Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:48 PM) —Let me be brief in my contribution on the question before the chair. It is very important to point out to the Senate that in this circumstance—that is, the last sitting week before the election—the more time we take on procedural questions before the Senate, the less time will be available to the Senate to discuss the substance of the urgent and essential legislation that is before us. That is the key point.

Sure, we can all use a whole range of techniques, procedures and tactics to try to blow out debate. What can be done if senators are minded to use those mechanisms that are at their disposal is well known to the opposition. But, when you use them, you have to balance up the fact that it is going to take away the Senate's time on the crucial legislation that is to come before us. The one thing we have been able to establish and agree on is that there are a significant number of bills before us, there is a significant amount of legislation that deserves consideration by this chamber before the end of this week. That is the point. There is a considerable amount of legislation that warrants consideration by the Senate and a decision by the Senate on its fate.

Most of the legislation that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has spoken about previously—take, for example, the Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, the air passenger ticket levy package, the Intelligence Services Bill 2001, a range of taxation laws and a raft of non-controversial bills—is not only essential and urgent but actually agreed around the chamber. What we are attempting to do is ensure that the bills where there is not agreement—the bills which are politically controversial—do not have priority in the government's legislation program.

We all know that governments determine their own legislation program. Everyone knows that. The Senate, where there is not a government majority, responds to it. We have tried to be reasonable. That is why we are supporting this guillotine motion. I stress again that we are not willing to gag the guillotine motion, which might mean that this debate will go a little longer than is otherwise the case.

That choice remains with the Senate. I think most senators would prefer to have a debate not on these procedural questions but on the important priority legislation that is before us. That is how I am looking at it. I have got to say to the Australian Democrats senators who are in the chamber and to Senator Brown that that is how the opposition are addressing these issues. We accept there is a limited time. There has been a lot of nonsense spoken about the Senate coming back in three weeks after the end of this sitting week to have an opportunity to debate legislation. Let us be frank. This is the last sitting week before the Prime Minister hops in the white car and goes out to Yarralumla to call the election. We all know that is the case. No-one from the government has suggested for one minute that that is not the case.

That means that certain legislation gets a priority that it otherwise would not have. If the Manager of Government Business or the Leader of the Government in the Senate is willing to stand up here and say to us now that this is not the last sitting week before the election and that we will be back in three weeks time and we will have an opportunity for a couple more weeks to discuss a great deal more legislation, then it is a different ball game. But no-one has said that, Madam Acting Deputy President. Ask yourself why. It is because everybody knows that this is the last chance. That is why we are taking this approach on this question. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the negative.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the allotment of time be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.