Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion, as circulated, relating to consideration of government amendments to formal business.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of government amendments to formal business.

You all know why we are here. Day after day, hour after hour, what the government is doing is delaying the Senate by deliberately moving amendment after amendment after amendment, buying itself more time, more time, more time, in notices of motion. It is important today that we suspend standing orders to have a good look at this motion and then, I would hope, pass it. Why? Because the government is wasting the time of the Senate. When you waste the time of the Senate, quite frankly, you abuse the privileges that the taxpayers of Australia have given us to come in here and actually deal with the matters that are of most important concern to them.

This motion represents the coalition's determination to step up and take control of the chamber, because the government is losing complete control of the chamber, and ensure we cut through the fog of delay, because, we all know, when we look at the Notice Paperhere it is—this is now hours and hours this afternoon doing nothing more and nothing less than each amendment to a motion dividing and the government buying itself more time to, quite frankly and disappointingly, do what it should be doing—that is, debate the very important issues that matter to the Australian taxpayer.

So, quite frankly, if the government won't be disciplined with its time, we will join with the crossbenches to take control of the chamber and ensure we put back in place some form of procedural rules. Motion after motion after motion, hours and hours of delay—this government has seen fit to amend rather than progress, with motion after motion, with amendments delayed and shuffled around the Notice Paper as though, quite frankly, the Senate's time is just something we play with. The taxpayers don't send us here and say, 'Do what you like. Spend hours crossing over backwards and forwards doing, quite frankly, absolutely nothing but pandering to a government agenda that is nothing more and nothing less than delay, delay, delay because they don't want to provide the Australian taxpayer with transparency.'

It is not often I try to suspend standing orders but this is an important item and that is why we need to suspend standing orders. If the government will not debate the issues that matter to the Australian taxpayer, we will help them to do just that. We have a government not willing to stand at the dispatch box and argue for its program, not willing to stand here and answer questions on its legislation so the Australian people properly understand what the government is doing to them; instead, we see procedural motion after procedural motion after division after division. When people say, 'What did you do in the Senate today?' I have to say, 'We shuffled paper on behalf of the Australian taxpayer courtesy of the Labor government that, quite frankly, has no respect for the Australian taxpayer.' So, again, it is important today that the Senate unite, pass this motion to bring a little bit of decorum, a little bit of procedural fairness back to the chamber.

The motion is very simple. All it says is the government has to make amendments to the motion. We accept that. We will not stop the government from making the amendments but we will stop wasting the Senate's time, our time, the Liberal and National Party, the crossbench's time. There is little time in this place to put your case. To the people in the gallery, we are actually doing this on behalf of you, the taxpayer. I assume you don't want us to spend hours of the day just sitting on each side of the chamber because the government does not have the guts to come in here and actually answer questions on transparency.

The motion is simple. You will get to put your amendments, no issues at all; however, you will not divide on each one. What you are going to do is put one amendment. We are going to put them all together—so if you want your amendments to get up, they will—and we will then ensure we dispense properly of the business of the Senate. As I said, if the government are not prepared to be the adults in this chamber and actually properly respect the Australian taxpayer, the opposition will be.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will perhaps start where—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not often you come down to do this.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will perhaps start where the Leader of the Opposition—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Chair, please.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, please. Senator Wong has the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know they're your side, but it would be good to call them.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I have the call?

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that you respect the chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do respect the chair—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was seeking to restore order—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I'm asking you to exercise your authority.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I've just asked to restore order. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I will start where the Leader of the Opposition left off, which was: who are the adults in the room? We've seen how adult this opposition, this Greens party and this One Nation party are or are not. We have conflict in the Middle East.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please allow Senator Wong to be heard in silence. Senator Cash was heard in silence. Please allow Senator Wong to be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have conflict in the Middle East. We have 115,000 Australians in the Middle East. We have Iran attacking not one, not two, not three but 10 countries—10 countries.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators, I ask that Senator Wong be heard in silence. That courtesy was extended to Senator Cash.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are dealing with a consular crisis 24 hours a day, and I hope I can have some updates for the chamber—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators, I ask that you listen to Senator Wong in silence. If you want to continue a conversation, please leave the chamber to do so.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope we can have some updates on that later today for the chamber and for the public.

