Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer) (1:21 PM) —Senator, I think a fair reading of the debate that occurred last Friday afternoon shows that it was not a matter of just relentlessly arguing that the bills are constitutional. I think there was a very active debate between Senator Cook and me about the nature of section 55 and how courts have interpreted it before. I said the cases that Senator Cook quoted gave considerable comfort to the government's position, not to the position that Senator Cook was arguing for or, indeed, the position that you are now putting. I think a fair reading of that debate shows that there was a debate in some depth on this issue. Before you move any motion, Senator, I urge you to go back and read more carefully what was said in that particular debate.

I think I have fairly answered the questions. There were a number of issues that Senator Harradine raised. He referred to the Bills Digest. That had not been drawn to my attention. I said that I would have a look at the Bills Digest. I think I have fairly answered the questions that have been put in this chamber, but obviously not to your satisfaction. I urge you to reread, if you can bear to, the evidence that was given on Friday. You will see that there was quite an extensive debate, an important debate, about the constitutionality of the bills, particularly in relation to section 55.