Senator MARSHALL (3:11 PM) —I also rise to take note of the answer to a question asked by Senator O'Brien today relating to trade. Senator Lightfoot's contribution started off very well. He began by saying that Senator Kerry O'Brien is a good bloke. I wholeheartedly agree with that. After that, it went downhill considerably. I was a little worried about his knowledge of the negotiations. He seemed to have such absolute confidence about what is in these free trade negotiations. If he does, and if he is so sure that—in his words—the government will not back down on negotiating away the single desk arrangement of the Australian Wheat Board and is absolutely committed to retaining it, one must ask: why does the minister not just say that?

It is okay for Senator Lightfoot to come into the chamber and give us these absolute undertakings on behalf of the government: `The government will not back down.' He said, `It is absolutely committed.' But the minister responsible in this chamber cannot give us any such undertaking. The reason he cannot give us any such undertaking is that he knows that the US is negotiating strongly on this issue. The US want this issue negotiated—they have made that clear. The farm lobby in the US is making that clear. It is one of the key issues they are trying to negotiate in the free trade agreement. It certainly gives us concern, as do many other issues in the free trade arrangement.

Senator Ferris interjected while Senator Lightfoot was speaking, but the interjection was directed to this side of the chamber. Senator Ferris posed the question: why do we want to get rid of the single desk? Labor does not want to get rid of the single desk. Labor is absolutely committed to it.

Senator Ferris —Well, stop trying to undermine it.

Senator MARSHALL —Interestingly enough, Senator Ferris—

Senator Ferris —You're constantly undermining it.

Senator MARSHALL —we have declared our intent. The report tabled today by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has a recommendation from the non-government members to put into the negative list the operation of the single desk. The Labor opposition members have made that recommendation. The government senators would not sign on to that recommendation; they put in a minority report. What does that tell us? It tells us a few things. The government talk the talk, but when it gets to walking the walk and putting those commitments in writing, they back away at 100 miles an hour. If anyone's commitment to the single desk should be questioned, it is that of the government. They are letting the farmers of this country down. If they are prepared to negotiate away the single desk arrangements for access in agriculture to other areas in the US, where there are enormous farm subsidies which still make it very difficult for our farmers to compete, wheat farmers will have no chance of competing. They need the single desk arrangement to assist them to compete.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand why the government cannot come out and be honest and if, as Senator Lightfoot says, they are absolutely committed say so. When they are asked a question in this place in question time, why don't they just say so? There is a whole range of other issues that we have also talked about on this free trade agreement. I should also draw to the Senate's attention that, in the report tabled today, on another question we have raised many times here about the PBS, again the recommendation by the non-government senators makes it absolutely clear that we are committed to the operation of the PBS and the reference pricing situation that underpins the PBS. Again, where were the government senators on that committee? Where was their contribution to that recommendation? They did not support that recommendation and again put in a minority report.

We can then move on to quarantine standards. Again, Labor and the minority parties say that we cannot move away from our quarantine standards in this country. Where are the government senators on that question? Not to be seen, not to be heard. We have serious concerns about what this government is doing—

Senator Ferris —You are a disgrace.

Senator MARSHALL —Senator Ferris, I thought you had interjected enough already.

Senator Ferris —You are undermining our quarantine standards and you are undermining the single desk.

Senator MARSHALL —You ought to try and learn something about these issues before you make such ridiculous comments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ferris, I ask you to withdraw the reference to the senator. It is unparliamentary.

Senator Ferris —What part of my comment was unparliamentary?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You understand I am not about to repeat an unparliamentary comment. I ask you to withdraw.

Senator Ferris —What I said, Mr Deputy President, was that he was undermining the single desk and undermining quarantine and that is a disgrace. I do not believe that is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, that is not what you said. I would ask you to read the Hansard. I ask you to withdraw.

Senator Lightfoot —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: before you rule, it is unfair to ask the senator to withdraw if she is not aware of what she is supposed to withdraw. I listened, with respect, to what the senator said and I heard her say precisely what she repeated to you, and that is clearly not unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I hear what you are saying as a point of order. It is not the way I heard it. I am sure the senator is completely aware of the way in which it will appear on the Hansard record. I have asked the senator to withdraw. In most circumstances, senators do withdraw those matters and then consult the Hansard later on. I ask Senator Ferris to withdraw that imputation.

Senator Ferris —I withdraw, and I will consult the Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator.

Senator MARSHALL —I am amazed that senators in this place not only do not know what they say but do not know what they are talking about. Again, that goes to the whole issue before us today. If they mean what they say, why don't they answer the question and give us that commitment? (Time expired)