Senator STOTT DESPOJA (9:37 PM) —I rise briefly to respond to the rather personal and I thought patronising comments made by Senator Bolkus. The Australian Democrats' position has been outlined by Senator Murray during the second reading debate. The position that I put forward is no different from that of Senator Murray's. What I did tonight was put on record the difference between packaging and labelling and the sound recording issue when it came to parallel imports. In the interests of facilitating debate, partly requested by Senator Murphy, I restricted my comments to that issue. Then I went upstairs to hear Senator Bolkus's somewhat dulcet tones coming through on my television—

Senator Patterson —Dulcet? Dulcet?

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Heavy sarcasm there, Senator Patterson. He was implying that we have not done our home work. We have, and what we are doing is trying to explain and put on record the importance of not only considering this issue but recognising the distinctions in relation to parallel importing and various effects, be it in relation to packaging, labelling or sound recordings. We have agreed to the 18-month delay and we are expecting you to support our amendments in relation to regulations.

With these two measures, we believe that your concerns, as you have outlined them, will be addressed. We also think, as a result of doing so, that the minister will be in a position to exclude those industries you have referred to which you suspect will be adversely affected or have been adversely affected in some way. We recognise that there are going to be some of those effects to which you have referred and we have addressed them. My position is no different from Senator Murray's, but I sought to make very clear this debate in relation to another debate and I emphasised the differences in those particular copyright laws. I do not understand how mine is a goose of a position, but you do not say the same thing of my male colleague.