Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:38): I just note that Dr Gillespie's seat is actually further north from the Central Coast, on the Mid North Coast, where the fires are raging. One of the minister's Nationals colleagues said it was a 'waste of time' contacting the minister because she 'never gets back to you'. Another said she 'couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery'. Is the minister confident she retains the support of the Nationals party room? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm glad my request lasted one question. I think that word has been used. I will check that again for you, Senator Bernardi. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Can we settle down on my left please. I'll come to you next, Senator Patrick. Senator Rennick was on his feet first. Senator Rennick: I asked if I could use that word in my maiden speech, and you said I couldn't. You're going to have to make her retract that! The PRESIDENT: I won't go into my— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Can I answer the question first? Senator Watt: Mr President, on the point of order, I just wonder if it is possible to give an extension of time on a point of order. The PRESIDENT: I am not going into my private conversations with colleagues other than to say, given you've raised it, Senator Rennick, that I think I recommended against its use. The context of first speeches is also that they avoid contentious elements given the courtesy extended by all senators in the chamber, and I did go through that with an explanation. I am going to check that word. I'm certain it's been used before. If not, I'll come back and ask the senator to withdraw. I ask senators to show some discretion in the use of their language and maybe allude to the terms that some in the public might find offensive or inappropriate for the decorum of the parliamentary chamber. Senator Patrick? Senator Patrick: I'll just point out that that word was used by Senator Hanson-Young either yesterday or the day before in the chamber and she was asked to withdraw and she did. The PRESIDENT: I wasn't in the chamber at the time. I will check. Senator O'Neill? Senator O'Neill: Can I make, again, the distinction between the use of the word as an expression of my own and the use of reported speech of a member of the minister's own party. There's quite a difference. The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, please resume your seat. There is a ruling by Senator Parry on the use of very contentious language with respect to quoting, I believe, a court case transcript of a highly contentious issue at the time. Senator Parry ruled that, when it came to that particular language, quotation of something does not make something parliamentary. I will check whether that word is parliamentary— Senator O'Neill: It was worse. The PRESIDENT: It was worse, and that is why I used the term 'egregious language', Senator O'Neill. I will check the use of this term. But this problem won't arise if senators don't use it and maybe use other words to allude to it rather than use words that set the chamber off. Some self-restraint is not a bad idea in the chamber. Senator Pratt, on the point of order? Senator Pratt: I have a point of clarification on the point of order, as I must have missed something in the debate. I haven't heard what word it is that you are referring to, Mr President. Are you able to put it on the record for us? The PRESIDENT: I'm not going to put it on the record. People can go back and look at the video, if they wish. Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson: On a point of clarification, Mr President, having been through this myself in previous years, isn't the context of the word important in terms of your deliberation rather than the use of the word? The PRESIDENT: Senator Parry's ruling, to paraphrase it, was that quotation of unparliamentary language does not make it parliamentary. That was about a particularly offensive term, if I recall correctly. Context does matter. I don't think this word has been ruled unparliamentary before. I will check that. If it has, I'll come back to the chamber. As I've said, my view is that, if a word has been used and other presidents have allowed it, so will I. If the chamber wants to express its view that it's unparliamentary, I'll enforce it. But I'm not going to make a unilateral ruling on a word that has been used. Can I repeat my plea: this problem doesn't arise if senators don't use the language. An allusion can be made to language without necessarily quoting it and then we won't have this distraction. I'll come to Senator McKenzie on the answer to the final supplementary question.