Senator CONROY (2:25 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Family Community Services, Senator Vanstone. Does the minister recall her interview with Geraldine Doogue on Radio National this morning when she discussed her unfulfilled desire to provide additional income to those on very low incomes? Can the minister confirm that she told Radio National listeners this morning and I quote, `$5, hell, what will it buy you? A sandwich and milkshake, if you're lucky.' Given the minister's clear view that $5 buys so little, how can she begin to justify this government offering even less—just $4 more for average Australian families—through tax cuts and absolutely nothing for the poorest Australians living on welfare?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —I thank the senator for the opportunity to answer the question. I am sorry that he obviously has not taken the opportunity to look at a transcript of the interview with Radio National this morning. In fact, the point made on Radio National this morning is exactly the same point made to Senator Bishop earlier in question time that people do often make the suggestion that people on welfare are doing it tough—that is clearly correct. Welfare payments are not very large amounts of money. Wouldn't $5 a week more be a good thing? I said—and it is perfectly true—that on a one-on-one basis when you are talking about $5 on a weekly basis, you do not think it is much money.

Senator Conroy —A sandwich and a milkshake.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Conroy you asked the question. I think you should at least stop interjecting so you can hear the answer.

Senator VANSTONE —You might be lucky if it would buy you a sandwich and a milkshake. But what I went on to point out is exactly what I went on to point out to Senator Bishop. When you add it up over time with the number of recipients, it ends up being a tremendously large amount of money. The last estimate I had was that over a forward estimates period the total of $5 a week more to welfare recipients, including family tax benefit recipients, would cost $10 billion. It is easy for people to look at things in a single case—one person wanting $5 a week more or one person looking at a weekly tax cut or whatever—and to not multiply it over the year, over forward estimates years and over the number of Australians that receive them.

As to the other part of the senator's question—if he is still interested—in relation to what this budget can do for people on welfare, let me say that every budget that this government has introduced has done something tremendous for people on welfare. It has given them a chance to get a job, which they never had when Labor were in government. We do not try and run the economy well to please economists, to please the Financial Review or even, with great respect, to please people in the gallery. We try and run the economy well, and we succeed at running the economy well because of the benefits that flow through to all Australians. Lower interest rates mean that people on lower incomes get a chance at buying a house or unit. Lower interest rates mean small business is more likely to prosper and there are more jobs. Senator Conroy, you do not have to believe me on this issue. You are quite welcome to consult the Australian Bureau Statistics and look at what has happened after seven or eight successive budgets which have brought the economy into line, and you will see how much better off all Australians are, particularly those who were desperately looking for a job in a very badly managed economy under the previous Labor government.

Senator CONROY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that she also said in her Life Matters interview that she is only concerned about effective marginal tax rates for people moving from welfare to work when they exceed 100 per cent? Does the minister stand by her extraordinary comment:

When will the minister wake up to the fact that people who have 100 per cent effective tax rates are being forced to work for nothing?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —Yes, I think those remarks are correct. Obviously, where an effective marginal tax rate goes over 100 cents it is too high. But I also stand by this remark: the days have to go in Australia when people are reluctant to replace a dollar taken from other taxpayers, which they need, with a dollar they earn themselves. We should not be bemoaning the fact that when people start to earn a bit of extra money they lose a bit of welfare. We should be celebrating the fact that they are becoming independent. That is the process of being weaned off welfare—becoming independent. You never lose money individually provided the EMTRs are not over 100 cents. You are always better off in getting a job. You are always better off in getting a real job. I know Labor find that difficult to understand. They could not provide jobs for Australians when they were last in government and that is why you are a long way off ever being ready—(Time expired)