Madam Chair, on the same point of order, really, I just want to say that I think this is a bit of a delicate moment. I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's point that it may be that a decision wasn't made to have a vote at 12:55, but there was clearly a call to test the committee and I don't think the committee was tested on that. The fact that it wasn't previously doesn't mean that it couldn't be now, and I think it would be an important act of good faith on the part of government members of the committee who have said that they want to try to conduce towards a solution to allow that vote to happen and the meeting to adjourn.
Mr. Turnbull stated earlier that time is precious. There isn't a lot of free time for members of Parliament at any time, particularly not now. We're all very busy. Spending the next couple of hours in this meeting is a couple of hours that we can't spend doing those other things in the next 48 hours where we also are trying to work in an exceptional meeting among the opposition parties in order to have a productive conversation that leads to a formal proposal for the government. I think that's the kind of lack of time and good faith that might poison the well and cause this otherwise good and opportune moment to pass us by without having produced a solution.
Therefore, I would beseech my colleagues on the government side of the committee here to allow the vote on the amendment to take place and the meeting to suspend afterward so that we have, on the other side, the time to do what they've asked us to do, which is to discuss among ourselves. We're not a monolithic group. As I say, it's three different political parties that require some time to have that conversation. The idea that it was going to come in writing during this meeting was certainly optimistic, but also equally unrealistic. We're asking to be able to have the vote, suspend the meeting, take the time and come back with a proposal.
Of course, if the government doesn't like our proposal, there will be time for Mr. Turnbull to move another amendment. This one is clearly dead in the water, so if he wants to take another run at it, that will be his business. In the meantime, the opposition parties will work together to try to come up with what we think is a next best offer.
I would just really exhort my colleagues to not waste what I think is a good moment, and to allow things to wrap up on the current amendment, which is one proposal and a negotiation that I think has clearly not gone the way the mover intended—and fair enough, that happens in a negotiation—and to make way for a new proposal that might succeed or might not, but at least we'd be talking about something new. That in itself would be significant in a process now that has taken a very long time with very little movement.