Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) (3:06 PM) —At the outset I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that was not quite as bad as his AM performance but it went very close. Let me say to the House very directly why there is no case to suspend standing orders to discuss this issue. The reason there is no case to suspend standing orders to discuss this issue is that the two most important public policy issues before this parliament today are, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition’s inability to understand the basic principles of his own economic attack on the government—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Adelaide is warned!

Mr HOWARD —and the basic principles of productivity in this country.

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lingiari is warned too!

Mr HOWARD —Secondly, the revelations in the ABS statistics that were released yesterday clearly show that the policies pursued by this government over the last 10 years have been policies that have—

Ms Gillard interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader is warned!

Mr HOWARD —benefited the less well-off in the Australian community. They are policies that have not robbed the poor in order to further enrich the rich. Rather, they are policies that have put on display to the Australian public the commitment of this government to principles of social justice and fair treatment of all citizens. If this parliament should be debating anything of public policy importance today it ought to be debating those two issues. That is why I believe the parliament should reject the suspension of standing orders sought by the Leader of the Opposition.

As I understand the working of this House, in order to suspend standing orders you need to establish that the issue you want to discuss is of such overwhelming importance that it cannot be put on notice and that it cannot wait until another day. In repudiating that proposition, I argue that what is important to the Australian people today is whether the alternative Prime Minister—

Mr McMullan interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fraser is warned!

Mr HOWARD —of this country really understands his alternative economic policy. What is also important to the Australian people today is whether the policies that this government has pursued over the last 10 years are policies that have been of benefit to the great majority of the Australian people. In the last 24 hours we have seen a dramatic set of economic figures that have totally detonated any credibility in the economic attack of the Leader of the Opposition on me and on the government I lead. From the moment that the Leader of the Opposition assumed his present position he said that I led a government that had failed to use the prosperity of the last decade to fairly reward all of the Australian people. He said I led a government of privilege, a government of the rich, a government that did not care about the less well-off in the Australian community. That was a charge that was gathered under the quaint general description of ‘Brutopia’.

Ms Owens interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Parramatta is warned!

Mr HOWARD —I was depicted by the Leader of the Opposition as a person interested in privilege and indifferent to the suffering of the less well-off. That was always a false charge. It was a charge made false by the employment record of this government. What other Prime Minister can turn to an unemployment level at a 33-year low? What other government can point to real wages having risen by 20.8 per cent in 13 years? What other government can point to the low levels of inflation and interest rates? What this parliament should be addressing today are those issues of the fairness of the government’s economic policies and the total inability of the Leader of the Opposition to even understand the basis of his own economic attack. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk exclusively about Kirribilli House today and I will come to Kirribilli House—

Mr Garrett interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!

Mr HOWARD —but he has got to establish urgency. He is trying to deflect the gaze of this parliament and of the Australian public from those two very important economic debates. He has tried to divert the attention of the public and of the media away from his appalling economically illiterate performance on AM this morning when he did not understand the first thing about what he has been prattling on about for the last six months, and that is productivity. He was asked again and again whether he had read the national accounts and he either had not, or he refused to acknowledge that he had, or he was trying to misrepresent what they meant. You cannot be a credible economic alternative if you do not understand your own economic argument. This Leader of the Opposition, I charge, does not know anything about productivity. He does not know what it constitutes. He does not know the history of it in this country and he certainly does not understand the policies that are necessary to bring it about.

Having dealt with the issue of urgency, let me deal very briefly with some of the other matters that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me just explain to the House in sequence what happened in relation to the Kirribilli House event. As part of matters surrounding the federal council meeting there was a drinks party, which I hosted at Kirribilli, to which delegates to the federal council, a few other members of the Liberal Party and business observers to the council were invited. The invitations that were extended to the business observers in the first instance and the invitations on which decisions were made by those business observers to attend did not, I am advised, make any reference to attendance at Kirribilli House, but rather a reference to a Prime Minister’s reception. I regarded it as proper, as did the Federal Director of the Liberal Party.

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gorton is warned!

Mr HOWARD —The decision taken before the event was held was that, given it was an event taking place in conjunction with the Liberal Party Federal Council, it would be proper for the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs involved in hosting the event. And when I speak of additional costs I mean the additional costs of food and drink and any additional security, and the additional cost of any further staff that were obliged to attend. I think I advised the House of a figure of some $5,100, to which should be added, I am now told, some security costs of several hundred dollars.

I also inform the House that prior, to the event being held, verbal advice was obtained from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by my chief of staff that, given all the circumstances and given the intention of the Liberal Party to pay the additional costs, it was an entirely appropriate use of the official residence. That was the advice that was obtained.

Much has been made of the fact that these delegates were coming to the federal council meeting only because of the possibility, of which they were not formally advised before accepting the invitation to come, that they would be able to come to Kirribilli House. That might be a valid argument if the only opportunity of access to me or my ministers occurred at the Kirribilli House function. But I can tell the House that, unlike other party conferences, there was full access to me and to senior ministers at the meetings of the federal council and all the surrounding occasions, so there is no question of this being an improper use.

I simply remind the parliament that, whatever may be said about Kirribilli House, no use of Kirribilli House in relation to me or the Liberal Party could possibly match the use of Kirribilli House in 1988 to determine the future leadership of the Australian Labor Party. It is very instructive, when you are talking about who was included and who was not included, that at the famous Kirribilli House pact the only two people present, other than Mr Hawke and Mr Keating, were the then leader of the ACTU and the person who was then known as the most beneficial financial supporter of Bob Hawke and of the Australian Labor Party. That was a metaphor for the approach that government took to the use of Kirribilli House. (Time expired)