Senator MURRAY (10:40 AM) —That was a passionate outburst from the parliamentary secretary. He obviously feels very strongly about red tape but perhaps not so strongly about blue tape. Let us get back to some of the serious points you made, Senator Campbell. Firstly, I think you have just misled us all quite severely. Perhaps you might like to apologise to the chamber for doing so. These provisions, as I understand the act and the bill, actually relate to organisations which have over 100 employees. Senator Campbell, the ABS definition of a small business is 20 employees or, in the case of a manufacturing organisation, 100 employees.

Further provisions in various acts all indicate that small businesses are regarded as organisations of fewer than 100 employees. Several times during your discourse, I heard you refer to small business. The fact is that small business is not subject to this act. You have directly misled the parliament—either that or you have not read the act and have not understood its provisions. The fact is that there are well over one million business entities which are not subject to this act and do not have to fill in these forms.

The second area in which you have misled us all is saying that the people of Australia object to these forms. I can assure you that, as somebody who is lobbied extensively by mail, by email, by letter and in person, the people of Australia have not been writing to me saying that they do not like the equal opportunity forms. The third point is that the waiver provisions are there so that these reports do not have to continue if the agency decides in certain circumstances that they do not. The problem we face is that, when you have a small agency with small resources, they have to analyse the reports that come in. Frankly, they have no other means of finding out what is going on. They cannot get out into all those workplaces and enterprises to do an on-site inspection and analysis, which would be the ideal way for this situation to be resolved.

The last point to make with regard to the points you made is that independent advice is just that. It is advice from people who are independent of us. The government, the opposition, the Democrats and everybody else in this place constantly ignore independent advice and take a different view. What do you think happens when we have a Senate inquiry and we have 500 independent people coming along? We accept what 300 say and reject what 200 people say. Independent advice is always dependent upon your view as to its veracity, impact and meaning. The fact that the agency or a few others independently have said something does not require the Senate to agree with it; it requires the Senate to evaluate it.

On this occasion, we happen to disagree with the independent advice. But I would put on the record that the Democrats, the Labor Party and the government all agree with the independent advice on, for instance, changing the name, the objects and the definitions of the act. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say that we have accepted the independent advice in some areas and not in others and that, therefore, we are guilty of some heinous sin against the people of Australia. I do not accept that argument. So that is my response to your passionate outburst. You have been misleading in your remarks, and you have been wrong in your remarks.