Senator GREIG (12:34 PM) —If the minister can argue that the Labor Party dances to the tune of the trade unions, then I can argue that the coalition dances to the religious sector. I would turn the question back on the minister: why provide for special exemptions for the religious community? The minister says that trade unions attack my party as much as they attack the coalition—that may be the case in some circumstances. But the religious right focuses its attack much more on my party than most other parties and does not court us, as it does the coalition.

To answer the minister's question of why support the expansion of exemptions—and I will go over it for him again—it is because not to do so allows special privileges to some groups in the community to the exclusion of others. As I said in my second reading contribution, if we quarantine the current exemptions—if we deny Senator Lundy's Labor amendment—to those which exist in the bill, then we give special privileges only to political parties, religious organisations and charity groups. That means that a religious organisation or a political party could engage in commercial spam that could include the sale of products like T-shirts, bumper stickers or magazines and could engage in commercial spam such as raising funds for campaigns to oppose gay law reform, for campaigns to oppose abortion, for campaigns to oppose euthanasia, for campaigns to oppose stem cell research—whatever particular conservative bent they have on a social issue. I am not opposed to their being involved in campaigns—they have that right. However, I do not believe that they must have that exclusive right to the exception of others. I believe that human rights group, women's groups, lesbian and gay lobby groups must have the same and equal access through using the same medium, and that that can only be achieved by accepting the amendment proposed by Labor.

That does not undermine our original argument that there ought to be no exemptions. That would be a far more clinical way of providing for a comprehensive and effective bill. But I do not have that power because, on this issue, I do not have the numbers. The numbers lie with the government and the opposition. Therefore, this will pass with some exemptions. I am frustrated by that, but I accept it as the political reality of the numbers in this chamber. So the question before me is not whether there ought to be exemptions—I wish that were the case. The question in front of me is: should the exemptions be fair? Yes, they should. The only way that fairness can be ensured is by accepting Labor's amendment—I am frustrated by that fact but have accepted it—and ensuring that the exemptions apply equitably.

Ultimately, the real question here is not whether the government will accept the exemptions but whether Labor will insist on them. If this amendment from Senator Lundy passes—and I believe it will—this bill, as amended, will soon go to the House of Representatives, where it is likely that the government will reject the amendments included in this place and return the bill. The question before us will then be whether we insist on them. If it is the case that the opposition backs down from those amendments and allows only the quarantined special privileged exemptions to go through, then it really is a sad day and we do have a very biased and inadequate bill at the end of the day.

Question agreed to.