Senator SHERRY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(3.15 p.m.) —The going is really getting tough for Senator Short when he has to rely on Senator Abetz to defend him. He did not mention the word `inflation' once. He gave 300 speeches last year and look where he ended up—at the far end of the government benches. That is where you ended up, Senator Abetz. You did not even talk about inflation.

Senator Abetz —Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I remind Senator Sherry of his requirement to address his comments through you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Sherry, I am sure you won't forget.

Senator SHERRY —I am sure I won't forget that unforgettable speech by Senator Abetz, who sounded more like a used car salesman than a person making a speech on economics. It is a sad sign for Senator Short when he has people like that defending him.

I come back to Senator Short's contribution to question time with respect to inflation and the other matters he was asked to answer today—and, indeed, questions he has been asked during the last week. On the issue of inflation, Senator Short is either waffling on in answers or is giving the wrong answers or the wrong information. On this issue of inflation, Senator Wheelwright is clearly right. The press knows that inflation is trending downwards in this country. Not just the press, but even your own party knows that inflation is trending down, as do the public. I quote the head of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Fraser, who, in a speech about five or six weeks ago, said:

Things have been under control lately, with underlying inflation of 2¼ per cent on average over the past four years. In the year to December quarter, the increase was 3.2 per cent, a little above the target of 2 to 3 per cent. Underlying inflation is the best measure for policy makers to track, but broader measures tell a similar story. The price deflator for private consumption expenditure, for example, shows an average increase of less than 2 per cent over the past four years and a rise of 2.8 per cent over the course of 1995.

Senator Short clearly got it wrong.

Senator Cook —Incompetent.

Senator SHERRY —He is incompetent. He misled the Senate. In his enthusiasm to denigrate the solid record of accomplishment of the Labor government, he gave incorrect information on the inflation figures. Inflation is trending down.

That is not the only incorrect answer he has given. Having glanced through the Hansard for Tuesday, 7 May, I note that, in answer to Senator Kernot, he said:

That is why no major reforms at all had been undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout the economy to get the basic structure of the economy sufficiently internationally competitive. . .

I re-emphasise `no major reforms at all'. That is what Senator Short said.

Senator Cook —It's a joke.

Senator SHERRY —You are right, Senator Cook, it is a joke. Let me remind Senator Short of some of the things he could have mentioned. Over 13 years, the Labor government floated the dollar; we removed exchange rates; we knocked over the tariff walls; there was the adoption of competition principles; the 15 per cent superannuation scheme; and significant micro-economic reform in the area of industrial relations and wages. Those are the sort of micro-economic reforms we carried out. Yet what did Senator Short do? He misled the Senate in a very significant way. He said—and I quote again:

That is why no major reforms at all had been undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout the economy to get the basic structure of the economy sufficiently internationally competitive. . .

In answer to another question, about the real price of homes in Australia, he said that many people in Australia, over the 13 years of the Labor government, had a real decline in the price of their homes. We checked the statistics.

Senator Campbell —That's true.

Senator SHERRY —Show us your proof. We tabled statistics from the Australian Housing Association which showed that not only had there been no decline, but there had been no decline in any major urban centre in Australia. When we challenge Senator Short to name one area, what does he do? He comes up with Brunswick. I have got news for you, Senator Short, on the Brunswick figures, but we will give you that bad news later today, or perhaps tomorrow. That is yet another example of where Senator Short has grossly misled the Senate, because in his enthusiasm to denigrate our sound record, which you will hear more about later this afternoon and in future months—

Senator O'Chee —Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Sherry well knows that it is unparliamentary to accuse an honourable senator of misleading the chamber except in a substantive motion to that effect. He has done it twice. I suggest you direct Senator Sherry to withdraw those comments, which are quite clearly unparliamentary and impugn the good character and integrity of Senator Short.

Senator Cook —On the point of order: Senator O'Chee has a selective recollection of the rulings of the chair on this subject. In previous rulings where someone says that the Senate is being deliberately misled, then what Senator O'Chee has just said follows—that they have to take a substantive motion. But I remember Senator O'Chee's colleagues, many of them on the other side of the parliament, being very free and easy, in fact, alleging there was misleading when there was not, but using it as a way of trying to damage the credibility of an argument by the then government. The fact that the chickens have come home to roost is no reason to find on this point of order in Senator O'Chee's favour.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think, Senator Sherry, `grossly misled' is getting to the area which should be withdrawn.

Senator SHERRY —In deference to your request, I will certainly withdraw. It took Senator O'Chee five minutes to realise the accusation I had made. I have illustrated three examples—the inflation example, the allegation by Senator Short that there were no major reforms undertaken in our 13 years in government, and real housing prices—where Senator Short was wrong, and he should admit it. (Time expired)