Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (12:40): Thank you, Mr Deputy President— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Cameron—just a moment. Senator Macdonald, on a point of order? Senator Ian Macdonald: What prevents me from moving the motion? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Standing order 199. Senator Ian Macdonald: Which says? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now you are really testing me, but my advice is that it is standing order 199. Standing order 199 effectively says: a senator cannot move the closure of the debate if they have spoken in the debate, unless they are a minister. Senator Ian Macdonald: A point of order, Mr Deputy President: that is the motion I moved. I had some preamble to moving the motion, but— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Senator Ian Macdonald: I did not hear anything about a minister in the ruling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, Senator Macdonald: you sought the call on the question that was already before the chair— Senator Ian Macdonald: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You did not move another motion until after you had spoken to the question that was already before the chair. So standing order 199 prevents you from moving closure at this time. Senator Ian Macdonald: So you are saying, Mr Deputy President, that if I had stood up and said nothing else but 'I move the motion be put' that would have been in order, but because I prefaced the motion— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You spoke to the motion— Senator Ian Macdonald: with some remarks— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no—you did not preface the motion; you spoke to the motion that was already before the chair. I am not going to debate this with you— Senator Ian Macdonald: I am not asking you to debate it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: across the chamber. I have ruled that you cannot move it. Senator Ian Macdonald: Can I indicate that I disagree with your ruling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can disagree with my ruling; if you want to dissent from my ruling, that is another matter. Senator Cameron. Senator CAMERON: I rise to oppose this notice of motion. Senator Fifield talks about the proposition being 'eminently sensible'. I just find the words 'eminently sensible' and 'the Liberal Party' not to be compatible at all. This is a government that almost for nine months did absolutely nothing. They got into office, and they had all the three-word slogans, and it took them nine months to try and convert those three-word slogans into a parliamentary proposal that would deal with a legislative process of this place. And we warned the coalition. We warned them, when they were putting together the time frame for parliamentary sittings for this session, that they had got it wrong—that there probably would not be enough time. But we were ignored. And this so-called eminently sensible government, that has demonstrated nothing but chaos in this place from the first sitting to this sitting, cannot stand up here and lecture us about any of these issues about trying to get legislation through this place. As Senator Moore has said, we are prepared to accept any responsible suggestions. But we need to deal with those responsible suggestions on the basis that there is some urgency to the issues before us. No argument has been put up about the urgency. No argument has been put up about why this is eminently sensible, other than assertions. Assertions do not make good arguments. Simply asserting urgency and simply asserting that it is eminently sensible is not good enough, Senator Fifield. It is not good enough when you have nine months of inactivity behind you. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would remind senators to direct their remarks to the chair. Senator Cameron: I apologise. Debate interrupted.