Senator MURRAY (4:06 PM) —by leave—I am a member of both the JCPAA and the economics committee, so I talk with reference to both those committees. I am also the Democrats finance and taxation spokesperson, so these are issues that matter to me. I did view both the programs on Channel 9 which I gather have prompted this inquiry. My view is that the ATO is bound to include some sinners and will not be composed of saints, but I doubt that as an organisation it is any more or less a body of integrity than any other government department.

What concerns me is that the nature of a media documentary such as that does not enable the department itself to respond fully and in detail to the allegations made and to illustrate in full its procedures and how it deals with matters. Accordingly, the Australian Democrats do not prejudge the issue at hand but believe that the public's confidence in the integrity of the ATO has been sufficiently damaged by those allegations to warrant an inquiry which should be speedily wrapped up and would give all the relevant parties the opportunity to respond appropriately, both those making the complaints and those defending themselves.

I then have to move to the question of the committee at hand. It is my opinion, as I have so advised both the government and the Labor Party, that the JCPAA is the better committee on a number of grounds; namely, that it has continuity in terms of its audit process and its understanding of the issues—and I have checked with the JCPAA as to its ongoing oversight in this area. Secondly, it has the experience.

There is, however, both a virtue and a weakness in the JCPAA. The virtue is that it tries to arrive at a common position. Minority reports are unknown. That gives it great weight and authority because it speaks with one voice. But I suspect that on this issue minorities may well be a possibility and that, therefore, the JCPAA would be a difficult forum.

However, I did advise both the government and the Labor Party that it is my view that, if it is the Labor Party's motion, that party is entitled to nominate any committee of its choosing. What is more, the committee of its choosing is a Senate committee of considerable reputation. Therefore, on behalf of my party, I would not oppose that committee, even though I indicate to the Senate my belief that the JCPAA would be the better committee.

The third issue is that of timing. My view is that, in view of the seriousness of the allegations which have been made concerning the ATO, it would be desirable to have as early a reporting date as possible to be found, and that is not for me to dictate to the Labor Party, the government or the Senate. If indeed other matters were to arise out of the inquiry, it would be preferable for a further inquiry to be held after that event. But I think an immediate and early response to the serious allegations should be made.

To some extent I think that puts to rest the government's fears that this is a stunt. I do not regard it as a stunt because the issues were not raised by the Labor Party; they were raised externally in the public interest. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Senate to respond in the manner that the Labor Party have laid out. Accordingly, in these respects, I hope my remarks will assist the Senate in guiding it to a conclusion.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Kemp's ) be agreed to.