Senator McGAURAN (11:51 AM) —I rise to speak ever so briefly to support the government's charter of budget honesty. But, having listened to the three speakers before me—Senators Bishop, Murray and Margetts—I am at a loss to understand Senator Murray's point that the National Party are losers in this. It is quite the opposite. The National Party, like my coalition colleagues, support the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] wholeheartedly for the reasons outlined in the government's second reading speech.

Senator Bishop should be aware that his Labor opposition are, in fact, supporting this bill. We know they have done a somersault on this matter. They fear that this bill will become a double dissolution trigger. Just as they fear that the bill we have just dealt with, the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], will become a trigger for a double dissolution, so do they fear this bill; that is, the determination of the government to pass this legislation. The opposition have done a backflip.

Although Senator Bishop spoke against this bill throughout his speech and went off on all sorts of strange tangents about the methods that the government used to balance the budget—for which it should get credit—he is going to vote for this bill. So work that out.

No-one is really quite sure what Senator Margetts is on about, but we do know she has her own pet projects. If you do not come to hand for her pet projects, she finishes her speech—as she just did—and dashes out of the Senate saying, `This is despicable.'

The truth of the matter is that this is a most important piece of legislation where major structural reforms will be brought to the parliament in presenting fiscal responsibility and policy. We all know how we got to this point. It is because of the legacy this government was left by the previous government. It was not just a $10.5 billion deficit.

Senator Quirke —It was $10.3 billion, I think.

Senator McGAURAN —It was between $10.2 billion and $10.5 billion.

Senator Quirke —Better get it right, Senator.

Senator McGAURAN —We know it grew from the first estimation, which was $8 billion. The deficit grew to $10.3 billion—I will accept your figure, Senator Quirke.

Senator Quirke —It's growing like Pinocchio's nose now, Senator.

Senator McGAURAN —It was definitely $10.3 billion, and we have reined it in. Straight after the election, we found out the dishonesty and the cover-up that occurred. The previous government went into the election campaign claiming that there was in fact a balanced budget. Not only that, the legacy of the debt that was left, I believe, is worse and harder to overcome than the deficit itself. The debt figure left for this government was well over $100 billion. To put that in perspective, ironically, when Mr Keating was first elected as Prime Minister, the Commonwealth debt was $30 billion—quite manageable. But, within four years of the Keating prime ministership, it blew out to $100 billion plus. That is a harder figure to pull back, Senator Quirke, than the $10.3 billion deficit, which we have done.

We are now working on that major debt left to this government. We are doing it through asset sales particularly. This government's asset sales will be dedicated to reducing the Commonwealth debt. We believe that the two-thirds sale of Telstra will bring in some $40 billion, which will go towards reducing the Commonwealth debt to under the $50 billion mark. That is a responsible attitude towards privatising our national assets or our national carriers like Telstra.

It is not just the Telstra sale that we will be dedicating to the reduction of this government's debt. The airport sales of over $4 billion must go towards reducing the heavy debt burden that this government was left. There are the sales of AN rail and ANL, Australia's shipping line. Commonwealth offices and property to the tune of billions of dollars will also be put on the market. There will be other such asset sales like Dasfleet. They will all responsibly go towards the reduction of Commonwealth debt.

The point is that, when the opposition was in government, it chose to privatise in the most tortured way possible. For example, Qantas was on the budget four times to be sold and dishonestly used to reduce the government deficit of the day, yet it was not sold until the fourth occasion. Also, in relation to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, those opposite went to the people in a dishonest fashion and said that they would not privatise it, and they did—unlike us. They got a very good price for it too. The Australian taxpayers got their first taste of shareholding a former government asset, like they did with Telstra.

What did you do with those funds? You did not use it to reduce debt at all. You frittered it away on the current expenditure. It was completely frittered away. Where did the billions of dollars received from the sale of the Commonwealth Bank go? It was completely wasted on the budget because we still ended up with a $10.3 billion deficit.

