Senator FAULKNER (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (6.18 p.m.) —in reply—First of all, I wish to address the rather extraordinary amendment that Senator Crichton-Browne has moved. This is obviously a thoughtless amendment. There has been no attempt, in his moving of the amendment that there be eight Senate estimates committees, to state what sort of allocation of departments might be appropriate. That has been left for another day.

  Senator Crichton-Browne argues for eight Senate estimates committees. I understood that his leader, Senator Hill, was trying to develop a case, just a few minutes earlier, for 10 Senate estimates committees. Why does the Opposition not go for 30? It is very difficult, amongst that leaderless rabble over there, to work out what the position of the Opposition is.

  But, to be fair to him, Senator Crichton-Browne did get to the nub of it because he raised the capacity of the Government to serve on these committees, to cover the number of committees that we have with Government backbenchers.

Senator Ian Macdonald —You keep using this.

Senator FAULKNER —I am perfectly happy to be entirely honest about this. If we had 10 Senate estimates committees, it is true that we do not have 30 Government backbenchers to cover them. If we had eight Senate estimates committees, it is true that we do not have 24 backbenchers to cover them. So Senator Crichton-Browne is right. There is a problem because the Government has to provide 10 Ministers and a Parliamentary Secretary. I am not going to be dishonest enough to stand up here and say that there is not a problem in terms of the resources that we provide, the personnel on our back bench, to staff the estimates committees. It is obvious that that is the case. Every senator who has a fair understanding of pretty low-grade maths would realise that there was a difficulty.

  We have the responsibilities that come with forming government—ministerial responsibilities and the responsibilities of Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether it is true on the other side of the chamber, but on this side of the chamber we have also had a tradition that the Whips not serve on estimates committees if it is at all possible. That is a tradition that, because of our limited resources due to the increase in the number of frontbenchers, might be stretched. But not only is it an absolute impossibility for us to cover that number of committees; also I would ask: what would the cost be of establishing these two or four extra committees that are being proposed by the Opposition? I would suggest that the cost and resources involved would be quite substantial.

  I believe that any reasonable person, knowing that the Government has 10 Ministers in this chamber, knowing that there is one Parliamentary Secretary in this chamber and understanding that and the extent of the Government's numbers, would realise that committees have to be constrained to some extent so that backbenchers can cover them. But we can go no further. Senator Crichton-Browne knows that is the position, so let us be absolutely honest and put it on the table.

  There is a responsibility on all senators to look at the way these estimates committees operate. They have become a laughing stock, and everybody knows it. I repeat what I said in my introductory remarks: there are very few senators in this chamber—there are perhaps only two or three exceptions—who really believe that the estimates committee system is working the way it should. And there are very few senators in this chamber who would defend the behaviour of those senators who have been responsible for this occurring. We all know it. That is why there is such little enthusiasm from the Opposition on this issue.

  The Opposition knows that what I am putting forward is correct. We know that this afterthought by Senator Crichton-Browne, in opposition to his leader, in deciding to move for the establishment of an extra couple of estimates committees was put forward without any thought at all as to a fair allocation of departments. He has not given it a moment's thought. It is a mindless, thoughtless, stupid, ludicrous proposal and I hope that this chamber deals with it accordingly.