Senator MARGETTS (4:56 PM) —I could not let that pass without reminding the Senate that what we did get from the government in relation to family tax was a marginal tax system which was highly complex and extremely intricate. The reason it was set up that way was to try to make it look as if the gain was $1,000 when it was a lot less. The reality is that the government said they were giving $1,000 and in fact what people got in their pockets was a lot less. It was extremely complex; it is probably extremely expensive to administer as well. It was a con basically because it gave a lot less than what it promised—and it did not help much at all people who did not pay tax.

If the government are suggesting that they did such a good job with their family tax last time—their marginal tax effort—that they are going to do the same kind of thing again, we are on to them. It was a con last time. It was a scam to look as if the government were giving more than they did. As I recall, Senator Harradine at the time was very critical of the way the government put that together. So I certainly hope you are not going to came with the same kind of thing and add a figure on and pretend you are giving another $1,000 to Australian families because we are on to you. We have seen what you did before.

The important message that the minister is suggesting is perhaps one she took from Malthus, from a previous century, that you have to be cruel to be kind; that if you give the poor money they will only have babies. That kind of message is the kind of outdated, old-fashioned, inappropriate and cruel message that is coming from the government. The kinds of questions that we have been asking have not been answered by the government. What did happen about the explanatory memorandum the first time that suddenly meant we had an extra $100 million? When did we get the answer to that? Where are the figures from the government as to how the figures got changed by $100 million between when the questions were asked and when the minister answered them and when the explanatory memorandum was published?

We are told that we should accept what the government is saying that people are going to be better off. We have had no figures at all to show that. The amendments we are asking for support for here are about the real impact on real people. The Greens (WA) and the Australian Democrats believe that it is not just a matter of definition on paper; it is a matter of whether families will be able to survive. We do not believe that it is acceptable to say, `Oh well, if you have got kids who are in school or in training'—magically, considering the amount of money not available for schools and training from this government—`you might be better off if they are in those things.' If you look at the longer term picture that is not quite true. If you look at the impact on people who are unemployed for a longer period of time the picture gets worse.

None of those questions have actually been answered. Yet we are still being asked to accept that it is all right to discriminate against young people and to pick and choose what the age of independence is depending on whether or not the government feels it can save money; and that it is all right to call a person independent if there is a chance of getting money out of them—like their accepting debts and so on. But it is not okay to accept the age of independence as 18 unless you accept the responsibility that if those young people, like any other adult person in our society, are unemployed or need assistance with training or education they are entitled to receive it.