Senator SCHACHT (6:37 PM) —by leave—You have explained, Madam President, your misadventure, I think is the phrase often used when people miss a division. The Labor Party and the opposition make it clear that we have never, as far as I am aware in my time, refused where people have explained why they have missed a division through circumstances beyond their control or where it is quite reasonable. It happens to us all and it will happen consistently to us all in the future. However, there is a consistent pattern that it seems to be the government members who overwhelmingly are running into misadventure.

Madam President, you have a different position and fulfil functions representing this chamber at numerous engagements from lunches through to dinners, presentations, launches, et cetera. My astonishment is why the Manager of Government Business (Senator Ian Campbell) did not arrange a pair for the debate.

The PRESIDENT —Perhaps I can help. I didn't ask for one.

Senator SCHACHT —I see. Madam President, I respect the fact that you were being diligent and thought that you would be able to make the division. Being in the private members' dining room on the third floor, there is not much spare time out of four minutes to get back down here, anyway.

The PRESIDENT —It is possible, but I didn't even try. I didn't realise it was on.

Senator SCHACHT —Madam President, I want to make this clear: we accept your explanation and, I think the phrase is, `misadventure'. That might be a bit too enthusiastic in this case, a bit too wide a description. We are not going to oppose the item being recommitted, but I would say to the Government Manager and to you, Madam President, with due respect, that if you as President of the Senate are representing us at these functions it is only reasonable that you have a pair. That, I am sure, would never be objected to by the managers of our side.

During the debate on this bill, the National Transmission Network Bill, which the government has made very important, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) was absent. He had to rely on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Senator Ian Campbell). We had one of these strange times where a parliamentary secretary, representing a minister who was absent, was actually filibustering on his own bill to fill the in time so he would not have to go into the committee stage of a bill where there were some technical amendments to be dealt with. Again, this certainly in no way reflects on the President of the Senate. It certainly reflects on the incompetence of the minister and the government in managing their own bill that the minister is away abusing the ABC board and leaves the parliamentary secretary here not well briefed. So we have to have a filibuster at the close of the second reading debate to fill out the time until a quarter to one and then the opposition is told: `You are wasting time. You are holding up the government's program.'

It was a very poor performance today on this issue. This was an important bill. It is the privatisation of the National Transmission Agency, which the government has made great play of. It is poor that the minister was not present. I think it is poor that the parliamentary secretary was not able to handle the committee stage so he filibustered so we would not have to go into committee. Madam President, we accept your explanation, as we always have, because we accept in these circumstances—

Senator Knowles —You are not making sense; sit down.

Senator SCHACHT —You will never make sense, Senator Knowles. So on this basis we accept your explanation. Madam President, if I may conclude, I think you should ask for a pair in the future. When you are representing the Senate at these functions you should be able to do so without having to rush for a division.