. The act provides employees with family responsibilities with improved access to their preferred agreements and arrangements by encouraging regular part-time employment and by enabling casual employment to be used where it has a role to play in the labour market. We know that this role is continuing to grow.

Unlike the Labor Party, we have a policy where maternity leave is concerned. The Labor Party think it is a good idea but they are not quite sure how to fund it—maybe the government should fund it or maybe small business should foot the bill. Then again they are not too sure—`Should we or shouldn't we?' Once again the opposition are flip-flopping from one position to another in the great vacuum that is Labor Party policy, whereas on our side of the House, one year after Labor had lost power, 28 per cent of females had access to maternity leave through federal agreements. By 2000, under this government, through AWAs and certified agreements, 39 per cent of women have access to paid maternity leave. Real progress has been made through the government's emphasis on workplace bargaining. You are able to negotiate what is important to you throughout life. Post your childbirth years you may wish to negotiate a different award for yourself when maternity leave is not critical to you. At other stages in your career you may wish to negotiate a situation where paid maternity leave is an option.

The government is creating choice and flexibility in the workplace, which I note the Labor states are quickly eroding in their respective industrial relations systems. It is amazing what a government can achieve with clear and coherent policies. It is worth mentioning that single mothers in Australia in 1996 had a median income of $341. In 1999-2000, that median income was $418. There can be no doubt that for a single female parent life is better under the coalition. They earn more and they are more self-sufficient. But it is not just single mothers: as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs outlined yesterday, more than four million Australians will start receiving higher pensions from next Wednesday. The single rate of pension will rise by $11.30 to $421.80 a fortnight. These increases are greater than rises in the cost of living, and this is because—unlike Labor—this government linked pensions to average weekly earning increases as well as inflation. Once again, the Howard government is delivering a better standard of living for all Australians.

As the House is no doubt aware, I represent an electorate in the mortgage belt of Western Sydney. The first home buyers grant has been an incredible boon to families not just in my electorate but across Western Sydney. The suburbs of Penrith and Werrington in my electorate are rated 14th and 17th respectively in the top 20 suburbs in New South Wales that have taken up the government's first home buyers scheme.

The statistics make interesting reading. Out of the top 20 suburbs, the overwhelming majority of areas where there has been a high take-up of the first home buyers grant are in Sydney's west. Over 50 per cent of the top 20 suburbs in New South Wales are in Labor electorates. This should be so demeaning for the Labor Party hierarchy after their complete failure in Western Sydney, with the collapse of their primary vote and large swings against them. This information should undoubtedly have gone before the Wran committee. That committee, I know, heard that Labor voters had sold their souls and voted Liberal. But I think the ALP should be looking at this in a different light. These voters have not sold their souls; they are making real decisions on what is best for them. They are waking up to good representation and good policy. These are people that work hard and save hard. They want a better life for themselves and their children, and the Howard government is committed to providing not a handout but a helping hand—indeed, $15 million in these bills alone.

These people are Menzies' forgotten people, Howard's battlers, and those opposite have left them behind. The Labor Party are not delivering relevant policies for them and so clearly despise what these people stand for. The Labor Party think they would be selling their souls to seek the policies and the economic stability that the Liberal Party are providing. It is little wonder—

Miss JACKIE KELLY —that their primary vote collapsed in Western Sydney, Leo. Instead, those opposite voice their continued concerns about sectional interest groups; they promise that they will get rid of the 60-40 rule and that they will review all their policies, bar the sale of Telstra; and yet, the first opportunity they get, they block the new schools program and the fair dismissal laws.

The time will come when those opposite will have to hear from those that they have left behind. The Labor Party do not seem to realise the very positive impact that this financial measure is having on countless people in Western Sydney. It sets them on the road to home ownership. Indeed, 70,299 people across New South Wales are on their way to home ownership because of this measure. Those opposite who are so keen on throwing money at all manner of social problems fail to realise that money strategically spent can benefit society as a whole. It is not the amount; it is the question of how it is spent. I am sure that some members opposite—especially the member for Werriwa, who is not with us today—see the sense in that. This is about concrete actions that go beyond the naming of a shadow portfolio `ownership'; it is about people seeking more than symbolism. They want results, and the Howard government has delivered. In these bills, people see the cold, hard facts.

I note also that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002 provides $800,000 for the transportation costs of the American helitankers Georgia Peach and Incredible Hulk. I have spoken before on the devastation that the Christmas bushfires caused in my electorate, so I do welcome the government's funding in this bill for the transportation of those helitankers, which proved so effective in fighting the fires not just in my electorate but across New South Wales. Again I pay tribute to all of those who so selflessly served in paid or volunteer positions across New South Wales at that time. I commend these bills to the House.