We have an opposition that has not asked a single question on the economy. That says something about their priorities. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is here arguing about some Senate procedure but is not interested in asking a question about the economy. We have the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who still hasn't asked a question. What I would say, through you, Chair—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is on direct relevance to the suspension motion in front of the Senate. As the Chair has previously ruled, you must speak to the motion before the chair, which is on the suspension—not on matters in the Middle East or why the government is or isn't focused on what it's doing, but on the suspension order motion that is in front of the chair.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I'm listening closely to Senator Wong. I believe she is referring to the relative priority afforded to government business, so, Senator Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, because that is precisely what I am pointing to. It is precisely the point I am making: this is all happening in the world and this is all happening in the Australian community, but you are focused on issues of Senate procedure. I would invite the opposition: if you want to be the adults in the room, maybe do some of the reflection that your election review, which was tabled—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash on a point of order.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it is on direct relevance. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—again, you're doing exactly what you say you don't like done in the Senate, which is to not address the question and give a speech. I would ask you to direct the Leader of the Opposition to actually answer and reflect on—

A government senator: Government.

Government—the question before the chair.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to seek some advice from the Clerk. The Leader of the Government, Senator Wong, is referring to the relative importance of business before the chamber, which is pertinent to the motion. Senator Wong may continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is precisely the point I am making—that those opposite, the opposition, are much more focused on their internals and matters of procedure, as is evinced both by the questions that they are engaging in and by this stunt. I accept that the crossbench is going to engage in these sorts of measures. I think the Senate—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Really? Seriously?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could finish, Senator Cash; I did listen to you with courtesy. I think that the crossbench—and I'm sure the manager will say something about this—is using OPDs in a way that, as a senator who has been here for over 20 years, I have not seen. I think that deserves a collaborative discussion. If people don't want to engage in that, it's a matter for them. I would say to the opposition that there was a time when parties of government who actually thought of themselves as parties of government behaved like adults. This opposition is not behaving like adults.

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation will be supporting this motion, because it is entirely appropriate to deal with what is going on. The Labor government is intentionally wasting the Senate's time. That is abundantly clear. There are very important things that we should be dealing with, and the government is wasting this chamber's time. You can say it's a procedural issue, but, at the heart of it, you are intentionally wasting time. This has to stop. It is so disrespectful to the taxpayer. It is so disrespectful to the Australian people to engage—it's childish. It is a childish way that you are behaving. You are dragging things out intentionally, and it needs to stop.

One Nation is prepared to assist anyone who wants to resolve this. This is a perfectly reasonable motion, and I am glad that Labor acknowledges that we need to speed things up. If you want to speed things up, then I would hope that would support this motion, too. It is so obvious what you are doing. You are intentionally dragging things out, and then, at the end of the week, you will come and say, 'We are out of time,' and then you will move a guillotine and seek to rush legislation through. You will shut down debate. You are wasting time now to give yourself an excuse in the future to shut down debate and ram through legislation. That is inappropriate.

We must resolve things now so you can no longer use the excuse of being out of time. You have the time now to fix this. Let's fix it, and let's get on with the business of the Senate that we should be dealing with.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to talk about orders for the production of documents and the way that they are being used in the chamber. I think it requires going back and having a look at what has happened, and I've spoken about that in the chamber before.

In the past, in the early years of the Senate, orders for production of documents were used sparingly, and for a period of time in the sixties, seventies and eighties they weren't used at all. In 2006, there was one that passed the Senate. It was seen as the most significant power available to the Senate to call for documents. As Senator Wong just said, that has changed. It's changed most dramatically in this parliamentary term, where, on Monday, we had 32 orders for production of documents in one day.

If we think back to how they were handled, and it was the way that the opposition used to handle it when they were in government—not when there were that many—the practice was to let orders of production through, which was the approach that we took for a period of time. Then we were criticised and misrepresented by the Senate saying, 'Everyone has agreed to this order for the production of documents, and they are not complying.' So we decided that, yes, we would put our vote on the record every single time we did not agree with an order for the production of documents and have that recorded as a division—as is our right. That was so it could be very clear that, while the rest of the Senate was deciding that documents that had already been published online should be produced for the Senate or documents that maybe covered 130,000 documents should be provided tomorrow, we didn't agree with that. That is why we're dividing and that is why we're amending. We have every single right to do so, just as all of you have a right to move amendments to anything in this place. We respect that right. But don't come in here and say that this is a problem of the government's making. It is not. It is the way formal business is being misused and abused by the Senate.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're just time wasting; don't guillotine your own legislation.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKenzie, your interjections are disorderly.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue to say that. I am a big supporter of transparency and open government. If you look at questions on notice and the materials that are being released, you will see—compared to your record, Senator Cash—this government outdoes you on every single measure. The standards that you applied in government are not the standards we apply. But we will not accept that 42 orders for the production of documents for Senator Bragg to find out whether Housing Australia has purchased any furniture is the correct use of that power. That is what is happening in here, and, if we oppose it, we—if you put on them on the Notice Paper and we oppose it, we have the right to divide on it. If we want to amend it, we have the right to amend it and have that amendment considered.

