Senator MARGETTS(11.51 a.m.) —ALP amendments 2 and 3 brought me back to what happened in the previous term of government when there was debate on national savings. The response from the then government was to introduce a form of compulsory superannuation, which became the beginning of the end for pensions as a right in Australia. I believe that the national savings debate has been a very limited debate in Australia. It should be, in my opinion, a debate about the ability of people to make choices in their lives; to be able to choose to save or otherwise.

Going back to basic principles, the debate should look at the consumption functions of average Australians to find out what kind of income they have left, if any, to make those choices or what percentage of people are in debt and are never likely to get out of it, or not for a long time. Unfortunately, in recent times the debate generally has been about how many and what tax incentives we should give to rich people to alter the direction of their discretionary income.

When we have talked about national savings without the qualifiers to consider social and environmental implications and national and private savings, it has led to fairly atrocious outcomes. The Commission of Audit, which recommended the slash and burn of the Public Service that Senator Cook has men tioned, gets positive ticks from Treasury analysts because it reduces public expenditure, which therefore presumably reduces national debt and increases national savings. But it does not necessarily work out that way. Any proposed expenditure on education, health or industry promotion would probably get a big negative in respect of national savings.

I would argue that the purpose of money is not only to invest it. Expenditure especially on social wellbeing and quality of life is a valid social goal, hence a valid goal of politics. It should not be compromised by creating a report card that will give it a fail.

I do not know what the voting position of my colleague from the Australian Greens in this case will be. On the balance, I do not know that what is being put forward as the national savings agenda—to me it is a cover for a whole lot of other agendas—is necessarily going to go in the direction of giving people a fair go by considering whether or not their discretionary income allows them to be consumers of goods and services that are produced by local industry and allows them to make choices about whether they save and how much they save from their income, if they have any savings left.

I think the debate is about choices in things like housing, affordable transport and reasonable wages and conditions. We should be getting down to choices like people choosing to save some of their work time or choosing leisure rather than work. There are fewer and fewer choices in that regard at the moment. This amendment is a somewhat reductionist approach. I know that mine is seen to be an odd approach, judging from the response around the chamber. I have difficulty with the ALP's amendments 2 and 3 and do not feel I can support them.