Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Acting Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:52): Mr President, we gave leave to the Leader of the Government to provide the Senate with an update on the negotiations in relation to the enterprise tax bill. What we heard from Senator Cormann was a fairly lengthy attempt to argue the merits of his bill, which, obviously, he has not been able to convince the Senate of to date. We heard Senator Cormann refer to 'his belief'—as, indeed, he has done on several occasions in question time during the course of this week. Each time he talks about his belief, it is countered by question after question after question of the evidence that's there before us. Today, the most recent evidence was this secret BCA survey. But, of course, the indisputable evidence, as both Senator Farrell and Senator Keneally mentioned today, is that fairness simply doesn't trickle down. You don't need to hear this in the language of fairness; you can hear this in the language of economic commentators as well. If there is a fundamental difference between the government and Labor here in the parliament, perhaps this is the point: the government's got its priorities wrong and has been unable to convince the Senate otherwise. The government's priority is the top end of town, and this enterprise tax bill is the best example of that point. There is no economic case—we have demonstrated that in the last two weeks here in the Senate—and the Labor Party will continue to argue this point. We heard Senator Cormann in question time today attempting to say, 'Well, you know, you're on board for the first three years of the program.' That is a complete misrepresentation of the Labor Party's view on the enterprise tax bill. We have been, and will continue to be, clear that we do not accept more tax breaks for the top end of town. In case and case again, our focus has been on jobs, the cost of living, education, health and closing down the capacity of some in our society to access tax breaks that this government seems so keen to continue to make available and, indeed, further. I indicated, in seeking an opportunity to respond to the minister's statement, that I wanted to reflect on some procedural matters, so I will focus on those. Apart from the point I just made, the minister told us that he was going to give us an update on negotiations. After a fairly lengthy contribution about his beliefs, we finally got there. It is: senators, we cannot anticipate that this bill will be before us tomorrow. Fortunately we will have the opportunity to return home for Christmas—sorry, for Easter. Senator Farrell: We could still be here at Christmas! Senator JACINTA COLLINS: We could still be here at Christmas; you're right, Senator Farrell. But I do want to take this opportunity to reflect on what else is before the chamber now. Alarmingly, it seems to be somewhat linked. It is the government's prerogative, of course, to order government business in the Senate. This is why we allowed the leader leave to make his statement, to reorganise the program—as, indeed, he has—and to give us an updated statement about his negotiations and whether we're likely to get to that bill. But what's more concerning is this next motion that has been circulated, and so here I talk to the crossbench. If the crossbench have supported the government in bringing on this next matter, I beseech them to understand what they are really doing. You are allowing the government to have the prerogative beyond government business. One key example on that point is that further down on the program today, as Chair of the Senate Privileges Committee, as chair of the Senate's most senior committee, I'm due to report on a very important inquiry into parliamentary privilege that affects all of us. I will not be able to provide that report today if the motion that has been circulated in the chamber proceeds in the way the government proposes. It seems we will have to argue about whether and how this should proceed. The opposition will not provide leave. Indeed, the crossbench might want to carefully consider that any crossbench senator who, in the future, might seek to move a disallowance motion might have, with the cooperation of some other senators, the government hijack it. That's what is going on here. Whether the government think that by moving to proceed with this matter, the marine parks disallowance, they'll get some shield or some cover for their lack of progress on tax— Senator McAllister: Tell them they're dreaming! Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Indeed, I'll tell them they're dreaming. We may hear that there's some other agenda that they've got happening that we're not privy to because we haven't been part of these company tax negotiations. Indeed, Senator Cormann is trying to say, 'No, Labor's really on this agenda.' No, we haven't been participating in these negotiations. We don't know what the government's agenda here is. We will not be providing leave for the government to change the program for today. We will be arguing against it strenuously because we think there are some very serious procedural matters at hand. The first point, as I said, is there are important matters on our existing program that we won't get to. The second point, as I said, is for any senator in this place to think very carefully about whether they want to allow the government to hijack business of the Senate and disallowance motions. There are set procedures for how we proceed with disallowance motions; they exist for very good reasons. If the crossbench join the government in supporting this motion, they will regret it in the future.