Mr SWAN (4:46 AM) —This bill was introduced in May 2002. Seven months later, at almost 5 a.m. on 13 December, we are here dealing with it. That is pretty tragic when you consider the importance of the bill, but it is also pretty tragic when you consider where this bill commenced, which was with former Minister Newman in 1999. That is pretty tragic when you consider we had the McClure report in 2000. I think it says something about the priority that this government has for welfare reform, which is virtually nil. Every time something comes forward, we virtually go backwards. I want to deal with that at some length now.

Until five minutes ago, I was led to believe by this government that there was some acceptance of some of the amendments that we successfully moved in the Senate—amendments to do with protecting parents and amendments to do with the mature age unemployed. We had a raft of amendments moved in the Senate. They were accepted in the Senate. We had been led to believe privately by this government that it was going to accept them. Yet we have just arrived here with the minister and have suddenly found out that it is not accepting those amendments; it has moved a whole raft of new amendments which we have not even had the privilege of examining. That is real dirty pool at five in the morning on 13 December—

Mr McClelland —Friday the 13th!

Mr SWAN —That is right: Friday the 13th. It is real dirty pool to get those sorts of dirty tricks at this hour of the morning. We had been led to believe by this government that it was accepting those amendments and it has come in here with its own amendments. We have not had the opportunity to compare them to our amendments and to make a considered judgment in this important area of public policy affecting parents and affecting the mature age unemployed. All I can say is that I am just completely disgusted by the behaviour of the ministers. This is in an area where we thought we had some agreement. God knows what will happen in the areas where we do not have agreement. This area is pretty important. This is the government that says it believes in family values. How can it have possibly disagreed with the amendments that we moved when it came to sole parents, amendments which said that the new requirements of reciprocal obligation should not conflict with their parenting responsibilities, and other amendments that we have moved in relation to the mature age unemployed? Parents are the best judge of their parenting responsibilities, not governments. We are certainly satisfied with our amendments, but we now do not know what the government is proposing and have not had an opportunity to study what the government has said.

The minister is right in one respect: there is a battleground out there, in that Labor has moved a comprehensive set of amendments advocating fairness in the penalty system right across the social security system. We have; we have made no secret of it—we have campaigned on this issue for years. We have been disgusted by the attitude of Senator Vanstone, who has had a `shoot first, ask questions later' breaching policy. Lots of people out there have been hurt. Huge financial penalties have hit them. They have suffered. The agencies that are at the front line and have had to deal with the consequences of this can testify to how immense the impact of that has been—too many Australians have been unfairly penalised and they have paid a very high price. They have suffered, and they have suffered severe financial disadvantage.

Our amendments in this area are fair and are based on the independent report of the Pearce committee. We think we have put forward in this area of the penalty system across the social security system a balanced package, a package that enhances compliance and increases participation. These amendments ensure good behaviour is rewarded while retaining significant penalties for those who do not play by the rules. We on this side of the House have no time for those who want to rort the system, none at all, but we have a lot of time for those who need the system and we believe in the integrity of the system. This government has no choice but to accept that some change is required and, if need be, we will debate this at length and we will debate it as long as the government wants to—under any circumstances. (Time expired)