Senator COOK(8.09 p.m.) —How could I refuse such a generous invitation to test my sincerity? But let me start where I would like to start, if I may. As I said before, there are some things in this amendment that I approve of and agree with. One is the question of minor parties being able to have their policies costed. I voted for such an amendment earlier. That amendment has been put and defeated in this chamber and is back here in this proposal—and I would be happy to vote for it again. I am also pleased that in the first part, subclause (1), the option of the Prime Minister to refer or not refer opposition policies for costing is removed because the wording of this paragraph means that the Leader of the Opposition's policies are referred. So the intervention of the Prime Minister in deciding what goes for costing and what does not in opposition policy is removed; and that is a very positive thing. When we moved that amendment before we lost it. It is back here now and we have a chance to restore it. I would like to be able to succeed in doing that.

I have to balance those positive things against, in the first clause, the seven-day rule. We have not had the chance to consider this properly but it may be just a touch too rigid for us. Looking down the list further, to subclause (5), there is a penalty of 20 penalty units imposed for a breach of subclause (5). The subclause states:

The Secretary, or a person selected . . . must not disclose the contents of a policy document to another person without the permission of the office holder providing the policy document until the policy document is publicly released.

If they do, there is a penalty. I understand why that is there. I again make the observation that we sought that this bill, if it were to become an act, be enforceable. That was defeated. It is not enforceable so I do not know how we can have in a bill a penalty which, if the bill were to become an act, would not be enforceable.

When I look at this amendment, I am driven to the conclusion, reluctantly and to some extent against my will, that I am proposing to vote against it in favour of pursuing the amendments that are circulated in my name and which deal with some of these things on an individual basis rather than within a block amendment of this nature. That is not, as I have said, that I do not have strong sympathy with the question of the Prime Minister not interfering and being able to decide what is referred and what is not. I am happy to have minor parties have their programs costed. But there are other elements to this fuller clause that create in me a bit of anxiety and cause me to want to act cautiously and pursue my amendments individually.

I have not directed my attention in a great deal of detail to subclause (4) of clause 31 in amendment No. 12, the one that has been moved concurrently with the amendment before the chair and on which I am asked to test my bona fides in this chamber. I will do so but for the moment all I can say is that I am disposed at this stage and for the reasons I have enunciated not to support this amendment.