Senator JACINTA COLLINS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, I refer to your continued inability to accept that the scrapped Commonwealth dental health scheme is inevitably going to impact on the poor, the sick and the vulnerable. Are you aware, Minister, that Victoria has now followed New South Wales in abolishing its free dental health service, forcing thousands of school kids, pensioners and concession card holders to pay up to $100 for dental treatment?

Is your response simply to pass the buck, as you did on Tuesday when you said the New South Wales decision is purely a matter for the New South Wales government and that the dental health program `is and always has been the states' responsibility'? Is your colleague the Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Knowles, wrong in claiming that he has been forced into this decision by your budget cuts? Is the head of Dental Health Services Victoria, Mr Dooland, wrong in saying, `The blame goes to the Commonwealth absolute ly—they have been heartless, nothing short of it'? (Time expired)

Senator NEWMAN —I know the Labor Party is particularly interested in this issue. I suppose it is not surprising since it introduced the extra funding to help the states out with their long queues. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth was involved in funding dental health schemes for only three years. The purpose of the extra funding was to bring down the size of the queues, as I said. I am advised that that funding has had a substantial impact on reducing those queues.

In the difficult economic climate we inherited from the previous federal Labor government, we were forced to make savings in areas where one might not in other circumstances have chosen to. I have said this before in this place. Nevertheless, the dental health schemes in Australia have always been the responsibility of the states. I stand by that. I have said it before several times and I say it again. Victoria's decision to introduce a co-payment for dental services is its management decision of its scheme. It is a matter for which the state has responsibility.

I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, prior to the recent funding scheme from the Commonwealth, some of the states did charge co-payments. It is not a new phenomenon in the practice of the states. It is not clear why the cessation of Commonwealth funding after 3½ years should suddenly cause Victoria to charge for services which had been provided free of charge long before the Commonwealth had become involved.

The Commonwealth expects that the states will continue to meet their traditional commitments. If there is blame, let the blame go right to the guilty party. The blame goes to the Labor government that left the federal books in such a mess that $10 billion had to be found to get them right.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you claim your government is protecting the poor, the needy and the vulnerable, yet at the same time you are forcing the states to charge the poor, the needy and the vulnerable for dental care and, as Minister Moylan admitted yesterday, for health and community services. Can you find a shred of compassion for people like Betty Blackmore of the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation who, after Mr Knowles's announcement yesterday, said in despair, `Why not give us a cyanide pill so we can take it when we have had enough'?

Senator NEWMAN —This is one of those stupid questions that you expect are designed for reproduction upstairs. The reality is that the Labor Party has no monopoly on compassion. This government has an extraordinary amount of compassion for those people who were put out of work, stayed out of work and have been out of work for far too long in this country.

The poor and the vulnerable in this country are largely—not entirely—from two sources: the results of marriage breakdown and the results of long-term unemployment. While I do not blame the Labor Party for all the marriage breakdowns in Australia, financial stress on many marriages has contributed to the breakdowns. Because of the previous government's lack of concern when the number of unemployed in this country rose to a million, because of its total lack of consideration for people in that position and because of its pretend schemes for work, it makes me sick to hear that question. (Time expired)