Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:08): It's always unfortunate to see lovers having a fight, isn't it, particularly when it plays out publicly—a lovers' tiff between the parties of the current government, between the Labor Party and the Greens; this little stoush that's turning into quite a personal stoush. Senator Wong: Oh, who's going to get the kids! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, is this a point of order? Senator Wong: I would ask him to withdraw. I would point out who the lovers are this week: you and them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, that's not a point of order and you know it. Senator BIRMINGHAM: The parties of the current government, the Labor Party and the Greens—here they are now having this stoush playing out publicly, a lovers' tiff that's turned into quite a public brawl. You know the government is feeling the pressure on these things, you know government ministers are feeling the pressure, when they start to personalise the debate too. We saw there in Senator Wong's contribution a personalisation of the debate, targeting the Greens' housing spokesman and turning it into a personal debate against a member of the Greens, trying of course to play into whatever divisions might exist within the Australian Greens. Senator McAllister: It is just a policy debate. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Well, it didn't sound like a policy debate; it sounded like a personal attack. It sounded like a big sledge against the Greens. It sounded like the two of you falling out of love with one another. But, of course, we know it will only be temporary and that, no doubt, at some stage there will be some sort of secret deal, bargain et cetera. The government is seeking to come in here and say this bill should be expedited. The chamber has apparently had enough time to debate something that it's barely debated at all. It has barely had the chance to debate this at all. What is this government doing with the management of its legislative program? Mishandling it terribly would be the answer to that because, before trying to mount the argument that it's time to push this through—that it's time to guillotine this—there should have been some debate of it before you actually got to that point. This is a new $10 billion fund that the government has struggled to define or defend when it has come under scrutiny. It's meant to be an off-budget fund. That's the way they took it to the election campaign so they could, of course, go through that campaign and say: 'This isn't really money that we're spending. We don't have to account for this money; we're running it off budget.' But when challenged about investment mandates for the fund, in terms of how it will actually be accounted for, do the government make any of that public before this Senate is asked to vote on it? Of course they don't—none of that sort of detail or information is provided in advance. Then, in their desperation to try to negotiate this fund with the Greens or the rest of the crossbench, we learn they start to offer deals that say, 'Regardless of how much this fund earns, we might build this many houses,' or, 'Regardless of how much this fund earns, we might start to spend this much money as a guarantee year on year.' Well, guess what happens if you give those guarantees? It takes the measure on budget. It blows out of the water the entire premise of the policy that the government took to the last election. In their desperation, with an ill-conceived policy, they are now starting to unpick it and demonstrate just how bad Labor is when it comes to managing money. That's what all of this comes back to. This off-budget fund, about which the government has said, 'We don't have to account for it as spending; we can claim a budget bottom line position without having to account for this,' will end up costing Australians. It will end up hitting the budget bottom line. It will end up deteriorating the government's budget position. It will end up operating completely contrary to what was promised at the election and the approach that they've taken. This is a bill that deserves scrutiny. This is a bill that deserves fair debate. Senator Wong: You've been filibustering all week. Get on to debating it— Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Wong, you knew coming in here today that Senator Lambie is going to withdraw her private senator's time, providing an extra hour of debate time—but guess what? By pursuing this tactic, you're eating up that time. Rather than having an hour of debating Senator Lambie's bill, we'll instead spend about 45 or 50 minutes debating the motion that you've insisted on moving. Senator Wong, you've created this— Senator Wong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, if Senator Birmingham wishes to give me leave to close the debate so he can get on to the housing debate, I'd be happy to move that motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's not a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Go on, give me leave. I'll move it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's a matter of private discussion between the leaders. Senator BIRMINGHAM: This is a mess of the government's own making. This policy is a mess of its own making; this poor chamber management is a mess of its own making. This lack of time to debate this bill is a mess of its own making, and this lovers' tiff between the Labor Party and the Greens is a mess of their own making which is only going to get worse thanks to the personal tactics Senator Wong has now deployed against the Greens.