Mr SWAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, I refer you to the social security and veterans' entitlements legislation amendment bill. Minister, do you think it is fair that an unemployed person who loses their leg in an accident and receives a lump sum compensation payment of $25,000 for pain and suffering will lose all of their Newstart allowance for 12 months? Is it fair that an aged pensioner who slips and falls at the supermarket seriously injuring herself and receives a lump sum of $18,000 will lose over $100 a fortnight from her pension for a whole year? Minister, do you think it is fair that this bill will effectively mean that many injured people will be defrauded by your government?

Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the member for Menzies, I indicate that I consider the question to be out of order because throughout it the member for Lilley has sought an opinion from the minister and the question would need to be rephrased if it were to be in order. Before I call the member for Lilley, is the member for Menzies still seeking the call?

Mr Andrews —Yes, Mr Speaker, and that was precisely the point of order I was about to raise.

Mr SWAN —Mr Speaker, my question related to this bill. The question I asked related to provisions of this bill. Is it a fact that those people will be defrauded of their compensation?

Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the latter question—that is, is it a fact that these people will be affected by the legislation—to stand, but the earlier question sought an opinion.

Mr Ross Cameron —Mr Speaker, in relation to the latter part of the question, as the member says, it relates to the bill. It clearly contravenes the anticipation rule and should be ruled out of order.

Mr SPEAKER —Some may have noted that I consulted with the Clerk. I do not believe the bill is currently before the House. I will be guided if I am wrong; I am going by memory. Assuming that there is no anticipation ruling, I call the minister to answer the latter part of the question of the member for Lilley.

Mr TRUSS (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) —Mr Speaker, the question from the honourable member for Lilley is virtually the same as one that was asked of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs yesterday, and answered in that context. There are benefits provided to veterans by this government and, indeed, by governments since the promises and commitments were made to veterans following the return of soldiers from war.

Mr Swan —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is in regard to relevance. I was asking about Newstart allowance and about pensioners.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Lilley will resume his seat. In fact, the question ranged over a range of areas, much of which I ruled out of order. I am asking the minister to respond to the latter part of the member's question.

Mr TRUSS —Mr Speaker, the question was about legislation that is currently before the House. I introduced that legislation to the House, so I am certainly aware of what its context is. It does, in some regards, deal with veterans' benefits differently from benefits to other people such as those on Newstart.

Mr Beazley —My point of order is on relevance. The minister is talking about a completely different area of the bill. What this is is the effect on people who are on Newstart allowance, not veterans' pensions.

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no need to repeat the question. I invite the minister to respond to the question. I do not believe that the answer was irrelevant to the question. I ask him to respond to the question, which was wide-ranging.

Mr TRUSS —In some ways, the social security benefits are different from the benefits provided to veterans, and the conditions that apply are different. In some areas, they are more generous; in some areas, less generous. Governments make decisions about the priorities which should be applied when additional resources are available to assist in providing benefits to those in need in the community.

The honourable member for Lilley is one of those people in the Labor Party who seeks to go backwards to try to find some kinds of new roots for the Labor Party. Some members opposite, I notice, are trying to find new directions for the Labor Party.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The minister will come back to the question.

Mr TRUSS —The member for Lilley a couple of days ago issued a media release in which he went back to the 18th century Russian soldier Potemkin to endeavour to get some kind of background to the Labor Party's new future.

Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is pronounced Potemkin, with the emphasis on "tem".