Ms MACKLIN(11.41 a.m.) —I think those last comments were rather unnecessary, particularly given the fact that there was a need for the opposition to sit down and negotiate a much better system of activity testing than the government first proposed. Given the comments by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), it might be useful for us to just have a brief look at the history of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Activity Test Penalty Periods) Bill, because we have not got to this position without a little bit of trauma.

The government announced their proposal for a new activity test regime in the 1996-97 budget. That consisted of a six-week non-payment penalty for the first breach and a 13-week non-payment penalty for second or subsequent breaches. We did make our point clear at the time of this debate on the Social Security Bill 1996 in the Senate in December 1996. While we do support tough measures with regard to fraud and compliance, we do not believe that people should be cut off payments without good reason or for inordinate or indefinite periods. We believe that the government's initial activity test regime proposed was excessively harsh and unreasonable, particularly in the absolute absence of positive measures by the government to assist the unemployed to return to the labour force.

I am pleased to say that during the debate the government did withdraw the provisions that would have given effect to that proposed penalty regime and they made an alternative offer: five weeks non-payment for the first breach and eight weeks non-payment for the second or subsequent breaches, as I recall it. Senator Newman did undertake to negotiate with the opposition and minor parties an agreed position. It is pleasing that we have come to an agreed position. But we have not come to that agreed position because of the generosity of the other side. In the 1997 budget, the government announced a revised penalty regime which was actually more severe than the offer made by Senator Newman in December, especially for the third or subsequent breach. The penalty for this reverted from eight weeks to 13 weeks non-payment—no money, nothing.

Subsequent negotiations, which could have taken place before March this year and avoided all this toing and froing had the government been reasonable, have led to the breach regime that we have before us today. The government amended the bill in the House of Representatives to give effect to a much more reasonable penalty regime: an 18 per cent rate reduction for 26 weeks for the first breach—and, as the government knows, fortunately it is the case that most people breach only once—a 24 per cent rate reduction for 26 weeks for the second breach and eight weeks non-payment for third and subsequent breaches.

We do recognise and appreciate that the government has seen the strength of our arguments. The result will be less need for the unemployed to beg, borrow or steal. That is what we were facing. We are also pleased to support the other government amendments that are before us today. They give effect to a beneficial measure announced in the 1997-98 budget, which will allow prenatal and postnatal women relief from meeting the requirements of the activity test in some circumstances. I am very pleased to support the amendments before us today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.