The point of the legislation before us today, the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill, is that that sort of dishonesty can no longer occur. We are locking you in now, should you ever have the opportunity to return to government—and perhaps in the decades to come that will be possible; the wheel always turns in politics, as we know. We are now locking a future Labor government and ourselves into responsible, transparent fiscal reporting. No longer can we set up budget surpluses for you to come in and fritter away on the taxpayers. We will come back into government, as a result of the slow turning of the wheel of politics, and have to rein in the expenditure again.

Now it is going to be open for judgment by financial reporters and by the taxpayers. The books will be open to show exactly the government's financial situation. The underlying budget deficit or surplus can no longer be hidden from public scrutiny, as it was during the Hawke and Keating years. You never really reported correctly what your budget deficit was. You tried to constantly cover it up through asset sales. There is now going to be a separation of asset sales and proceeds from the underlying budget figure.

In order to reach that situation of accurate government reporting, the charter of budget honesty will establish a framework within which formal reports will be made. Along with the release of each year's budget, a report will be required that states the government's economic and fiscal projection for both the budget year concerned and three years ahead. These projections will indicate the expected consequences of the proposed fiscal system. Midway through each financial year, another report will update the process of the fiscal and economic projections that were set out in the budget. Within three months of the conclusion of the financial year, a report will be issued detailing the fiscal outcomes of that year. Further, every five years, a report will be made outlining the long-term sustainability of the current fiscal policies.

This bill ensures that the secretaries to both Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration prepare a pre-election report providing an up-to-the-minute assessment of the government's fiscal policy. What could be more transparent? What greater scrutiny could be put on a government—and which we are putting on ourselves—than that form of reporting to the parliament and to the people?

There will also be a provision for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments. That should make for a very interesting exercise in the upcoming election, because we heard from Senator Kemp yesterday during question time that the shadow minister for health, Mr Lee, has already committed the opposition to a $6 billion health budget, while at the same time the former finance minister and current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, has committed the opposition to a balanced budget. This is the man who left us with a $10.3 billion budget deficit, but now he has changed on the road to Damascus and he is going to produce three years of balanced budgets if he ever gets the opportunity.

The pull on that is that Mr Ferguson, in the other House, does not believe in surplus budgets. He and his left wing colleagues will be coming to Mr Beazley saying, `We don't believe in balanced budgets.' So you can see the pull and the tug from the Labor Party but, under this legislation, they will be committed to costing their election commitments under the scrutiny of Treasury and Finance. So will our side, but we can deliver because we have delivered a balanced budget already and we are reducing the burden of the government debt.

Senator Sherry —It has gone up.

Senator McGAURAN —No, it has not.

Senator Sherry —Total Australian debt has gone up in the last year.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert) —Order! Senator McGauran, do not be distracted by interjections.

Senator McGAURAN —Senator Sherry does distract me and, Mr Acting Deputy President, I take your advice that I should not be distracted by him. Finance and economics are not Senator Sherry's great strengths. Sure, I saw him stand up before and talk about industrial relations, on which he has some expertise, but haven't they all over there? Haven't they all got a self-interest in industrial relations? They can all wax lyrical when it comes to industrial relations and protection of their old union mates but, when it comes to finance, let us face it, on any sort of scrutiny or any sort of poll, the Labor Party are not known to be very good finance managers.

Let us go back to the Whitlam years. What a financial mess the country was left in after the Whitlam years. What a financial mess. When you got your second shot at it, what a financial mess the country was left in after—

Senator Sherry —What did John Howard leave when he went out of government as Treasurer? What was the debt then? Twenty odd billion dollars—in today's money, $20 odd billion.

Senator McGAURAN —Senator Sherry, you are prone to exaggeration; it was not $20 odd billion. That is how much you know, and I refuse to be further distracted by you.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that this is a very significant piece of legislation. I know quite often that the finance bills that come through this parliament are not met with great interest—in particular, by the press gallery—but this legislation is going to fundamentally change the financial reporting of governments and the responsibility that governments have. It is in fact quite a revolutionary reform, along with, need I say it, the other revolutionary reforms that have come out of the Finance and Treasury departments. So I commend this bill to the Senate.