Senator HILL (Minister for the Environment)(3.07 p.m.) —Mr Deputy President, I remind you of what the then Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley, said on 31 January 1996:

We believe that we have both a surplus now and expect that surplus to improve, as our figures indicate, over the next three or four years. We're anticipating moving into structural surplus.

This, Mr Deputy President, was the basis on which we did our figures. Were we entitled to rely on what the Labor finance minister of this country assured us? I would have thought we were, reinforced by ministers in the Senate, particularly, I recall, Senator Cook—`The budget will be in surplus.' So the figures were done on that basis. Yet we get into government and the day after we are told by Treasury, `I'm sorry, it is actually $8,000 million in deficit.'

Do you believe for one minute that Minister Beazley did not know the true situation? He was the finance minister of this country. He was asked in the election to open the books and he refused. The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, was asked in the election to open the books and he refused. We were given these figures to work on and our promises, accurately costed, were based on those figures.

Despite having to face up to that unexpected $8,000 million deficit and largely remedy it in the course of the next couple of budgets, we will get to surplus during the course of this parliament—an historic achievement. Despite that, we were also able in this budget to honour so many of those critically important promises that we made: promises to families; promises on health care; promises to the elderly, self-funded retirees; promises to small business on rollover of capital gains, for example; promises of more funding to the CSIRO; promises for more research in the universities; and promises for more APA scholarships in the universities. Do I hear that coming from the Labor Party? All promises that we have been able to meet as well as largely addressing the deficit of $8,000 million which we inherited from you and which you swore did not exist.

I would have thought that that was a tremendous achievement. Interestingly, fair commentators have recognised what an achievement it is. All you need to do is glance through major commentaries and editorials today. What did Max Walsh say?

Senator Cook —Ha! Ha! Come on!

Senator HILL —I would not say Max has been on our side all that often. He said:

The bottom line is that last night saw a Budget presented that is good for business and good for Australia. It saw the first halfway decent Budget of the 1990s.

Ian Henderson, who used to work for the ALP, said:

The Howard Government has delivered a strong pitch for a sustained period of fiscal consolidation, restoring the Budget to underlying balance over the course of the economic cycle to overcome the nation's current account deficit.

You should be applauding that. I am sorry that Senator Faulkner has walked out. Listen to what Tom Burton, who is also pretty tough on us usually, says:

John Howard's new government has kept faith with middle Australia and market demands for major budget repairs.

Terry McCrann, who is sometimes a little the other side, says:

This is the Budget we had to have—and self-evidently never got and would never have got from the previous occupant of the Lodge.

But let's move to the editorials. The Australian :

The economic challenge is to restore the budget surplus and maintain a growing and competitive economy. The Coalition has got the economic fundamentals right in its first Budget for 13 years.

A glowing editorial, I would have thought, Mr Deputy President. The Financial Review :

Last night's Federal Budget, the first to be brought down by the new Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, provides a solid platform for delivering a sustained reduction in the Budget deficit and, as such, is essentially pro-business.

The Daily Telegraph —I will not hold this up because I am not allowed to, Mr Deputy President—has the front page headline, `A fair go'. Why don't you read that.

Senator Sherry —What about the Hobart Mercury ?

Senator HILL —How better could you describe this budget than to call it a fair go? If I had more time I would give you other examples.(Time expired)