And, yes, it affects everyone in this chamber. But it is our right to divide, and, if you are going to load 20 OPDs and 30 OPDs, then, yes, it will take a considerable time in the afternoon to deal with that. We need to be on the record that we do not agree—and the history books will show—with the abuse of the power of the order for the production of documents.

I've been trying to reach agreement with people around the Senate about how to deal with OPDs, acknowledging that it's not working for anyone, and then this motion gets put without discussion or debate.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, I will interrupt you for a moment. Senator McKenzie, before I recognise your point of order, may I just make the observation that you have repeatedly interjected in this debate.

Government senators interjecting—

Senators on my right, too! You have a point of order, but, while you avail yourself of those rules, I would appreciate if you would listen when I call you to order when you are interjecting.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept I've been disorderly in my interjections. My point of order is on direct relevance. The minister has the opportunity, if this suspension motion gets up, to actually debate whether the Labor Party has been wasting the Senate's time or not. I would ask you to draw her to the question about suspension.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have understood your point of order. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant to this debate, however much you may not agree with her. I've ruled on that point of order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is around whether we should suspend to consider a motion around the order for the production of documents.

In conclusion, if we look at the 46th Parliament, over 139 sitting days there were 198 orders moved, which was much higher than previous parliaments. In the 47th Parliament, there were 435 orders of production moved, and in 32 sitting days in this parliament—and probably if we include today's and this week's—there have been more than 200. You cannot say that this part of the program and orders for the production of documents are being used appropriately. They are not. They are being used as formal motions, and it's not appropriate. We will continue to oppose and continue to divide.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you listened to what the government just had to say, there's this claim that we're preventing the government from voting on questions of orders for the production of documents. If the government had read the motion, they would see it does precisely the opposite. We are voting on government amendments; we're just doing it as a job lot.

I'll remind senators that yesterday, the day before and the last sitting week we had verbatim repeated motions to amend orders for the production of documents. There was one after another after another—almost identical, in fact. To that end, we thought we might assist the government, allowing them to have more time to actually get on with government business and do the things that the leader herself came down to talk about—to deal with matters of foreign affairs and their belated response to assist Australians caught in the Middle East. It was interesting that the leader came down here to speak to this motion rather than dealing with those urgent matters, but there is no prevention of the government's right to vote against an order for the production of documents being exercised here. For those in the gallery and listening at home, an order for production of documents is just transparency. It is us wanting to see a document belonging to government and relating to you—relating to how we spend your money. They're voting no to those things. They don't want you to know. That's what an order for the production of documents is, ladies and gentlemen. I just want to make that clear when it comes to what the government has been saying.

Over the last four sitting days, would you believe we've had limited time to do very important things, like deal with national security and foreign affairs. We have spent six hours and 31 minutes dealing with formal business. We're getting our steps up from one side of the chamber to the other, so there are good fitness benefits there! But we've had six hours and 31 minutes voting on questions before this parliament, half of which could be dispensed with, which is the point of this motion. These amendments to delete all words after 'that' and replace them with whatever the government want to put in, which is exactly the same every time, could be done away with if senators support the motion that Senator Cash wants to debate today. We want to be able to deal with the issues this government says are important, as voiced by the leader just before. We don't want to stand in the way of that, and it is not just us who have been seeking to divide on every single amendment this government puts forward. They're the ones who are doing this. They are the ones who are stringing out formal business. That could end if this suspension is supported and this motion is passed.

As stated, when it comes to transparency, remember that this is a government that said: 'We are going to be more transparent than that last evil government. The coalition government would hide everything and make sure the public saw nothing. No OPD was ever responded to under them.' Look at what's happening here. When you do get a document, it is just black ink because everything has been redacted. It's not light reading; there is no reading, because this government don't want you to see what they're doing on your behalf. This is why they have been tying themselves in knots for the last few sitting days. It's particularly about the crossbench, as the Manager of Government Business alluded to, who have limited resources and need to be across everything. They need access to this information, hence the number of orders for production of documents and request for transparency. A bit of disinfectant and natural light is being applied to the business of government in these motions. That's what we support here.

