Senator ABETZ (7.14 p.m.) —I also wish to join in discussion in relation to—

Senator O'Chee —Move a motion in relation to item No. 4.

Senator ABETZ —I was going to do that at the conclusion of my remarks in relation to those.

  The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—No, you need to do that at the commencement, Senator Abetz.

Senator ABETZ —Are we still considering item No. 4?

Senator O'Chee —Senator Margetts sought leave to continue her remarks.

Senator ABETZ —So that has closed off the debate today?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You can still move to item No. 5, Senator Abetz.

Senator ABETZ —What I was hoping to do was to make remarks in relation to item No. 4 and then ask for leave to continue my remarks in relation to item No. 5, as listed on the red.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I would suggest that you would need to seek leave in relation to item 4.

Senator ABETZ —I will not, because when item No. 4 comes back up, undoubtedly I will be able to join in the debate on that occasion. Therefore, I will address myself to item No. 5, and move:

  That the Senate take note of the document.

My desire was to talk in relation to both matters but, of course, time does not allow me to do so. We have had a very shoddy treatment of the Senate today by the government's tabling of documents. First of all, we had the 26 treaties which have been referred to by Senator Margetts and other speakers. Now I turn to item 5 on the red, which deals with `Multilateral Treaties Under Negotiation or Under Consideration for Australian Government Signature or Adherence (see pages 13—19)'. We are dealing, literally, with six pages of fairly tightly typewritten treaties and multilateral agreements to which Australia is already a signatory but to which alterations are being sought.

  I was interested in some of those, so I sought from the Table Office advice in relation to some of these to get those documents. I was unable to do so. My office literally spent hours this afternoon pursuing these treaties and the changes that were being proposed. Indeed, it was as a result of all the phone calls—I think 20 in all—that my staff made that Senator Sherry came into the chamber to indicate that there was an error in relation to the government's agenda for the day in relation to this matter and that really what should have been tabled was, in fact, the document of the six pages that were attached to today's agenda or what is called `the government's red'.

  That is no way to conduct government business. It is no way to conduct the international treaty making processes of this country. I still do not know in relation to those six pages, dealing literally with tens of treaties, exactly what is being proposed, why it is being proposed, and why it is important that these alterations be made. Standing in this place as a representative of not only the people of Tasmania but also the people of Australia, I believe I have a right to know, and I ought to be able to get that information without the need for my staff to make 20 phone calls during the afternoon and still be no better off.

  I happen to have, for better or worse, the status of a senator. What on earth would the average person in the street do, after having made those 20 phone calls and been given the run around from the Table Office—and I do not blame them—and then to the various departments and ministerial offices, only to be given information which was deliberately removed from some of this documentation; namely, the telephone numbers and contact persons in relation to some of these treaties? The document we have has had those removed, but Foreign Affairs was able to fax it to our office finally, indicating all the contact persons that we could talk to about this. It really is indicative of the high-handed way this government deals with treaties. (Time expired)