Senator FAULKNER (10:00 AM) —Let me say that I think that is a very reasonable challenge that Senator Brown places before the chamber on an issue like this. But let us be clear. I think Senator Brown, as is often the case with such suspension motions, did deal with the substantive issue that Senator Bartlett's motion addresses. Let me make this general point: Senator Bartlett's return to order, if you like, or order of the Senate goes to the creation of a document. The government is being asked to create a document and lay that document on the table. I think senators in the chamber would know that the opposition consistently has had concerns about that sort of approach for an order for the production of documents. There are two different categories of document here, and it is important that a distinction be made. One is a document that exists and can be laid on the table. The other is a document which does not exist, needs to be created, and then can be laid on the table.

I must admit that I think there is a way through here that is sensible. Senator Bartlett, as the Democrat spokesman, has had discussions with me addressing the substantive issues that this motion goes to. It is an issue on which the opposition have indicated to Senator Bartlett—I have indicated this, as has the shadow Attorney, Mr McClelland—that we are very happy to progress some of the concerns that Senator Bartlett has. It just seems to me that, given the fact that this particular order for production of documents directly reflects a second reading amendment moved to legislation in this place yesterday, a sensible course of action in these circumstances would be for Senator Bartlett to place a question on notice very much in the terms that this order for production of documents is in. That is a proper mechanism to use in this circumstance to create an answer and a response.

Senator Ian Campbell —It is a research project.

Senator FAULKNER —Members of parliament are entitled to ask questions of executive government and receive this sort of information. The question here is whether it is proper for the Senate to order this or for Senator Bartlett to use other mechanisms, in the circumstances that we are in on the last sitting day of the year—and a debate on the substantive issue that is dealt with might well have some very significant implications for the program. I think there is a course of action that can be pursued here by Senator Bartlett which will have the same effect.

Although I have indicated that the opposition have concerns about this general approach of returns to order for the creation of documents, if push comes to shove we will vote for this. But we would much prefer this to be progressed in another way and, with the constraints that we are operating under at the moment, we do not think that a suspension of standing orders is warranted. What I do think is warranted, and I would commend this course of action to Senator Bartlett, is to place a question on notice in the same terms for the government to undertake the activity that would be required to respond to a question on notice. It is a similar time frame to the one that Senator Bartlett has proposed.

If there are any weaknesses in the process, and there ought not be—Senator Bartlett and all senators will have, in response to a question on notice, the substantive issue addressed that he wants to have addressed—then I think it might be appropriate for Senator Bartlett to bring it back to the chamber. What we are being asked here is to suspend standing orders. In these circumstances I do not think that is warranted, but I think there is another course of action which means that Senator Bartlett can in fact receive the information he wants and the Senate's program will not be delayed unnecessarily. I would commend that course of action to Senator Bartlett in the circumstances. I do impress upon the Senate this general issue that we have in relation to orders for the production of documents in the case where it requires the creation of the document.