If there is room for reform, let's get on and talk about it. Let's talk about how we can refine how this process works. But, with every day that goes past, after six hours and 31 minutes of bells ringing and senators crossing back and forward, I can tell you now: if there was a productivity measure for how we spend our time during formal business, the taxpayers of Australia have gained nothing from it. The government have voted no every single time, and they are on their own. They have united the entire Senate against the government when it comes to matters of transparency. Everyone from One Nation to the Australian Greens has been voting against the government's approach here. That's got to tell you something. Something is very wrong with the process this government is adopting when it comes to provision of information and how they're managing this chamber. Sadly, it does paint a picture of loss of control.

We've had six hours and 31 minutes of lost, wasted time. That is not good for Australia, it's not good for democracy, and it's not good for transparency. So, to that end, how can a government continue operating this way? There is no solution in sight. We've put forward a solution. It makes sense. It will cut down the amount of time we're wasting on this by half so we can get on and do the job Australians want us to do.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion to ensure that the Senate can free up some time to debate and deal with important business. It's my sense that the increase in OPDs actually reflects the nosedive in transparency that we've seen from this government. It reflects the frustration of crossbenchers and others. On some of the comparisons with the Morrison government—if we compare the last term of the Morrison government in parliament with the first term of the Albanese government, and we look at compliance rates with OPDs, in the 46th Parliament, it was—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn’t call that apples with apples, would you, Senator Pocock?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister! Senators, come to order. Senator Pocock has the call. He is entitled to be heard.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to take the interjection about comparing apples with apples, because I am in fact comparing the compliance rate with OPDs with the compliance rate with OPDs, which seems to be a fairly similar comparison. Under the Morrison government, it was 48.7 per cent. Under the Albanese government, it is 32.8 per cent.

One of the frustrations for those on the crossbench is that, even when we do successfully move an OPD, we're often getting back this—blacked-out pages.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, you are not permitted under the standing orders, as you know, to bring a prop into the chamber.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a tabled document.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, but you cannot use it as a prop. Senator Pocock, you are entitled to rely on the document and describe it, but please don't hold it up for the purposes of a visual.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair, for the correction. I was just holding up a document we received back in response to an OPD, and, curiously, there were a bunch of redactions to the talking points for a public event that the minister was giving, which just seems extraordinary by any measure

There is so much urgent stuff that this parliament should be dealing with. There are Australians struggling out there under housing pressures and cost-of-living pressures. Yes, we've seen this ridiculous approach to essentially double the votes that this chamber takes. I don't know if you're looking for a record number of defeats in a week or what it might be. I welcome this. I think that we should move forward. Yes, there's potentially a debate about the scope of some OPDs, but I think they are an incredibly valuable thing and an important part of the Senate.

You have to ask the larger question, in the context of a government that at the same time brings forward an FOI bill to reduce transparency—an FOI bill that actually goes against a recommendation of the robodebt royal commission and actually reduces transparency. That doesn't cut it. You can't just keep pointing to the Morrison government and saying, 'Well, at least we're a little bit better than them.' Australians want better, and rightly. They deserve better. So I urge you to do better on this. We have a Senate that wants more transparency.

In fact, we read in the media—and I've spoken to some of these companies—that we have local AI companies who have solutions that are ready to go and that will cut down your processing time. They can actually help you with your OPDs. It seems to me that the problem we're facing is not actually the time it takes to gather the documents but the time it takes to go through and redact the talking points for a public event. That must take a lot of time. That must take a huge amount of time and a lot of ink.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get a private company to trawl through the government record?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what's Microsoft? I'll take that interjection. I'll take the interjection, quickly, from Senator McAllister. She is very happy for Microsoft, a multinational with some serious data concerns with the Trump administration, to have all of our data and all of our emails, but, when it comes to a sovereign tech AI company based here in Australia, with safeguards, that can do it offline, there are questions raised. That doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it on transparency, and it doesn't cut it when it comes to how we treat small Australian businesses.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I see you on your feet, but unfortunately the time for this debate has just expired.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind advisors, particularly at the back of the room, that, once a division is called, you are not to move.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of government amendments to formal business may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(a) immediately after the deferred vote on general business notice of motion no. 359, the questions on government amendments to general business notices of motion moved on 3 March be put immediately together;

(b) if a division is called for on government amendments to formal motions moved today then the division will be deferred until the end of formal motions and the questions on the amendments be put together; and

(c) the main question on formal motions moved today then be put separately.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion is moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.