Senator ROBERT RAY (6:03 PM) —From this debate the first thing we can learn is that the sooner the war correspondent from Tirana returns to sort out the Democrats the better. The assertion from Senator Lees that because we are not moving a raft of amendments we have no contribution to make to the committee stage is an absolute nonsense. We will be looking at these bills clause by clause—in some cases raising questions or making points about it. So we will be making a contribution and we are ready to make that contribution now.

Senator Ian Campbell —We did that with native title in 1993. It's a great tactic.

Senator ROBERT RAY —That is right—absolutely. Senator Campbell has acknowledged that this is one of the legitimate tactics of the chamber, depending on your attitude to the totality of the bills. Senator Lees said we have done some sleazy deal with the government. I will tell you the deal we did with the government about speaking hours. It was very simple. We are here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Because we are all here on Tuesday morning and our relative party meetings are not meeting, the coalition said, `Why don't we sit then and use the time?' We said,`Yes, why not?' We will all be sitting around waiting for 2 o'clock to start, so why not absorb the three hours? Is it a sleazy deal to agree with the government on that? And then they said, `Look. We'd like to move the second readers along. As they are a matter of no division and no quorum, why don't we sit on Tuesday night and get another two or three hours?' We said, `Fair enough.' And there are plenty of examples where we have done this in the past, no matter what side of the chamber we have been sitting on. It is not a sleazy deal to move the debate along, and that is exactly what we did. So, in terms of the two major points Senator Lees directed at the Labor Party: firstly, we did not do any sleazy deal over time and, secondly, we do have a rigorous contribution to make in the committee stages of these bills, and we are looking forward to doing so.

What position is the government in at the moment? It has moved that the debate be adjourned, and we know the reality is that it is really adjourning the debate until Tuesday morning. A motion may say Friday but everyone knows that it is still until Tuesday. The government says it is doing it in response because not all elements of the chamber are ready, but a good manager of government business would have found this out much earlier than Senator Campbell did. The political position we are facing is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are running around the talkback circuit playing the second oldest card in the book—blame the Senate. The oldest card in the book is the state premiers running around blaming whichever federal government is in power. That is the oldest card. But the second oldest is for executive government to blame the Senate.

It was only yesterday that Mr Costello, that `Sydneycentric' minister, appeared on the John Laws program and demanded that the debate proceed this week and next week and be finalised by the end of next week. Doesn't Mr Costello talk to his Manager of Government Business in the Senate? Silly question—why would he?

Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —You're not actually in that portfolio area. Madam President, I think he was removed from that portfolio area after the last election. But we could at least expect Mr Costello to liaise with the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston. Surely they can get together in Sydney and have a conversation about the program as it is going to be into the future. Why couldn't they have got together?

This is the dichotomy that we are most worried about: Mr Howard and Mr Costello running around the country demanding that the Senate get on with the job, and Senator Campbell and Senator Alston basically saying, `No, we will defer the debate until the following Tuesday.' You cannot have it both ways as a coalition. Why not bring it on for debate now? We are ready. You say you are ready, although we do not know. It may well be you are using the Democrats as the fall guys. Maybe you don't want to bring the debate on. Maybe you are still negotiating some other deals that none of us yet know about and you haven't consummated them yet. Maybe it is another Telstra bill. Remember how urgent the Telstra bill was—how urgent it was that we get to the second reading? That was weeks ago and it has not been brought back on. Why? Senator Alston has not been able to round up the usual suspects and do the usual deals which get sold out down the track. Maybe the same thing is happening with this matter.

One thing Senator Margetts said was interesting. She wants to know where the forward program is. Don't we all? No-one knows what is on the agenda, no-one knows what the government ask is. A broad ambit claim is thrown out there. The manager should be able to say exactly what he wants to get through by 30 June or whether he intends to sit the Senate through into the first few weeks in July. We should at least know that at this stage. He is not being obtuse here, Senator Margetts. He does not know. He has not got a clue.

Senator Alston —How do you know?

Senator ROBERT RAY —We know, otherwise he would come out and say so.

Senator Alston interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Alston says he is being deceptive! He is being not transparent! That is what Senator Alston is saying about his colleague. Senator Alston—always interjecting out of his seat. That is exactly what he is saying. That is very helpful; thank you, Senator Alston.

But we do not know what the forward program is, which in many ways means that we have got no idea how much time we should allocate for the committee stage of these bills. If we knew what the eventual ask was, we could actually work our way back and know what was a reasonable time to take in the committee stage of these bills. But we do not know. We have got no idea whatsoever.

Senator Margetts —Then they will blame us for not being ready for the next bill.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course they will blame us. As I said, Senator Margetts, this is the blame game. This is the Prime Minister and the Treasurer running around the country blaming the Senate for everything, creating an artificial storm, saying we should change the voting system. We did not hear from any coalition members between 1983 and 1996 about curbing the powers of the Senate or rigging the voting system. All we heard was them extolling plurality. That is what they did.

Senator Margetts interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —But we actually never went to rig the voting system in the Senate, Senator Margetts—never once. If they had, I know I would have been the one they came to to devise the system, and they never did.

What we are seeing here is the Senate being set up as the fall guy. That is fair enough as a political tactic. All executive governments do it; I acknowledge that. The point is: if you are going to do that, get your act together in this chamber. Don't have the Treasurer go out on a Tuesday morning and demand we debate this all week and have your Senate leadership pull the rug from under him at about 5.30 p.m. on the Wednesday and defer the vote.

We assume that the government are deferring this vote because they are responding to the Democrats, but we do not know for sure. Given their rather tricky performances in the past about some of these matters, one could not be really sure whether this is the motive. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt in saying this is why they are doing it. They should have got the intelligence earlier that this was the situation. They should have told the Treasurer, `Don't make yourself look like the biggest boofhead in history by going on the John Laws program and demanding the matter be debated when, a day later, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate is going to sell you down the tubes.' The responsibility that the three senators sitting there have is to keep your leadership informed. The problem is: if you do not keep your leadership informed, next time there is a reshuffle just watch out. Your job is to keep the Prime Minister informed.

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —You do not have to worry, Senator Heffernan; you will always be looked after.

Senator Heffernan —Is that a promise, Robert?

Senator ROBERT RAY —Any time we kick the Prime Minister in the behind, we know who gets concussion, Senator Heffernan. We have got no doubts about that whatsoever—none whatsoever. But these three gentlemen on the front bench need to keep the Prime Minister fully apprised of where this is going.

What we do not expect over the next week—because this motion will probably be carried today—is the Prime Minister and the Treasurer re-entering the list and saying, `The Senate is not dealing with this.' I hope the leadership here at least have the decency to contact him in Western Australia today and say, `Look, for a variety of reasons we have had to put off the tax debate until next Tuesday. Just lay off the rhetoric a bit. Just lay off beating the Senate for a few days because we have had this bit of a blip that we should have told you about in advance. We regret we haven't told you about it until now, but please don't go on with the normal, moronic Senate-bashing exercise simply to shift the blame in politics.'