The PRESIDENT (12:20): I'm going to allow the two managers to make a contribution to explain what they're chatting to me about up here. Senator Duniam: Just for clarification, Mr President, the short statements made by the government, or the opposition, generally are to outline our position on something. If crossbenchers want to make a short statement to outline their position then leave is typically granted. But when leave has been granted in the past it has become a debate about the substance of the motion, which is not what this is about. This is formal business. Senator Gallagher: I agree with Senator Duniam. This section of the program is for business motions that are not to be debated, but one-minute statements have been agreed to to allow an indication of voting intention, particularly in the case when you will not call a division. That is the reason for the one-minute statements. We have been giving leave for one-minute statements where the statement is used to debate the substance of the motion or where the mover of the motion is explaining why they've moved the motion, when that's covered off in the actual moving of the motion. If everyone has one minute to explain something about a particular motion, you don't get through the program. Historically, these motions have been placed here because they are noncontroversial and they don't require debate. If we need to have further discussion, let us have further discussion. This part of the program is becoming unworkable. Senator Siewert: This again is a remodification, without any consultation, of the approach that has been taken. Senator Faruqi was seeking leave to make a short statement to explain our position on this, and leave was then about to be granted to Senator Hanson—because Senator Duniam asked if she was going to oppose it. They'll also express their position by the way that they vote, so there is a clear partisan approach being taken to this. Rules are being made up on the run. That's what's happening here: rules are being made up on the run. Make it consistent. That means we'll be denying leave whenever the government wants to make a short statement and also be calling for a division. The PRESIDENT: I'll make an observation now. My opinion is well-known on the conduct of this section and its impact on the dignity of the chamber. There are no rules about granting leave. Any senator has the discretion to deny leave. It has nothing to do with the rules of the Senate. If informal understandings are reached outside of here, through cross-whips meetings and other meetings, they are for individual senators to follow or not follow. On this point I make the observation that I think the difference has arisen through a lack of understanding about what one-minute statements are for. Some people are of the view that they are for explaining a position and other people are of the view that they are effectively for a bit more aggressive debating of a position—it being a constrained debate as opposed to an explanation. I appreciate that that is subtle. My impression from this position is that there needs to be a discussion at the cross-whips meeting about the nature of the one-minute statements, and that will avoid the misunderstandings that we are having now and the impression of some that the rules are being applied unfairly. That is my observation. If one looks at the nature of the contributions, some get into explaining a position and some then get into criticising other parties for their position. I do think that is a subtle difference that the whips can sort out at other meetings, and then we'll avoid this happening again and again. I'm going to call Senator Faruqi, who did request leave to make a short statement, and I'm going to ask again whether leave is granted for her to make a short statement. Then I will come to Senator Hanson. Is leave granted for Senator Faruqi to make a short statement? Leave is granted for one minute.