Senator MACKAY (6:00 PM) —Mr Acting Deputy President, pursuant to standing order 191 I indicate that I have been misrepresented and I wish to make a short contribution.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson) —Was it in relation to your speech?

Senator MACKAY —It was in relation to Senator Ian Macdonald's speech.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Proceed.

Senator MACKAY —Senator Macdonald, in what I thought was a very disorderly fashion, asked me while he was giving his speech whether the Tasmanian state government had entered into an agreement with Tasmanian local government, and I gave my assent. This was deliberately misinterpreted by Senator Macdonald as being that the Tasmanian government had guaranteed a percentage of ex-FAGs funding to local government. I did not say that. What I was referring to was the detailed, thoughtful and highly consultative partnership agreements with local government, agreements which include guaranteed funding for functions to be performed by local government. These partnership agreements need to be ratified formally by local government. It is important, given Senator Macdonald's form on these issues, to have this matter clarified now.

Secondly, Minister Macdonald indicated that he was unaware of the opposition's intention to discuss his failure to provide answers to questions on notice in relation to this debate. Here again I wish to correct the record and indicate that in discussions between my office and the office of the Acting Leader of the Government, we indicated that inter alia this issue would be raised in detail. I believe that it is inappropriate to blame the opposition for the incompetence of the government.

Senator Ian Macdonald —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Nothing Senator Mackay says seems to be relevant to a personal explanation. You are simply not giving a personal explanation in accordance with the standing order. You cannot debate the issue. You can simply say where you have been misrepresented. You are going on to debate the issue and talk about what I was saying.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Mackay, I have interpreted your comments as misrepresentation in relation to your speech. If it is in relation to your speech, you have been granted leave to speak.

Senator MACKAY —No. Can I explain what happened, Mr Acting Deputy President. During Senator Macdonald's speech, he asked me a question across the chamber—in so doing, he was out of order—and in answer to which I nodded. He then completely misinterpreted my assent.

Senator Quirke —On the point of order—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. You are entitled to give a personal explanation in relation to your actions by leave. If you seek leave in relation to comments made in relation to your speech you can proceed by leave. To clarify the position, Senator Mackay, you need leave if it is not in relation to your speech; but if it is in relation to your speech you do not need leave.

Senator MACKAY —I do not wish to waste the time of the Senate, so I seek leave. I do not know that I need to repeat my comments. I seek your guidance: do I need to repeat it? Perhaps we can take it as read. I have concluded.

Debate interrupted.