Senator KNOWLES (10:43 AM) —Today's debate is absolutely the biggest waste of time that this Senate could possibly look at. This is coming from an opposition that rammed through this place 221 bills in 13 years. This is coming from an opposition that is now squealing about the time that is being allocated to each bill. Yet, in 1990—not all that long ago, if the collective memories of the mob over there could go back to that time—

The PRESIDENT —Senator, you should not refer to the opposition in that fashion.

Senator KNOWLES —This really forgetful group of people on the opposition benches—

Senator Abetz —The Carmen Lawrence problem.

Senator KNOWLES —That is right, Senator Abetz—they all suffer from the Carmen Lawrence syndrome. But the problem is that they have forgotten to remember that 52 bills in 1990 were rammed through this Senate in 34 hours. That is not even an hour a bill, and they are squealing today about allocation of time.

They rammed through the parliament in one hour—not three days but one hour—corporations legislation that took three days to get through when they were in opposition. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1990 took one hour, and the Commonwealth Bank's restructuring bill took three hours. And here we go with this group of people pretending that there is something extraordinary about the behaviour that is going on here. Let us just remember that the tax legislation that is currently before the parliament has had 48 hours of debate thus far in this parliament. And not only that, but it has been looked at by the committee system for the equivalent of 75 weeks. Here we have the Labor Party complaining that there is inadequate time to debate this legislation, but no-one could seriously believe that when they look at 75 weeks of committee consideration and 48 hours of debate in this chamber. Let us have a look at the environment bills—because they are also squealing about those. Senator Brown, who is terribly Pontius Pilate about the whole thing—

Senator Ferris —And he has left the chamber now.

Senator KNOWLES —Yes, he has left the chamber. He cannot even be bothered staying in the chamber. Those bills have had 11 months of consideration by Senate committees and yet Senator Brown comes in here, flaps his gums and says that we are rushing it through. Fair dinkum! This is just beyond a joke. How on earth can Senator Brown, who is so irrelevant to the Australian political system—to say nothing of how irrelevant he is in this chamber—come in here and say that 11 months of Senate committee consideration is inadequate and that we should not now be considering the final votes on the environmental package?

I also want to raise the hypocrisy of anyone who tries to say that these important bills are being rammed through. Many of us will remember the native title legislation brought in by the Labor government some years ago. We are talking about new legislation, we are talking about amendments, we are talking about sight unseen things: how about the 300-plus amendments that the Labor Party brought into this chamber once the committee stage had started? Their absolute inefficiency meant that this chamber continued to sit and sit, over the weekends and everything else—

Senator Ian Campbell —No question times.

Senator KNOWLES —No question times, Senator Campbell—that is exactly right. Everything was abandoned.

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, I rise on a point of order. If Senator Knowles is so critical of the Labor Party, why did she provide the Western Australian Labor Party with questions to ask against the Liberal Party of Western Australia?

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Knowles.

Senator KNOWLES —This is the absolute level of Senator Faulkner's comprehension and his gutter tactics. We have got used to that. It is like water off a duck's back. We see it every day in question time.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many people shouting in the chamber, and it is completely disorderly.

Senator KNOWLES —Thank you, Madam President. As I said, it is water off a duck's back. To have someone like Senator Faulkner having a go at you is actually quite a compliment because he is just the bottom of the barrel.

I will come back to the hypocrisy of this debate. The grizzling about the time allocation for bills is just extraordinary. We have the two masters of guillotines over here—two people who were managers of government business when the Labor Party were in government: Senators Ray and Faulkner. Admittedly, Senator Faulkner was nowhere near up to the job; he was absolutely incompetent in the position. But Senator Ray, who I do believe is a competent operator, was the one who brought in the guillotine time and time again. Yet now Senator Ray is the one who is the most vocal against it. I cannot understand the logic behind that. This is important debating time that should be given to the consideration of important legislation, and yet the Labor Party and the totally irrelevant Senator Brown will not consider it.

The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for this debate has concluded. I put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Ray be agreed to.

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Before you put the question, I think it would be useful for senators to understand what elements of the order of business today will not proceed if the motion is successful.

The PRESIDENT —The motion overrules all other business but question time and motions to take note of answers.

Question put:

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