Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs)(4.03 p.m.) —I notice that today's MPI is entitled `The failure of the government to unequivocally honour the pre-election promises and guarantees made by Senator Hill in regard to the maintenance of programs for education'. The reason this title, I believe, has been chosen is that it is just another opportunity, as has been taken in other places, at question time and through the media, to try to flush out from the government what its budget proposals are going to be.

The simple point that members opposite need to understand—they certainly understood it when they were on this side of the chamber, when they were in government; suffice it to say, I understand you do not like being reminded that you were rejected, but you were—is this: the people on this side of the chamber were elected on a series of policies which were published, various debates in the community, advertising and so on. We on this side of the chamber have had a major policy debate. The people have spoken. They have unequivocally made their choice.

When is the opportunity for the next major policy statement? If there is going to be any change in direction, when would it be? It would be in the budget. Has any government thought it would be wise to undertake its budget negotiations through the media, by responding hit and miss to questions here and there and by ruling one thing out and leaving another in so that come budget night there was nothing to say because the whole process had been unravelled prior to those decisions being made? Clearly not.

If there ever was a government that behaved like that, certainly this government is not going to. We have made our commitments. We are now engaging in the process of preparing the budget for August. People are putting to us a variety of views about how to structure the budget—not just in the areas of higher education, labour market training and vocational training in my portfolio but in all portfolios.

A wide variety of views are being put forward, and we are doing what I believe is the proper thing: listening to all of those views and in due course, at the appropriate time—not at this moment—we will make those decisions. I intend to bring every piece of skill and experience that I can to making those decisions—by that I do not mean necessarily my own skill and experience but that of others—and to structure the budget as best as is humanly possible against what is a very unattractive budgetary situation.

The former Prime Minister refused to open the books to let the people of Australia see the state of the nation's economy prior to the election. What do we find on coming to office? We find Beazley's $8 billion black hole. In response to this black hole we can ask ourselves: what would Labor do? Would Labor say, `We know how to fix that. We'll put up taxes'? If their past record is anything to go by, the answer is yes.

When Senator Bolkus was in government he sat over here and voted to put up taxes all the time. That is probably what the Labor Party would do. In the alternative, the second thing they might choose to do is say, `We'll ignore it. It will all get better.' This is the Keating theory of `I'm the boss; I'm pulling the right levers; the champagne is flowing over; I'm pressing the right buttons; I'm the world's greatest Treasurer; and this is the recession we had to have'.

In other words, there are two scenarios I can imagine a Labor government might take up in facing an $8 billion black hole: either put up taxes in the notion that the rest of us in community are rich, that Australians have so much money they can afford to pay more taxes, or do as they have done in the past and simply ignore the problem. We are not prepared to do that. We believe that one of the key ways of providing real jobs to young Australians is, rather than churning them through labour market programs, getting the economy back on track—and we will do that. We believe we have the support of the Australian community to do it.

Come the budget, the Australian community will make their assessment of whether they think we have made the right decisions. I can assure Senator Bolkus of this: the Australian community do not want taxes to go up and they do not want the budget deficit to be ignored. They would have preferred a government that was honest with them about the situation vis-a-vis the deficit and they would have preferred to know that budgetary situation before the election.

Senator Bolkus —You're a victim of the con.

Senator VANSTONE —You say to me not to be a victim of Costello's con. I do not regard someone saying that we have to get the economy back on track and that we cannot afford to run the sort of deficit that we would have to if we ignore this problem, as Labor would, as a con.   We have given a commitment not to put up taxes, so that means everybody has to pull their head in. It is not targeted at any one group or another, other than to avoid in any way making the needy suffer.

So that is the situation that we have. You would have either left it or put taxes up. You did not want to be honest and you were not honest with the Australian community. Coming into government we discover this $8 billion black hole. We will remedy that problem and put the budget back into the black. That is the best way to create real jobs for young Australians. Sadly, that means that everybody will have to do some belt-tightening.

My first point was that we know what this is all about. This debate is about the opposition saying, `Why don't you tell us now what your budget thinking is. What are the options you are looking at so that we can further fearmonger in the electorate—so that we can run out and tell people that they are going to lose their jobs, run out and tell people that programs are going to be cut and frighten the death out of people unnecessarily.' That is what you are engaging in—a scaremongering exercise. Today is simply a part of continuing that.

But today is something else. The second point I want to make is that I almost had my breath taken away by the audacity of this motion. On the other side of this chamber are the people, now the opposition—the country can get lucky some of the time—who in 1993 marched around the country attacking my party, then the opposition, and said to the Australian people, `Do not re-elect these people. They will put up taxes. They are going to increase taxes. Vote for us; we will not do this.' So having been elected on a policy—

Senator Bolkus —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We have a matter of public importance before us which goes to education. I know Senator Vanstone has enormous problems in addressing the issues involved, but she is stretching very far away from those issues. I suggest to you that you ask her to come back to addressing the issues for which she has responsibility.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Childs) —I do not believe there is a point of order. Senator Vanstone is allowed to range widely, but I think she will watch it.

Senator VANSTONE —Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. Having been elected in 1993 on a platform of no new taxes, the l-a-w law tax cuts disappeared, there was an increase in wholesale sales tax, there was a five per cent increase on unleaded petrol, there was a seven per cent increase on leaded petrol, there was an increase in the Medicare levy, there was an increase in company tax, there was an increase in departure tax, there was an increase in tobacco excise and on it goes. So here is the opposition which par excellence in its last term of government went quite against the commitments on which it was elected.

They now say, after 10 weeks since the election, that we are failing to unequivocally honour our pre-election promises. Senator Bolkus, you should know with the experience you have had as a minister that you will be able to have this debate; whether you will be able to have it or not is something you will find out on budget night. I have no intention at this stage—at any time before the budget actually—of negotiating with you in this place or privately as to what ought to be done.

Prior to the budget I will undoubtedly be having discussions with a number of people, a very wide range of people. I repeat the offer—generous that I thought it was—that I made to Senator Carr: if you have any ideas we would be very pleased to hear them. In relation to my portfolio area, not just in the one you seek to refer to today—education—but in employment, education, training and youth affairs, I regard it as one of the most important tasks this government has. I am not going to diminish that task by engaging in some half-baked debating contest in here as to what policy proposals we ought to adopt.

The facts are that we have been elected; I have been given the job; I will do the job; and I will seek expert advice. Despite the fact that I put neither of you two gentlemen in that category, I would nonetheless be happy to receive any suggestions you care to offer in terms of making a contribution to improving the delivery of education, training and youth affairs policies to Australians. (Time expired)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.