George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 90(3):

An amendment must be relevant to the question to which it is proposed to be made.

I am aware, of course, that when it comes to debate on the MPI a great deal of latitude is given to recharacterise the question before the chair by way of amendment. However, I submit to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that an amendment in the form which this has proposed goes a very long way beyond the latitude that is customarily given. The proposition it advances is that the Senate form the opinion—the amendment has just been handed to me—that a particular subject matter would have been a more appropriate matter for debate in opposition senators' private time. I do not recall ever having seen an amendment of this character. It is not an amendment which addresses the substantive issue which it seeks to raise—that is, the economy and criticism of the opposition's alternative policy proposals—but rather something entirely different. It is as it were by way of commentary upon the appropriate­ness of Senator Cash moving the motion she has moved.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite you to rule that this amendment falls beyond the terms of standing order 90(3) because it is utterly irrelevant to Senator Cash's motion. The expression of an opinion that Senator Cash would have been better off moving a different motion is utterly irrelevant to the issue which Senator Cash has placed before the Senate. Indeed, in substance—to take the point further—it is not really an amendment to the motion at all. It is grammatically in the form of an amendment, but in substance it is not even an amendment. It is a comment on whether or not Senator Cash should have moved the motion. In that sense as well it is beyond standing order 90.