Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Justice and Customs) (9:41 AM) —I will respond to Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus wanted some indication of the government's view with respect to opposition amendments 3, 6 and 7. He is right in indicating that there has been significant discussion about these matters. We have been trying to come to a range of agreements. I realise you want us to talk about other amendments formally at this moment, Madam Chairman, but this does help clear up the issues. Opposition amendment 3 would be opposed as it is now, but not if the consequential amendments that were provided to the opposition following from this—

Senator Bolkus —We still have not got that.

Senator VANSTONE —That is not my advice. My advice is that consequential amendments were provided and that this amendment, with all the appropriate amendments attached, would be acceptable.

I think that amendment 6 is acceptable. There has not been any change in relation to that. Amendment 7, which relates to reviews, would be acceptable if, under your proposed paragraph (l), it stopped at `employment decision'. In other words, we agreed to a review, but we did not agree that it would be outside persons or bodies. We agreed that there would be a proper review mechanism. We were happy to have that embedded in the legislation, but there was not an agreement to the latter part. If that were deleted, then we would agree to amendment 7. The summary is: yes to No. 3 with the consequential amendments that flow from it but not without them; yes to No. 6; and yes to No. 7 if it is restored to what we believe we agreed on. Perhaps if Senator Greig could help out by reading parts of his contribution to the second reading debate, it would give Senator Bolkus the time to address these matters and we can efficiently proceed. Would you be so kind, Senator?