Senator NEWMAN (2:06 PM) —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate how the Howard government has been able to deliver a 28 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding for public hospitals? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the funding of health services? What would be the impact, if these were to be implemented?

Senator HILL (Minister for the Environment and Heritage) —Yes, it is true that the Howard government has been able to deliver a real increase of 28 per cent in health care, with $31.7 billion going to public hospitals. The Howard government has been able to do so much better than the previous Labor government in relation to funding of hospitals because it has been able to deliver sound economic management in this country. When Labor was in office, taxes were high, deficits were high and interest rates were high and Labor simply could not afford to fund hospitals in the way that they should have been funded. By contrast, we have been able to run budgets in surplus and we have, therefore, been able to invest in public services such as hospitals in an unprecedentedly high manner.

When Labor was in office instead they ran up debts—some $80 billion of debt in their last five years of office. And who was the finance minister at that time, as the books of the nation slipped further and further into the red? Mr Beazley, the now Leader of the Opposition, who aspires to be the next Prime Minister of this country. This is the same Mr Beazley who in the last few days was somewhat loose with the truth in relation to health matters. That might not have come as a surprise to some people, because if they remember his record as finance minister they will remember that he was somewhat loose with the truth then as well. What did he say about the books being in surplus? He said the books were in surplus, when he was finance minister before the 1996 election, whereas they were $10 billion in deficit. How could there be a more blatant misleading of the Australian people than that? He said, `The books are in surplus,' when they were $10 billion in deficit. The only other alternative explanation is incompetence. Either he was so incompetent that he did not know, or alternatively he was not telling the truth and deliberately misled the Australian people on that occasion.

Senator Alston —He has form.

Senator HILL —As my colleague says, he has form. So when his personal credibility was under question yesterday, the people of Australia should not have been surprised.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator HILL —Oh, Labor now says that yesterday he did tell the truth; his daughter was turned away. Well, then, why didn't Senator West say that when she briefed from the caucus? Why didn't she come in here yesterday and say, `I have been verballed' or, alternatively, `I'm sorry, I misunderstood what my leader said'? Why didn't Senator George Campbell, whose job it is to keep Senator West honest at the briefings, come in here yesterday and say, `Senator West got it wrong. I forgot to tap her on the shoulder. We both got it wrong; we both misheard Mr Beazley'? Or why didn't Ms Jenny Macklin—who went on the Graham Richardson show yesterday and said Mr Beazley's daughter was turned away from the hospital—go into the other place yesterday and say, `I am sorry, I also misheard Mr Beazley in the caucus meeting'? Of course, the real answer is that they all got it right and Mr Beazley misled caucus and misled the Australian people. So he continued with his bad form.

But getting back to the question, at least in relation to health he does not have the excuse of incompetence, because it was within his family's knowledge. Nobody knew other than him. So on the health issue, what is the alternative? (Time expired)

Senator NEWMAN —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister has twice confirmed that the government is investing a record amount in public hospitals and, given recent public concern about the level of service at emergency services in public hospitals in Western Australia, will the minister provide any further information about Commonwealth support for public hospitals?

Senator HILL (Minister for the Environment and Heritage) —That is a good supplementary question. If this government is providing record funding to public hospitals in Western Australia and Mr Beazley has a complaint about public hospitals in Western Australia, why didn't he go to Mr Gallop? In other words, the Western Australian Labor government, with record money for public hospitals in Western Australia, has apparently upset Mr Beazley. But did he go and criticise his Labor government for failing to deliver a quality product? No, he decided to take a cheap political point instead, and he did it furthermore on the base of misleading the Australian people. The Australian people should ask the AMA in Western Australia what they think about Labor's delivery of hospital services. They say:

(Time expired)