Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:51): As I answered a few moments ago, the opposition are crying crocodile tears when it comes to complaining about the length of time available to debate this bill. If they had not filibustered, if they had not wasted two full days on the EPBC amendment, if they had not spent all their time deliberately gumming up the works of this chamber, we would not be in this position. But those opposite, who are the rank hypocrites for what they did with Work Choices and for what they did with the Telstra bill, now want to pretend to you— Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill. It was about nothing else. It asked why the government was guillotining that particular bill. References to Telstra, references to the EPBC and references to other legislation earlier in this parliament or in earlier parliaments cannot be relevant to that question. Senator Jacinta Collins: Mr President, on the point of order: the question was about one aspect of the government's time management program and Senator Conroy is explaining the form and the behaviour of this opposition and why it has been necessary to take such measures. The PRESIDENT: Order! I believe the minister is answering the question. There is no point of order. I am listening to the minister's answer. The minister has one minute and 17 seconds remaining. Senator CONROY: That those opposite are, again, time-wasting with these points of order—to grandstand and just repeat endlessly the same mantra—goes to the heart of why it is necessary. Those opposite have no interest in debating these issues. They have an interest in pursuing Mr Abbott's no-policy agenda. They want to oppose, oppose, oppose. They simply want to use this chamber as part of their political strategy. They will be exposed on that side of the chamber for having no interest whatsoever in substantive policy debate, because those opposite would not be able to make a positive contribution to these debates. They simply would stand up and say, 'No.' And then they would waste the rest of their time trying to justify their opposition for opposition's sake and trying to support Mr Abbott. (Time expired)