Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:05): There I was sharing a joke with Senator Duniam about his new-found friendship with Senator McKim, and get the bile as we always get from Senator Brandis. But we know this is probably his last sitting day, so I can understand he is feeling a little sensitive. I want to make few points on this. The first point is it was said, somewhat offensively, that there was a pointless debate previously. The general business motion that Senator Hinch moved was in relation to children in protection and the care of children in protection or under protection orders. It is a very serious issue. I do thank Senator Hinch for bringing that matter to the Senate, because I think his advocacy on these issues is well known. So I do not think it is reasonable to say it was a pointless debate. I think that was a somewhat tasteless remark, frankly, from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I would like to make this point, too, about cooperation. This is the fourth hours motion in four days—the fourth hours motion in four days. And that is after we have offered them an MPI time, we have given up private senators business, we have given them opposition time to debate their legislation and— Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator WONG: we were very judicious in our remarks in relation to, I think, the two bills that passed before question time in order to facilitate the program. So the high and mighty attitude with which Senator Brandis made his most recent remarks, frankly, is not on point, although we have come to understand that is the only way in which this gentleman knows how to deal with other individuals in this chamber. High and mighty is how he wishes to deal with people, which is possibly why people do not like dealing with him and try to deal with others around him—but that is a different matter. This is the fourth hours motion in four days. We have continuing chaos in the handling of the program by the government. It is not for us to manage the government's program; it is for the government to manage the program. The fact is that the reason there is chaos in this program is that they have been in chaos on the backpackers tax. Let's call this for what it is. The reason they are in chaos on the legislative front is that they could not work out what their policy was on the backpackers tax. It was 32.5 per cent, and then it was 19, and no-one was ever going to move from that. Then it was 15, and no-one was ever going to move from that. Now it is 15, with a bunch of goodies for the Greens. Oh, Senator Duniam, I am so glad you are here, because we think we should put out a picture of you with Senator McKim, maybe with a love heart around it! You are joined at the hip when it comes to the backpackers tax! We look forward to that! Bothers in arms, shall we say—brothers in arms on the backpackers tax. But understand that the reason there is chaos on the legislative program, the reason the government needs to move this motion, is that they are in chaos— Senator Brandis: Because you dishonoured an agreement made in my office at 4.30 pm— Senator WONG: Mr President, please! I understand a bit of interjection, but he has not shut up, actually. The PRESIDENT: Order, on my right. Senator WONG: Could you draw breath, at least! At least I draw breath; I do—or smile, or make a joke with Senator Duniam. But he is just relentless, really. Will The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Brandis? Senator Brandis: Senator Wong should address you. She should not address me. But I was merely interjecting that Senator Wong is in breach of an agreement made on her behalf in my office at 4.30 pm yesterday. The PRESIDENT: That is a debating point now, Attorney-General. I remind all senators not to interject. And senators should address their remarks to the chair—not through the chair but to the chair. Senator WONG: What has happened is the government now have to deal with Senator Di Natale, and so they want to change things. That is what has happened. Now, that is business; they are entitled to do that. But we are entitled to say no. That is how it works. So, if you are going to do a deal with the Greens, don't expect us to go, 'Oh, we're so happy that you two, who hate each other, are now going to be'— Senator Cormann: We don't hate each other. Senator WONG: well, okay—dislike each other. Senator Cormann, I will take that interjection. He says he does not take them. That is true, because he is very professional in his dealings. But I can tell you a few on your side really do—really do. This is an interesting case of political bedfellows. It is not the first time we have seen it, and, I suspect, maybe not the last. But the point is about Senator Brandis coming in here and again getting very high and mighty and full of indignation. He should tell everybody the reason that the backpackers tax has been a complete, chaotic shemozzle for those on the other side, a complete shambles. And now they have done a deal which will cost the budget more. Brilliant! Brilliant! So, 'We are going to a deal because the angry, shouty Treasurer does not want to deal with the Labor Party, does not want to give Bowen a win'—Chris Bowen a win; Mr Bowen, sorry, Mr President—'so we are going to do a deal with the Greens that costs the budget more. That is the price of Scott Morrison's pride. Senator Brandis: That's Mr Morrison to you. Senator WONG: Sorry, Mr Morrison's pride. Thank you for the correction, Senator Brandis! We oppose this. We oppose this suspension. (Time expired)