Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:42): I seek leave to make a very short statement. The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Senator WATERS: It's more an explanation, if I may. I will be very brief. The PRESIDENT: This is— Senator WATERS: Are you going to give me leave or not? You can say no. The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted. This is not an opportunity for debate. This happens a lot. It is not up to me to grant or not grant leave. What I'm going to do now is put the substantive motion without (b)(iii), because the motion can stand on its own without (b)(iii), and then we'll vote on whether to incorporate (b)(iii) as part of the final resolution. Senator Gallagher: I just seek your advice: we do allow split motions— The PRESIDENT: If people are voting differently. Senator Gallagher: But is there precedent for splitting subparagraphs of motions? I'm happy for you to consider it and deal with this today. It's just that we could end up in the situation of having a lot of division of motions if we go down that path. The PRESIDENT: I have always been advised—and I'm happy to be corrected by the Clerk now or later—that, as long as it makes sense and we don't have an incoherent motion where there are words missing or calls missing, we can put parts of a motion separately. The way I read this, Senator Patrick has asked to consider (b)(iii) separately, which may be a substantive issue, but the motion would still make sense without (b)(iii) in it. It just means that (b)(iv), b(v) and (b)(vi) would become (b)(iii), (b)(iv) and (b)(v). If I'm incorrect about that advice to the chamber, I will come back. The Clerk is happily nodding to me. Senator Waters: May I assist the chamber with not a debating point but a simple explanation? The PRESIDENT: Sure. Senator Waters: This motion has been put many a time for the last 12-odd months. I'll just flag for Senator Patrick's information: previously this motion has not needed to be voted upon and everyone has supported the very paragraph that you are seeking to take out, including Centre Alliance— The PRESIDENT: With all due respect— Senator Waters: Well, it's a very big deal to vote on a domestic violence— The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, please! This is not an opportunity for debate. In the past this motion has been voted on. There has not been a division, but it is not correct to assert the motion has not been voted on and a senator is asking for it to be voted on for the first time. That is incorrect. They get decided on the voices; they just don't go to a division. They have the same force of the Senate. This may or may not go to a division, but I think it is an unfair reflection on any senator who asks for a motion to be split to be making an assertion about what they may express. This is formal business where we don't debate. There are other opportunities for debate. I will respect the will of the Senate, which is that a senator is allowed to vote on a clause separately. My ruling here—and I will advise the chamber if I am wrong—is that (b)(iii) can be excised and voted on separately, because it does not affect the sense of the motion, even if it is a substantive issue. First, I will put the motion, absent clause (b)(iii). The effect of that would be that (b)(iv), (v) and (vi) become (b)(iii), (iv) and (v) if (b)(iii) is not supported. The question is that the motion, with (b)(iii) excised, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT: Now the question is to include (b)(iii) in the resolution. Question agreed to.