Senator BOLKUS(7.05 p.m.) —I must rise in this debate and express my concern at a number of features regarding the way this document has been presented and how this government has debated it. Its features are highlighted when one looks at what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) said today in question time and how she tried to disparage the former minister for social security, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), and his view of how the government was proceeding with compliance in the social security area. She disparaged him at question time. She tried to portray him as someone who essentially did not know what was going on and was not in control.

But who does the minister invoke on page 2 of this statement this evening? Who does she invoke in saying that an important feature of our social security system in Australia is that it has been supported strongly by both sides and that public confidence in compliance has been the aspiration of both sides? She invokes the very same previous minister that she tried to disparage in question time today.

She quotes the former minister, Mr Baldwin, as saying on 30 August 1995 that the overwhelming majority of people receiving social security benefit payments are honest and genuine but that welfare cheats are not to be tolerated. She could have said that at lunchtime today, but she did not. She chose to politicise this issue. In being deliberately misleading, she compared figures for the first quarter this year instead of the first quarter last year.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Order! Senator Bolkus, the words `deliberately misleading' are ruled to be unparliamentary.

Senator BOLKUS —I will use the word `misleading' instead. She misled this place by comparing the figures for the first quarter this year as opposed to the first quarter last year. But a lot happened during last year. One thing that was enhanced last year was data matching. At that stage, the opposition opposed government initiatives in data matching. They have had a long opposition in this area. They are now claiming credit for something that the previous government and minister were involved in enhancing and made sure was working in a comprehensive way. They have done it not only with this issue but also with migrants.

There is no recognition by this minister. She was bludging on the back bench yesterday while her parliamentary secretary was doing the work, putting through legislation which the government saw as being critical. She was sitting on the back bench, hovering around, getting advice from her advisers, but she would not get into the debate. Why would she not get into the debate? Because she could not cop the heat. She is not up to it. She is not up to the standards of this place. She could not submit herself to questioning. We have seen that day after day. This minister is not up to the job. She was bludging off Senator Tambling in terms of yesterday's debate on this issue.

What does the minister forget to mention when she goes out on the airwaves and does her soft interviews? She forgets to mention that some two-thirds of migrants coming into Australia get jobs within the first 12 months of their being here and pay tax on their wages. She forgets to mention that three-quarters of the migrants coming into Australia get jobs within 18 months and pay tax. A lot of these people hit the ground running in terms of payments of taxes, but this minister, in an attempt to malign migration and to use migration as a political football, following her leader, following the dishonesty shown by this government in terms of trying to discredit the importance of migration—migration which has been quite critical to this country—selectively goes out and does not even pay any due respect to the contribution that migrants make here.

I wish to make one other point, to pick up on the point made by Senator Margetts. There is concern when there is such a rapid increase in payment cancellation or rate reduction because some people may be unfairly treated. My concern emanates from the fact that this is the government that is cutting apart the infrastructure for legal assistance in this country. We are talking here of people who are the weakest in our community. They may be doubly hit by this government's activities. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the affirmative.