Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:11): I will support the suspension of standing orders, for a number of reasons. Last Wednesday in Melbourne the Senate Economics References Committee— Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Is it not your normal practice and the practice of the Senate to alternate between both sides of the house? Senator Xenophon is clearly on that side. So far we have had four views supporting the motion and so far only two against. I would have thought the call would have come to me or Senator Bernardi, who both indicated that we want to speak on this motion. The PRESIDENT: I do not believe that there is a point of order but I will consider the matter and take further advice later. It is not for me to anticipate a senator's position on any particular motion. Equally, I do go from side to side in the chamber. Seniority plays a part from time to time, as senators would know. Senator Ian Macdonald: You can't get much more senior than me! The PRESIDENT: That is in relation to holders of office within the chamber. Senator Macdonald, you have raised a point that I will reflect upon but at this stage I am comfortable with my decision. Senator XENOPHON: Out of my great respect for Senator Macdonald, I will keep my remarks particularly short. I will support the suspension of standing orders. There is some urgency in respect of this. The evidence heard by the Senate Economics References Committee in Melbourne on Wednesday 12 November, just last week, was particularly harrowing. There has been massive failure, with thousands of Australians facing losing their homes as a result of very bad financial advice. The concern expressed by groups such as Choice, National Seniors Australia and the Council on the Ageing is that the government's regulations weaken consumer protections. I spoke to Michael O'Neill and Ian Yates from National Seniors Australia and the Council on the Ageing respectively just a few moments ago. Their concern is not a political one; it is a concern based on the fact that their constituents, the people that they represent—particularly senior citizens and pensioners—will be in a much weaker position. I think we ought to have a substantive debate on this. I urge my backbench colleagues from the coalition to take this into account—do you really want to be part of another financial scandal if we do not deal with this in a very comprehensive and common sense way? My fear is that the government has gone too far with these regulations. The balance, the pendulum, has swung too far to industry to the detriment of consumers. There is a real urgency in this and we need to deal with it in a common-sense, practical way. That will give an opportunity for those who support the disallowance of this motion to sit down with the government in good faith and come up with a compromise to deal with the very genuine concerns by Choice, by National Seniors Australia, by the Council on the Ageing and by a whole range of other consumer groups who I do not see as primarily political but have genuine concerns for the people that they represent.