Senator COOK (Minister for Industry, Science and Technology and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Science) (11.22 a.m.) —The advice I have, as I understand it—and to put this question in context—is that this is how the law was thought to be and this is how this amendment, if carried, would make the law to be. People acting as they thought the law was—and, hopefully, will now be confirmed to be—acted consistently all the way through on that belief. One imagines that if you were knocked out under the previous situation, if there is consistency of treatment, you ought to be knocked out in the future. No-one is here wanting to change the intention of what was done, only to validate the legal requirement.

  However, the concern is—I take it as being embedded in your question to me—that people were knocked out but were they validly knocked out; and have they now got a right to come back? As I recall the reading of 40A(2), in the first instance the commission has a 30-day limit on appeals but, in the second instance, the commission has the right to extend the appeal time. What Austrade is saying is, `If you feel badly done by under those guidelines, if you thought we had inappropriately interpreted the guidelines or you have some substantial matters to put, come back and see us and we will sort it out.' That, effectively, is the signal being flagged by Austrade. I do not see how, reasonably, it could do anything else.

Senator Spindler —Is that an undertaking by the minister on behalf of the government?

Senator COOK —Yes, it is.