John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

that the government has had a number of programs over a period of years. I will take the member at his word that it is 17. If you want active government, vote for us—we have all these programs. The reality is that we have the second highest take-up in the OECD. I noticed that the member did not mention that.

The real issue here is twofold. The first element of the debate is: why should money set aside for future generations be used to fund something that the private sector ought to provide itself? I think that is a very simple question. I think a question that, as public analysis of this debate proceeds, more and more people are going to ask is: why should $2.7 billion of public money that has been set aside for the liabilities of future generations be used to fund the provision of a service now that the private sector ought to provide itself? You can quote all the documents and interject and make noise as much as you like, but can I politely bring you back to the simple question: why should we use $2.7 billion that has been locked up for future generations to fund the provision of something that the private sector ought to provide in a normal market situation? That is a very simple proposition. That really goes to the essence of the issue.

The second issue is that what the Labor Party proposed yesterday was a return to the old days of the conflict between the regulator and the participant. The opposition will recall that one of the reasons we advanced as to the sale of Telstra—a sale that was vigorously opposed until yesterday by the Australian Labor Party—was the conflict between the government as owner and the regulator.

See this speech in context