Senator MOORE (Queensland) (09:46): Pursuant to contingent notice of motion and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to alter the hours of meeting and routine of business today and to provide for the consideration of a disallowance motion. We do not come easily to this place asking for rearrangement of business. We do it when it is important and we believe it is urgent. We believe that it is the will of the Senate to have this discussion today about the incredibly—and I use that word absolutely—important issues around the FOFA regulations. We know these regulations and this issue have been before the Senate on— Senator Fifield: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe a copy of the motion that Senator Moore will seek to move if suspension of standing orders is granted has been circulated. The PRESIDENT: It is not required at this point in time, simply— Senator Fifield: I thought it might be good practice and it might be of assistance to the chamber. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator. Strictly, though, it is not a point of order. It is more a point of clarification. Senator Moore is entitled to introduce this without having that circulated. I understand from the opposition that it now will be circulated. Senator MOORE: We are always seeking to have good practice and that motion will be circulated as we speak in the chamber, though it is not required. We would have it circulated when the particular motion is before the chamber. That is being done and I am assured it is going around now for clarification. In terms of the reason for the urgency of the suspension, as I said, we know that these regulations and, more importantly, this issue has been before this chamber on a number of occasions. Many senators have had visitations and representations from people who care very deeply about this situation. We know the background and we know the irregularities of the process have led to ordinary people in our community being damaged seriously by issues around financial management. There was a possibility that legislation could have come before the Senate for consideration. It has not been brought forward by the government. The regulations have been here. This is another ongoing issue about the relationship between primary legislation and regulation—the importance of having those working together in front of the community and in front of this place. However, we believe that we have genuine concern in this chamber. We believe members of the Senate wish to have the debate around these regulations today. We have information that is very important to be discussed around the regulations. It is important that we have this opportunity. Many senators will want to be engaged in the process. I will not be taking up important time which I believe should be focused on the core issue—the regulations themselves—in extended procedural debate. The chamber knows our position and the government knows our position. We believe it is important that these regulations are clearly and transparently debated in the Senate today. We have the information to do that. We desperately have the need. It is our proposition that the motion to suspend standing orders continues and then, should that be successful, we move effectively into the substantive debate.