Ms MACKLIN(8.56 p.m.) —As I read clause 6, that enables the secretary to request information from the person involved or a person acting on behalf of the nursing home resident. The difference is in clause 9 where the department is notifying the nursing home resident of their determination. What flows from that is any determination to charge a fee. It seems to me that it is pretty import ant at that time that a similar clause appears in 9 and in 10(6), as in 6, in relation to a person acting for or on behalf of that person, where the determination has been re-examined.

I take the minister's point about privacy; I am certainly not seeking to reduce the privacy provisions. But as clause 6 shows, we are dealing with people who in many circumstances will not be able to assess the Department of Social Security's considerations. It is important that they have the capacity to have someone act on their behalf.

The second issue is in relation to clause 11(7) where, as I said in my remarks earlier today, for the second time in legislation I have had to deal with—and I do not know about other times—we have a situation where the secretary to the department is able, in effect, to sit on a decision for more than 90 days and then, after sitting on the decision, the secretary's opinion holds. That seems to me to be completely contrary to any view of natural justice. That is why I recommend—and moved in my amendment to the second reading—that the presumption should favour the appellant, in fact the nursing home resident, where the decision on the appeal has not been made in time by the department.