Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:25): As I indicated when Senator Hanson posed her question, I had not had forewarning in relation to the particular question and so did not have information to hand at the time. In that regard, could I at least invite consideration of any past rulings in relation to the convention of notification and its intersection, within standing order 74(5), of the definition of what is an appropriate explanation, which triggers opportunities under 74(5)(b) versus 74(5)(c), where, if no explanation is provided, a motion such as that moved by Senator Hanson can be undertaken. I believe that I did provide an explanation, albeit that, due to the absence of forewarning, I was unable to give detail to that explanation at the time. It may be useful in future to have clarity in relation to that and whether there have been any previous rulings on those matters. Nonetheless, I can table for the Senate the answer from the Treasurer to the Senate question, PQ20000128, in relation to the 12 recommendations made in the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax. In tabling that, it would render the motion moved by Senator Hanson unnecessary. However, the government won't oppose it if it's simpler for the Senate to still proceed with the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that the motion moved by Senator Hanson is consistent with previous practice, although I note your comments about not being given notice of the impending notice, which is a customary thing that we do. So that's in the Hansard. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson for the production of documents by 4pm on 15 March be agreed to. Question agreed to.