Senator BOLKUS(12.45 p.m.) —I do not need to speak at length to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill at this particular stage, other than to give notice that I will be asking some questions at the committee stage. I will go to that aspect of it in just a few moments.

This legislation underpins the government's buyback scheme for guns. I place on record that the initial initiative for a buyback scheme, funded by this mechanism under the Medicare levy, was in fact floated by the opposition. We had felt that it was important to bring in a national scheme to control guns in this country. For a number of years the former Minister for Justice, Mr Duncan Kerr, had been working with the states to put a scheme together. That scheme went to issues of importation, control of use of guns, storage and what sorts of guns should be banned in our community.

Under that scheme and before the incident at Port Arthur, the range of guns that were to be bought back, that were to be banned in our society, were automatic and military style semi-automatic guns. Since Port Arthur, both sides of parliament have moved and the net has been broadened to include all automatics, apart from those used in the very rare and specific circumstances mentioned in the accord reached between the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the state police ministers just a few weeks ago. The accord is something that is important in respect of the underpinning of the national approach to both the banning of and control of the use of firearms in our society.

We recognise, as did Duncan Kerr in the previous government—in fact, the previous government formally recognised it—that for the scheme to work properly there needs to be a buyback arrangement. Consideration of that buyback arrangement was given to how the buyback was to work and where the funding was to come from.

The scheme was not implemented in the previous government, because the state governments were dragging their feet in coming to an agreement. The last meeting for reaching an agreement had been scheduled for February this year, but the election intervened and that meeting did not take place. However, the proposal was there and it was picked up. It is a proposal that now has to be funded by this government and has to be funded through this parliament.

We felt that the Medicare Levy Act was the most equitable way to go in terms of funding for the buyback scheme. As a consequence, we support the proposals taken and pursued in these bills before the parliament today.

I do intend, as the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Short) well knows, to ask some questions about the buyback scheme. The extent to which the buyback scheme operates will have implications on what amount of money is needed by the Commonwealth to fund the buyback scheme. Issues such as the breadth of the scheme and when it is to be introduced are all quite relevant to the extent of money that the government needs to raise to fund it.

I know that it is not Senator Short's fault that he is not able to answer some of these questions. Of course, he has to rely on advice from the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) and the Minister representing the Attorney-General in respect of this place. I understand that Senator Short is not able to answer questions because advisers of other relevant ministers in respect of this scheme are not forthcoming.

However, I will put the questions on notice. I expect an undertaking from Senator Short that answers to the questions that will be placed on notice can be brought before the parliament very quickly. I say `very quickly' because we have so far found that questions we have asked of the Attorney-General have not been responded to as quickly as we would have liked.

Senator Watson —Your ministers were pretty good at answering questions, weren't they! Three, four, five months?

Senator BOLKUS —I am sorry, but we have asked questions continually. The one minister who has not been forthcoming, the one minister who does not seem to have time to respond to the parliament, is the Attorney-General. I think it is out of order, Senator Watson, for us to be considering this legislation when, having had notice for some days now that legislation would be on at lunch time today, the parliament does not have an adviser of the Attorney-General present to answer the sorts of questions that are quite basic to the scheme.

I am sure that you would accept that it is important for us in the Senate to know what we are doing to fund this sort of proposal. But for the Attorney-General and his office to say that there is no-one available to provide the information to us today is disrespectful to the process of this parliament and is something that most ministers in this government and ministers in the previous government would not have done. They have had a couple of hours notice to front up with someone.

Senator Watson, when you were on this side you would have deferred legislation had you not been able to get the appropriate answers and had you not been able to get the extent of the implications of the costs involved here. You cannot deny that. I am glad that you do not deny it.

What we are saying today is that this legislation needs to go through, but in the process we will put some questions on notice and will expect those questions to be answered. In conclusion, we do support the legislation. We will ask some questions in the committee stage.