Senator TCHEN (3:19 PM) —We have just heard Senator Forshaw make some quite remarkable fictitious statements. During question time he asked the Minister for Family and Community Services a number of questions. Throughout the minister's answers—and I sit right opposite Senator Forshaw—I noticed he had his ears firmly closed and his mouth wide open. Perhaps that explains why he could not hear the minister's responses.

There is a certain lack of logic in his argument. He complained that the minister appears not to be interested in some part of her portfolio and that she does not respond to people wanting to meet her. He also said that the minister appears to have too big a department and too much responsibility to handle. He listed a number of meetings which the minister is alleged to have snubbed and, at the same time, he acknowledged that the minister has a very large department and that she has to undertake certain responsibilities. Let us look at some of the meetings the minister is alleged to have dodged. On 11 November there was a meeting of some sort of caucus, of some community organisations, presumably. But Senator Forshaw does not throw any light on how important those community groups are or what they actually do. The name of any one group does not really mean anything, because we can all call ourselves anything. We can call ourselves a caucus, and it does not allocate any importance to us.

Senator Forshaw also alleged the minister failed to attend a meeting of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee on 12 November. It is not a normal occurrence for a minister to attend Senate committee meetings. It was not a Senate estimates committee. References committee meetings are commonly not attended by ministers. On 26 November the state and territory ministers did meet in Canberra. They came up with the normal ambit claim of state governments that they need more money, but in reality the states have already been advised that the Commonwealth has made an offer to them which represents the largest single commitment to new funding per year by the Commonwealth under existing Commonwealth-state disability service agreements. The target offer is consistent with an agreement with the states to share the response to unmet need.

So I am not sure whether Senator Forshaw actually understood what his question was all about. Earlier, we also heard Senator Evans organise his entire motion around the question of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report. He said that the report was `a very good one'—I am sure that I am quoting him correctly—and that it showed a `very good picture of the nation's health and welfare'. I think he is right. It is a great pity, however, that he did not show more attention to this type of report when Labor were in government. If Labor, when they were in government, had paid more attention to reports like this, we would not have been left in the mess we were in when this government took over. The second thing that Senator Evans probably should have done is noted that the report highlighted the progressive nature of the government's assistance to child care, amongst other things; the government's significant contribution to lowering the cost of child care, especially for low income families; and the government's achievement in managing the nation's health and welfare in other areas as well. (Time expired)