Senator FORSHAW (3:54 PM) —I will not take up too much time, unless I am constantly interjected on by the rabble on the other side.

Senator Jacinta Collins —There is only one rabble.

Senator FORSHAW —`Rabble' is singular—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Forshaw, address your comments through the chair.

Senator FORSHAW —If former Senator Winston Crane, a former colleague of Senator Ian Campbell from his state of Western Australia, were still here he would have made sure the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004 was referred to the committee, because he was a person who took a deep interest in these issues. When he was chair of the relevant committee, he ensured that the various interest groups and the public were given an opportunity to put forward their views on legislation such as this. He took it damn seriously. It is a pity that his legacy has not been followed. We are constantly hearing from the government this mantra that, if you refer a bill to a committee of the Senate, you are dithering or delaying. I do not know what this government thinks this Senate is here for but clearly, as we all know, one of its primary tasks is to review legislation that has been referred or sent to us from the House of Representatives. The Senate has for many years—

Senator Knowles —Like the FTA.

Senator FORSHAW —I will come to the FTA, Senator Knowles. Ever since the time of Senator Murphy, the Senate has carried out the role of, firstly, giving proper scrutiny to legislation and, secondly, enabling the public and those interested in particular legislation to come before the parliamentary committee and put their views. We are constantly seeing this elitist view from this government. They think they know best on everything and that the Senate should not waste its time. According to them, it is a waste of time; according to us and the public, it is not—it is time well spent. The government's view is that we should not spend our time even bothering to consider legislation in a committee process. This is happening more and more. Maybe Senator Ian Campbell and Senator Knowles think that the Senate is just like some takeaway drive-through where you put your piece of legislation in one window and you pick it up, stamped and approved, at the other, with no detailed consideration given to it. Just as with a lot of fast food, with that sort of process you would probably get a rather unhealthy product.

The FTA has been mentioned. I have never understood why it is that when this government—this government that has invested so much time, energy and expense trying to negotiate all of the detail of this free trade agreement, with officials and ministers in Washington and out here—finalised that deal, it said, `You shouldn't look at it; just trust us. Don't let the parliament of Australia, and don't let the Senate, have the temerity to examine this agreement. God forbid! What sort of an outrage is that?' That is the government's view. The Senate stood its ground and referred the legislation to the committee. I think any reasonable person, whether or not they support the free trade agreement, would recognise that it was a job well done. I pay tribute to all the senators on the committee, irrespective of their views, because they took on the task of doing a detailed examination of such a complex and lengthy agreement.

The government says it is the most famous agreement in the history of this country. If you cannot devote a bit of time to properly considering it in the parliament before you pass the enabling legislation, there is something wrong with our democracy. Fortunately, here in the Senate we insisted upon it. That was the Senate doing its job, and it should continue to be allowed to do its job in a bipartisan way. Senator Ian Campbell should sit down and get on with the job that he is paid to do, and that is not to frustrate the Senate.