Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:12): I'd like to speak to the matter before the chair, which is the suspension of standing orders in relation to a denial by the Greens of Senator Hanson's request to table a document. The opposition will support Senator Hanson tabling that document. She has gone through the appropriate processes by providing the document to this place to enable the chamber to make a determination about the validity of the document, so we will be supporting Senator Hanson in her quest to table this document. I would add that this in no way is a reflection of the views of the coalition on what is contained in that document, on the substance of that document. This is merely a procedural support because we believe that the conventions of this place are extremely important, and the convention to allow a senator to be able to table a document that's been through the appropriate processes is something that we will support. But I would draw to the attention of the chamber that, once again, this in no way reflects the coalition's view on the substantive matter that is contained in the document that Senator Hanson is seeking to table. I would also draw to the attention of the chamber that this was a simple procedural matter that could have gone through this morning—and it could have gone through yesterday—quite simply by allowing Senator Hanson to table the document and allowing the appropriate processes to take place after that. Instead of that being the case, the Greens have sought on both occasions to deny leave to Senator Hanson, and in doing so they have stimulated a significant debate on the substantive issue that's contained in Senator Hanson's document. I would suggest that the Greens perhaps rethink this. If they really don't want this matter to be the subject of continued debate and really don't want this matter to be something that continues to consume the time of this chamber—when we know that we've got very important legislation that needs to be dealt with over the coming hours and remaining few days that this parliament is sitting—then perhaps they should respect the procedures of this chamber and respect the right of senators to be able to use those procedures. There is a very significant difference between a procedural— Senator Thorpe interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, it is not adding to the debate. You will have an opportunity to speak, and you can speak. I'd like to hear Senator Ruston in silence. Senator RUSTON: In my closing remarks, I draw attention to this particular issue—that there is a very big difference between a procedural motion and a substantial motion. We are today seeking only to deal with a procedural motion, and all the Greens have done, by their actions, is conflate the substantive issue with a procedural motion. We should focus on the procedural motion, which the opposition will be supporting, and then deal with the substantive motion at the appropriate time. This is nothing more than plain grandstanding by the Greens and others in the chamber. Let's respect the conventions of this chamber. All the Greens are doing at the moment is drawing light on the fact they're an activist party that has got no respect for the conventions of this chamber. The opposition does, and I'm sure the government does too. We should respect those conventions and deal with the procedural matter before us.