Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed. On the point of order raised by Senator Ayres, I firstly utterly reject any assertion that anything is being gamed here. That is an imputation of motive. That is contrary to 193(3) of the standing orders. I'll just make that point first. Secondly, I direct Senator Ayres to standing order 113(3), which makes it very clear that he's just made a complete fool of himself. He might as well have just announced to the chamber that he's got no idea about what is in the standing orders, because 113(3) makes it very clear that, when a motion such as the one that was moved by Senator Ayres is moved that contains two or more of the provisions that are set out in the preceding paragraphs of standing order 113, any senator may request that a motion be divided and the provision put as separate motions. In the context of the request by Senator Shoebridge, he is well entitled to debate the procedural part of that question, which is that the bill proceed without formalities. Senator Shoebridge was being completely relevant to that question.