Senator FORSHAW —My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister still believe, as he stated in his media release of 20 April 1999, that exempting food from the GST in the manner proposed by the Australian Democrats will result in a situation in which tinned caviar is GST free but fish fingers are taxed, and that tinned spaghetti will not be taxed but that the same spaghetti served ready to eat in a plastic takeaway container will? Does the minister still contend that there would be massive definitional problems in differentiating between fresh and processed food for the purposes of GST treatment? Has the minister's attention been drawn to any evidence that would alter his strongly held views on this subject? If so, could the minister enlighten the Senate as to what that evidence now is?

Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer) —I thank Senator Forshaw for that question. The truth of the matter is that this government is after major tax reform: tax reform for the benefit of the Australian community, tax reform which will deliver major tax cuts and tax reform which will continue the fiscal responsibility which has so marked this government.

It is no secret at all that negotiations are being carried out by the government to see whether we can constructively advance the tax reform agenda. If Senator Forshaw wanted to know the nature of those discussions and wanted to be fully appraised of the details which are occurring in the course of the discussions, the Labor Party should have adopted a positive attitude to tax reform, but it did not. The Labor Party counted itself out of the game from day one. The Labor Party is completely irrelevant to the tax reform process. We make no apology whatsoever for seeking to advance the cause of tax reform.

Senator Forshaw —Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister's answer is totally irrelevant to the question. The question related to his specific comments in a press release of 20 April where he said that exempting food would cause significant definitional problems. I have asked him whether he still holds those views or whether he has altered them and, if he has, on the basis of what evidence. So far he has spent pretty close to three minutes talking about everything except the question. Madam President, would you mind asking him to at least have a go at answering the question?

The PRESIDENT —The minister has been dealing with the subject that was raised in your preamble and question.

Senator KEMP —The subject that was raised—

Senator Forshaw —I raise a point of order, Madam President. At no stage in my question did I ever raise the issue of so-called tax reform, which is what the minister claims he is talking about. I take it from your ruling that this is, in fact, tax reform. I never mentioned the words in my question, but that is what the minister claims he is answering. I asked a question specifically about his views in relation to a GST on food. So far he has not said one word on that issue.

The PRESIDENT —There was a preamble and a question and the minister is able to comment on the preamble. I am sure he is aware of the question.

Senator KEMP —Of course the question involved tax reform. If Senator Forshaw wants to be part of the overall debate on tax reform he is in the wrong party. The Labor Party has no intention of pursuing any tax reform agenda. Senator, if you want to know what is going on around the table, you are in the wrong party.