Senator HARRADINE (2:27 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Hill, the minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the government adopted a population policy which addresses the challenges posed by Australia's rapidly ageing population? Isn't it a fact that, from the year 2008—only six years from now—the 65-plus age category will take over from the 45 to 65 age group as the fastest growing category in Australia? Doesn't this have serious implications for current social, economic, health, immigration, taxation and family policies and programs? In particular, what is the government doing to address the major cause of Australia's ageing population—the continuing decline of Australia's birth rate and of the total fertility rate since falling below replacement level in 1975? (Time expired)

Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) —This is obviously an important issue and basically I believe that Senator Harradine is correct. The age profile of Australia is changing. We are an ageing community in a relatively young nation and a relatively young economy, and that is obviously of concern. The government, as Senator Harradine would be aware, has conducted extensive research towards policy development in this area. I remind him of the information paper, `Low Fertility', by the Department of Family and Community Services, which looked at data on fertility and the causes of fertility decline. I remind him of the research associated with the development of the national strategy for an ageing Australia, a framework to address the economic and social impact of population ageing across the government, business and community sectors. I remind him, also, of the Access Economics report `Population, ageing and the economy', launched by the former Minister for Aged Care, and Professor Peter McDonald's research on the impact of immigration on the ageing of Australia's population.

What I am a little surprised about in Senator Harradine's question, however, is that there did not seem to be a recognition of the actions that the government has been taking. I think we can fairly say we are the most family friendly government there has been. There has been a bias in our taxation policies, there has been a bias in other policies, towards support of families and in particular families with young children; and, as Senator Harradine knows, there have also been specific taxation and other policy initiatives to support spouses who decide to remain at home rather than go into the work force. But despite that bias in favour of families it is still the case, for a range of social and economic and other reasons, that the trend is continuing. What that means is that the government must not rest on its laurels. It must continue to develop policy based on good research and advice. That is why the research effort has been so extensive: to ensure that we continue within our budgets and within our economic program as a whole to support parents that are having children and the cost to parents during, particularly, the years in which those children are young. That remains our bias. We do not apologise for that. We think it is in the national interest for the very reasons, in part, that Senator Harradine has outlined in his question and also in part because we think it contributes to a healthy society.