Joe O'Toole (Independent)

It is trying to reduce to a minimum the impact of debate in the House and to undermine us in what we are doing.

A classic issue arose yesterday. When we mentioned the lack of legislation in the House, we received a response from the Government side on the important issues that were being debated. That was not the issue at all and we should therefore park that idea. Everybody on this side of the House believes yesterday's fisheries debate, for example, was very important. However, it seems it requires multitasking on the Government side if its Members must deal with legislation, a motion and a debate in the same week or fortnight. That is the real issue.

We are dealing with the minimum amount of legislation and harmless debates. By this, I mean that if we want to discuss fishing we should place on the record some of the issues raised by Senator O'Donovan over recent years on the appalling treatment of salmon fishermen along the west coast. When we raised the matter on this side of the House, we received very little support from the other side. The same applies to other issues, including that of quotas. We can certainly table motions to deal with these issues, on which the House must divide and in respect of which Members' votes must match their words. However, the idea of people standing up and saying what they want against Government policy must be considered in light of the fact that, day after day, the greatest critics of Government policy are on the Government side of the House. We need straightness in our debates and need to deal with the matter as we go along.

I agree completely that we need to be relevant. Issues of importance do arise, including the one raised by Senator Fitzgerald and gangland crime. Essential legislative changes are required to give greater authority to the police and Judiciary to deal with gangland crime. The Leader stated yesterday he would be happy to allow for this. There are 20 Ministers of State and 15 Cabinet members. Why, therefore, can we not have a debate on the issue raised by Senator Fitzgerald, for example, or that of gangland crime and the legislative changes necessary to address it?

The Leader responded positively yesterday to issues raised by various Senators on this side of the House. Some Members on the Government side, including Senator Ormonde, stated how important it was to keep the issue of gangland crime on the agenda, yet there is no attempt made to deal with it today. There is no attempt to be topical or to respond to what is going on in the world around us. Instead, it has been decided to talk about radon gas. While it is important, it is not as important as any of the other matters we could be discussing today. There is no urgency about the debate on radon gas, as important as it is, bearing in mind that I raised the issue of radon gas many times over the past four or five years and referred to the various parts of the country where it poses a problem. It is not the issue; the issue concerns what we are not talking about.