Senator ROBERT RAY (10:55 PM) —Never in the history of the Senate has there been such a thing as a `pure Senate'. What Senator Brown is saying is that he prefers the numbers after July 1999. I do too; nevertheless, historically, this chamber has got on and done its business, because we have six-year terms. That does not recognise the parties and the change of power in this place. That is the way we do business.

You cannot actually say that a government cannot try to bring in its program with a certain timing. That is up to the executive. It is one of the privileges of the executive to put matters that it considers important before this chamber. Our responsibility then as an opposition is to give it public scrutiny. The scrutiny process eventually achieved through a whole lot of argy-bargy and caving in by the government was a multifaceted committee system making inquiries and then agreeing to a timetable when this legislation can be put and considered over a reasonable time span—as I understand it, from 19 April—so that there will be a result one way or the other before 1 July.

Senator Brown is wrong to say that the Democrats will have the balance of power next year. On some occasions we will have the balance of power. On some occasions he will have the balance of power. On some occasions either Senator Harradine or—depending on other matters—Senator-elect Hill may have the balance of power. It is not just one party that will have the balance of power in this chamber.

But one thing this chamber will do is make sure that this legislation is given good and proper scrutiny. Compare that with the farce of the last three days in the House of Representatives; compare that to the guillotining through of 16 complex bills—the centrepiece of the government's strategy, they say, for the next three years—belted through with only the most cursory debate, consideration and scrutiny. I have never been a Senate chauvinist, but I think in any democracy we should have had a slightly longer consideration than that which occurred in that farce over in the House of Representatives.

But you will never get a pure Senate in terms of mandate or anything else. In 1993, we had senators elected—one lot supporting the GST, another lot opposing it—who said that they would not block an incoming government. That was the strategy that people went to the election with. In 1996, we had the Labor Party saying they would not introduce a GST; we had a Liberal Party saying they would not support a GST. Several people sitting opposite went out and campaigned on the `never, ever' pledge of their leader, Mr John Howard, saying they would never have a GST.

So there is no such thing as a pure Senate. You only have a mandate in this place if you have 39 votes. That is the only definition that you can have in the end. I do not think Senator Brown's motion would ever be acceptable to me, simply because of the history of this place. You deal with the numbers in existence.

Those opposite did not particularly like Senator Faulkner's comments, but the fact is that since August 1996, and especially in the last four weeks, this Senate voting process has been totally perverted, because one person elected as a Labor senator six years ago on the full resources, the platform and the pledge of loyalty to the Labor Party has left. Those on the other side say, `Do not criticise him. You are being a bit harsh before Christmas. You are just poor losers. You should just roll over and forget it.' But when the boot goes on other foot and someone from the Liberal Party deserts, see if they take that same avuncular attitude. See if they say, `That is all right. Senator Heffernan has decided to leave the Liberal Party. Good old Bill. See you later, Bill. We don't mind. You are still going to be invited to the Christmas party, even though you are a traitor. Don't worry about it.' That is the Liberal attitude.

The Liberal Party has always treated deserters kindly. Look at Francis and Jennings in Victoria who got expelled. Have a look at the current South Australian Liberal Party. Have a look at anyone who has deserted the conser vative cause. They get the same degree of contempt that we would offer to anyone who leaves the Labor Party.

Senator Ferris interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Ferris interjects, given the mess that she has got the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party in. You will never get a purist Senate. We deal with what we have got. Senator Brown, an executive has the right to put its program and it has the right to expect it to be considered in a reasonable time span. Our duty—your duty, my duty and everyone else's duty—is to make sure it is scrutinised to the maximum. Then we have to put it with whatever the numbers are. (Time expired)