Senator BARTLETT (5:26 PM) I move:

Part 6—Certain income tests for veterans

(A) under section 30 of that Act to a dependent of a deceased veteran; or

(B) to a person to whom a special rate of pension is paid because of subsections 24(2) to (5) of that Act;

This further request is as circulated, and I have already spoken to it. The opposition may wish to question the minister more, but I want to reinforce one aspect of what Senator Schacht said. I am not specifically moving this to try to score political points or to beat any political party around the head. If the opposition sees the need to not insist, I certainly will not be kicking them around the head for it either—I can understand the reasons.

I do think that it is rather disingenuous to suggest that it is not appropriate for the parliament to put forward amendments to legislation addressing issues of concern to the community that have been put forward year after year. The parliament makes legislation, and using a social security act or bill to amend social security laws seems fairly reasonable to me.

The minister says she cannot believe that the unintended consequences in this request are what I am trying to achieve. I think the minister, everyone in this place and all her advisers and the department know exactly what the Senate is trying to achieve. She knows and I am sure people here know but, for the benefit of others who do not, when the Senate passes a request it is considered by the House of Representatives. If they believe that it is flawed they can replace that request with another amendment which does achieve what we are trying to achieve. The minister has a whole department with ranks of people who can draft what is intended. Everybody knows what is intended. I am quite happy to take the rap for failing the drafting of amendments to legislation school and for not passing the test. Everybody knows what we are trying to achieve, but the government keeps saying, `We know what you're trying to do but you've got it wrong, so we'll just send you back to school again. You can keep coming back until you get it right, but we're not going to tell you what the answer is.' It is as if there is a secret answer hidden under a cup somewhere. For us to have to keep turning over cups until we find the one that the government says is right seems to be a ridiculous process to follow. The minister and the government have the resources there and obviously can put it forward. To simply put forward the argument that this should not be accepted because it has not been drafted correctly is grossly misleading. If the government does not want to accept the basic principle of it, that is fine, but it should not use this red herring that somehow or other that is getting in the way of everything, because, quite clearly, it is not.

I certainly welcome the minister's indication—I would not call it a commitment—that this issue will be given consideration for the next budget. I think the minister did put forward a suggestion as to why going down this road may be problematic, which is that it might create pressure to remove other distinctions between people who have been on active war service overseas and other veterans. It is an interesting statement, because I suggest that could be interpreted as an argument that the government is putting forward as to why the principle that the Senate is agreeing to here is not one that would be pursued—which would, if anything, be a bit of a watering down from the government's previous statements on this, which has been to acknowledge that it is an anomaly, an anomaly that to fix would cost money. I recognise there are always budgetary implications and struggles with Treasury about being able to do that sort of expenditure. That is one reason that can make things difficult for the government, I recognise. But if the minister is actually suggesting that the government does not support such a change because it may create pressure to make further changes, then that is a position I was not aware they had held in the past.

I am not sure reasons such as, `Well, the last government did not do it, so neither are we, and don't blame us,' or saying that we are all just tilting at windmills in some naive endeavour reflecting what is quite clearly a significant priority of the veterans community is not really treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. Anyway, we can each say what we wish about the issue. I guess that is the point of having the Senate: so we can put our views on the record. In any case, I move this further request as an indication that the Democrats do believe it is an issue that should be addressed. We do believe it is an appropriate mechanism for doing so, and we would ask the government to look at it again.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—As chairman of the committee, I note the further request—