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

As a matter of fact, my point of order relates to the validity of this debate. The reason before I took the point of order I wanted to clarify the rationale for your ruling is that if standing orders were to be suspended, if this motion were to be put and carried, then there would be no capacity on the substantive motion to invoke the standing order under section 86. If that be the case then in circumstances such as these section 86 could never be invoked, so it becomes circular. For that reason, I am taking a different point of order now not in relation to the substantive motion but in relation to the procedural motion. Because, just as the substantive motion is substantially to the effect of the motion that was defeated last Tuesday prior to that motion coming on to be voted on, there was a procedural motion to suspend standing orders. My submission to you, Mr President, is that the motion which is now before the chair is identical to the motion that was decided on last week. Therefore, it is in fact at this stage of the debate that standing order 86 can be invoked. If standing order 86 cannot be invoked at this stage in the debate then it cannot be invoked at all because if this motion is put and carried then section 86 will be suspended. Obviously, that cannot be the intention of the standing orders because, were that so, section 86 could never be made effective or operative because by the device of moving a procedural motion a senator could always render it inapplicable. That is why I submit to you, sir, that it is on the procedural motion, in fact, that you ought to entertain a point of order that this debate itself is a violation of section 86, because the same question on substantially the same motion was put and determined last week.