Senator BARTLETT —My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is it not the case that there are plenty of ways in which a department such as the minister's can claw back expenditure on GST compensation over time, such as increasing copayments for medicines on the PBS; further restricting eligibility for social security benefits, such as youth allowance or rent assistance; tightening income and assets tests for allowances; allowing means testing for access to public services, such as public hospital care; and allowing the real value of housing related grants to the states to be reduced? To give meaning to the Treasurer's boast that he can guarantee compensation into the future, will you now guarantee that none of these or similar measures will be implemented by you as minister or future Labor or coalition ministers in response to constant budgetary pressures?

Senator NEWMAN (Family and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —We are the government that provided increased benefits to students through youth allowance. We are the government that increased a number of payments in the social security area. We have improved and simplified the social security system so it is easier to access. We have in very many areas in my portfolio provided additional assistance to those in need. The sad thing is that the Democrats are so determined to go down a route of opposing a government that was elected on a tax reform package which was spelled out clearly, that went out to people—

Senator Crowley —No, it wasn't; they were all confused.

Senator NEWMAN —I would like to acknowledge the interjection from Senator Crowley. She said that people were confused. Is it not a strange thing that, on the one hand, Labor senators say that people were confused but, on the other hand, they are critical of any attempt by my department to get information to pensioners as to what the tax reform package and the compensation would mean for them. I do not think Labor can have it both ways.

One of the important items that I heard Senator Bartlett mention—and some of it was spoken so fast that I am afraid I did not catch it all; I also had a few interjections behind me—was the need of people on reduced means to access public hospital care. I would agree with him. That is why I mentioned in the answer I gave before that the flow of GST revenue to the states is a vital element in making sure that those who cannot provide for themselves by way of private health insurance will not have rich people elbowing them out of the queues for scarce public health resources. I think it is an important element to consider in this whole tax reform debate what it will mean to improving the community and the health services for people of disadvantaged means. It is amazing that the Democrats, when weighing up the measures that the government has been proposing and that it took to the people during the election, have not seen fit to consider the implications for delivery of services that are so badly needed by poor people in Australia through the flow of the GST—

Senator Crowley —Under your government.

Senator NEWMAN —No, the previous government presided for 13 years over—

The PRESIDENT —Order! There is an appropriate time to debate the minister's answer, Senator Crowley.

Senator NEWMAN —The Labor government presided over a growing list of unmet need in a number of community services, whether we are talking about SAAP or HACC programs or public health. One after the other these programs slipped and slipped. Now the crunch time has arrived, and in many ways it is the role of the coalition government to come in and clean up after the mismanagement of a Labor government. I am sick and tired of that responsibility falling on the coalition when for generations Labor seems to come in, be wilful in their management and profligate in some areas and then leave us to pick up their mess. The fact is that this tax reform will help the poor and the needy, because it is not just the income support that is part of the compensation but also proper services, most of which are provided by the states with Commonwealth money, which is important to them too. (Time expired)

Senator BARTLETT —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is clear from the minister's answer that she is not able to guarantee the behaviour of future federal governments for all time, which alone gives the lie to the Treasurer's hollow claim. Minister, in light of this, is it not clearly just too easy for future governments to give with one hand and take with the other? Does this not leave the exemption of food as the best guarantee to the poor and to social security recipients of fairness in tax reform?

Senator NEWMAN (Family and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —The best guarantee of fairness for the poor in Australia is to ensure that we have a simple tax system which does not spend oodles of dollars in compliance because people find it hard to escape the net. Let's face it, that has been one of the driving factors for having a simple system that is easy to understand, that has as few exemptions as possible, that is a fair system. But, in addition, by taxing food, by the sharing of that by the rich as well as by everybody else in the community, we have the means to generate a growing income stream for the states. Anybody listening to question time would remember the begging bowl procession of premiers for generations coming to the Commonwealth saying, `We have not got enough money to service our constituents, to service the people in our state.' Clearly, this tax reform package pro vides the means for a fair division of taxpayers' income. (Time expired)