Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (12:55): If there are no other colleagues who wish to speak I will sum up, as is my prerogative. It is standard in the ordinary course of events in this place that the government seeks exemption from the cut-off so that a bill can be dealt with in the same session in which it is introduced. By and large this works on a cooperative basis and parties seldom abuse that process. I acknowledge to the chamber that that is the case and take at face value the reasons put forward by colleagues in relation to the bills that they would like to be put separately. I will turn to each of those in turn. I should indicate at the outset that, while it is obviously the prerogative of the Senate to have bills put separately in this motion so that they can vote differently, the government will be voting to see all of these bills exempted from the cut-off. What happens is in the chamber's hands. The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 is one where there is a large degree of emerging commonality between the government and the opposition. We went to the election with our savings plan, and the opposition went to the election with their savings plan. This particular bill seeks to present to the parliament those savings measures that both the government and the opposition agree upon. I know that there has been good discussion taking place between our Treasury and finance team and that of the opposition and that we are very close, if not already at the point of agreement. I assume that we might be able to find common ground with the opposition in terms of exempting the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 from the requirement of the cut-off. It is an important bill to be dealt with quickly because it will go towards improving the financial position of the Commonwealth. For our part, on this side we hope that there will be other examples where both government and opposition can work together to repair the budget bottom line. One of the reasons we came through the global financial crisis so well was the nation's strong fiscal position. I have to tip my lid to the former federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, for his work. Senator Wong: You used to iron his shirts! Senator FIFIELD: I will take the interjection from Senator Wong. It is true that I did indeed iron the former Treasurer's budget night shirts in a previous incarnation. It is true, as Joe Aston chronicles from time to time. But it is important to give credit where it is due. Our response to the financial crisis was strong because of the nation's strong fiscal position. Senator Cameron: He was the worst Treasurer we ever had. He was weak and couldn't stand up to John Howard. Senator FIFIELD: I will have to disagree with you there, Senator Cameron. It underlines the importance of collectively doing what we can as a parliament to return the Commonwealth budget to a much stronger position, so I do acknowledge the opposition coming together with us on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. Senator Siewert indicated that the Australian Greens are not comfortable with the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill being exempt from the cut-off. Again, I think that this is important legislation. It is important for consumer transparency, and that is something that we are keen to get on with. The Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has indicated that the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and the National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 are two bills that they, with the Australian Greens, would like to refer to a Senate committee. I will sound note of caution here: my understanding is that, in order for the arrangements to be put in place for this register, September is a critical month, and the reporting date proposed by the Manager of Opposition Business is in October. My understanding is that the concept of a national cancer screening register is not controversial. I think we are all agreed on the need to do what we can to assist in this area. Mr President, for your benefit, the bill seeks to establish the National Cancer Screening Register, a national electronic infrastructure for the collection, storage, analysis and reporting of cancer screening program data for the National Cervical Screening Program and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. It also authorises the collection, use and disclosure of information for the purposes of the register, creates an offence of unauthorised disclosure of the information and mandates the reporting of screening information to the register. That is from the Senate Table Office bills list summary. I do not think there are many issues in this bill that are of great controversy. I would urge my colleagues to seriously consider exempting all of the bills in the motion lodged by Senator McGrath to exempt the bills listed from the provisions of the cut-off. As I say, the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill is an important one for this chamber to consider quickly. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill, again, I think is timely legislation that the parliament should get on with addressing—and also, as I have indicated, the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016, which is one that is listed for today on the Dynamic Red. I would note that my advice is that that particular motion proposing reference to a Senate committee came in at about 9.45 this morning, so that is not in the ordinary course of events. Usually such motions are lodged much earlier. With those few remarks, I will put the motion in the hands of the chamber. The PRESIDENT: So that I am absolutely clear with both the opposition and the Greens, I discern that there are three questions I will need to put about the matters you want excluded from the cut-off. We can put the separate question on the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill, then the separate question on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill. Is it the will of the Senate that I combine the two national cancer screening bills into one question? Is there any objection to that? There being none, let's deal with them in order as they appear in the notice of motion. The question before the chair at the moment is in relation to government business notice of motion No. 1, moved by Senator Fifield. I was asked to split the question, and we are now dealing with the first question, which is that the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 be exempt from the cut-off.