Senator SYNON —My question is for the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Since being elected in 1996, the coalition has managed taxpayers' money so that the government is not spending more than it earns. How has the coalition ensured that the federal government is now living within its means? Will the minister also enlighten the Senate how this fine record compares with the past government's track record in mismanaging the books?

Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer) —Thank you, Senator Synon—my Victorian colleague—for that important question. Madam President, the government living within its means, specifically in relation to the nation's finances, is something that should not be taken lightly, in our view. The Howard government respects the fact that the dollars we collect come from Australian taxpayers and we believe they have a right to know where the money is being spent and that it is being spent wisely. Our record in government so far—such as implementation of the charter of budget honesty and the pre-election fiscal outlook, as opposed to Labor's two-page press release that was their mid-year review—underpins this. What this means is that before any election Australians will be told the true financial state of the nation.

When we came to power, the coalition said that, despite the massive deficit left by the outgoing Labor government, we will commit ourselves to balancing the budget within our first term. We achieved a budget surplus within two years. Labor left a deficit of over $10 billion when, during the 1996 election, the then government was saying to Australians that the budget was in surplus. Of the 13 budgets delivered by Labor from 1983 to 1996, nine of them were in deficit.

Senator Patterson —How many?

Senator KEMP —Nine of them were in deficit. Nine of them spent more than the government earned and they ran up some $80 billion in debt, the interest on which we have to repay. The Labor record is appalling because Labor was prepared to spend up big and let future generations of taxpayers pay for their big spending policies.

Leading up to tonight's budget, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, was swanning around today saying that Labor could have produced a larger surplus than the government because it would not be giving tax cuts to the rich. In response to this rubbish, let me quote Terry McCrann in this morning's Herald Sun. He said:

Coming from the man who was deputy prime minister and/or finance minister in the Keating government that gave us $70 billion of budget deficits in just five years, that surplus claim has to be taken with a few trillion grains of salt.

McCrann also states correctly that at the last election Beazley Labor defined `rich' as people who earn $800 a week before tax. So if you earn around $600 per week after tax you are rich, according to the Labor Party, and not deserving of any tax cuts. The truth is that Labor would not have delivered a budget surplus if it were in government. They would have tried to tell Australians that spending billions of dollars more than the nation earned was living within our means. Thankfully, the country has turned its back twice now in three years on the economic irresponsibility of Labor. That is the reason why Labor is still in opposition.