Senator HARRADINE (5:10 PM) —I believe the response by Senator Patterson to the question asked of her by Senator Bartlett was totally inadequate. For the minister to virtually say that they have not given a damn about the particular cases that were revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald paper is not a response which one would expect from Senator Patterson.

I think you ought to remember why this measure got up, because you have forgotten. There were statements made publicly and privately by the government that regulations would be in place to assist newly arrived migrants suffering hardship. I remember that very well. I do not stand here and say that I remember everything, but that I do remember. One would not expect a person representing the government that gave those undertakings to come in here and virtually ignore what is being suggested. Senator Patterson should at least have a look, or have the department take a look, at those particular cases that were outlined in the Good Weekend Magazine in the Sydney Morning Herald. For a representative of the government to come in here and virtually say, `We are not sure what they do or what they are,' is nothing less than a disgrace.

Senator Patterson, representing the government, owes it to the Senate—if the government does not owe it to me, it at least owes it to the Senate—to respond. And I have a good memory with respect to those matters. Senator Patterson should also respond to this question: will there be a thorough investigation into how the provisions of the legislation are applied to those newly arrived migrants who find themselves suffering great hardship? I will be listening extremely carefully to what Senator Patterson says about that and about whether there will be a thorough examination of how the provisions of the legislation in this regard are being applied and whether there are people falling through the net. As I said, there is case study after case study where that has proven to be the fact. Unless you have a very restrictive interpretation and application of the provisions of the legislation, these people are left destitute.

I guess that the Labor Party still ultimately sticks with its `at least six months' approach, and I agree with what Senator Chris Evans says—that the statement was made by a number of those who were on that Senate inquiry, believing that there should be a thorough examination of the matter after two years of the legislation being in effect. The legislation came into effect on 4 March 1997. Is it the intention of the government, if it is not already doing so, to undertake a thorough examination at least in that two-year period?