Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (14:22): I'm going through the process. So we get the consultation in January around the draft clauses. It develops nine principles that go to a raft of issues around how the parties treat each other, requiring an annual set date and the processors to publicly release standard-form agreements and prohibiting prospective step-downs unless in specific circumstances, such as force majeure— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Watt, on a point of order? Senator Watt: The minister refused to answer this four times this morning on radio. Will she now refuse to answer it for the fifth time? The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, I'm going to ask you to at least attempt to make a point of direct relevance rather than pursue a follow-up question. Senator Watt: The minister has repeatedly not answered this question in the media. We'd like an answer here. The PRESIDENT: The question went to the changes. Senator Abetz interjecting— Senator Watt: If you were listening to her, you'd know it wasn't relevant. The PRESIDENT: Order! The question from Senator Ayres went specifically to the changes in the code and which stakeholders requested them. Senator Wong? Senator Wong: Just to clarify: it was not all changes in the code. There was a very specific wording change, which was referenced in the primary. That was the issue that the minister was pressed on this morning on AM. The PRESIDENT: I was coming to that. The question specifically went to that specified change in the code and which stakeholder asked the minister to change it. I'm going to decree that, if the minister is speaking about that specific change in the code, I do consider that to be directly relevant. I'm listening very carefully. The minister has 36 seconds remaining to answer that specific point. Senator McKENZIE: Thank you for the opportunity. As I was saying, the principle that was consulted on—which goes directly to your question, Senator—was to prohibit prospective step-downs unless in specific circumstances such as force majeure, exceptional market circumstances or major changes in global market circumstances. Those principles were sent off to the office of the drafters, and what came back was that we must not vary the agreement unilaterally for any reason other than— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: This again goes to process. She was asked which stakeholders requested the change. Senator Henderson: 'She'—it's 'the minister'. Senator Wong: I'll take the interjection. Is the minister the stakeholder who requested the change? The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, as I said, I think, in my view, as long as the minister is talking about— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I will rule when there's silence. As long as the minister is addressing the specific change in the question, about that part of the code, I think the minister is being directly relevant. I can't direct her how to answer a question, but she must be specific to that specific change and the very specific nature of that question. I believe, at the point that point of order was raised, the minister was talking about that specific change. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE: There were no stakeholders that requested a change. The principles, as I've said— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?