Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:55): President, I'm rising to speak to the amendment as just moved by Senator Chisholm. I want to be clear about the difference before the chamber. As Senator Hume has very clearly outlined, the coalition responded to the pathetic stunt of the Prime Minister in the other place, where he stood there going, 'The Senate's standing in the way of passing these bills; it's standing in the way of Australians getting their tax cuts,' when in reality, as Senator Hume quite rightly pointed out, whether this bill passes today, tomorrow, next week or next month won't make a jot of difference to the fact that no Australian will see any difference from this legislation until after 1 July. So it doesn't matter, actually, when this legislation is dealt with. The Prime Minister thought he'd be a tough guy and stand there in the House of Representatives' question time and say, 'It's all your fault this is being delayed.' Little did he know, of course, that there were more Labor, Greens and crossbench senators—in fact, there were more crossbench and Greens senators—who'd spoken on the bills than there were coalition senators. So it's far from our fault. I want to be clear that I'm not seeking to cast aspersions on the Greens or crossbenchers who spoke on this. The Prime Minister was the one who wanted to turn this into some sort of tough-guy routine about who was delaying the bills, when it doesn't actually matter which day of the week they pass, because there won't be an effect on the pockets and wallets of Australians until 1 July. Anyway, if the Prime Minister wanted to play politics with it—because, as Senator Hume quite rightly pointed out, this whole thing has been cooked up around the Dunkley by-election happening on Saturday—then we were happy to call out his politics and indicate that, sure, we'd get this done. That's because actually, on our reading of the Senate, it probably won't take much longer for this legislation to pass. The second reading list has been exhausted, there are a couple of second reading amendments and there are some crossbench amendments. It could probably all be done almost in the time that this debate has gone on. I note that when I moved this motion I sat down without saying a word. It could have been voted on and done, but the government, of course, have to have their way. Senator Gallagher had to speak and filibuster while the government came up with an alternative. Let's just compare and contrast the alternatives, because this is what the Senate is being asked to vote on. The coalition proposed something that respects all of the Senate business to be conducted today. Nothing, in terms of other business that other senators have planned for, would be disrupted, according to our motion. At the time the Senate would have adjourned, we will instead go back to government business, get the bill done—which may well only take half an hour or so—and then go back to the adjournment debate as scheduled. No senator misses out; no other business is disrupted; every single piece of business gets done. Senator McKenzie: What about Senator Rice's OPD? Senator BIRMINGHAM: In reference to OPDs or otherwise, let's note that today is a day when there are about 20 motions for consideration during the afternoon. We've proposed something that respects the Senate and respects those processes. The government, because of an attitude not unlike the Prime Minister's—they just have to do it their way—said, 'Well, let's do it now.' The consequence of the government's motion will likely be to wipe the rest of the day's business and leave a situation where things stack up and roll over to tomorrow—quite unnecessarily so. My urging to the crossbench, to the Greens, is to reject the government's motion. I urge you to support the coalition's motion, but whether you support it or not is your business. The Labor Party should support the coalition's motion, the substantive motion, because that's the one that will get the bills done today, as the Prime Minister wants them done today, even though it won't make a jot of difference whether they're done today or tomorrow. But I do urge the crossbench to not fall into the trap of the government's amendment, which is just about the government being seen to have it their way. Their way actually gets in the way of most of the things that the crossbench in this place usually value: the right to have their motions considered and the right to have them done on the days they're scheduled. Senator Gallagher: Let's go! Senator BIRMINGHAM: I remind you, Minister, that I didn't speak on the motion originally. You were the one who decided to have a debate. You could have just let the motion go through on the voices with no debate at all. You could have just had it wave its way through. If you really want, I can go for the next 9½ minutes. Trust me, that's entirely possible. Senator Gallagher interjecting— Senator McKenzie: Don't bait him, Minister! The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator McKenzie's chomping at the bit. Senator McKenzie: I'm ready to go! Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Smith would be keen, and Senator Chandler and Senator Cash— Senator McKenzie interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie! Senator BIRMINGHAM: We can do that if you want, Minister. But we don't want to do that. We actually want to let the Senate deal with its business today. We have called out the Prime Minister's theatrics in the House of Representatives by bringing this motion on. Bills that were going to pass this week—they probably would have passed tomorrow—will instead pass at some time today if one of the motions before the Senate gets up. It won't make a jot of difference to the impact for Australians when the bills pass today instead of tomorrow. But go your hardest, in terms of your campaign in Dunkley over the next few days. Tell them that you've passed these bills a day earlier than would have otherwise been the case. I am sure the voters of Dunkley are looking really closely at parliamentary practice and the timing of these bills!