Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:56): Yes, you need a PhD to read it as well! Thank you, Senator Chisholm, for your question. I submitted a 6,000-word statement to the Senate inquiry into these matters. Indeed, I appeared, in the once-in-120-year event of the Senate calling one of its own members to appear at a committee to provide answers to your questions, which I did happily because I respect the work of the Senate and the integral role it plays in our democracy. The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKenzie. I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: I have risen after 32 seconds, and if the minister proceeds to answer the question then obviously my point of order will be withdrawn. I didn't want her to sit down before I made this point of order. I am going to ask you, if the minister uses that excuse to avoid any answer in question time, to take advice from the Clerk and to come back. It is not in order, nor is it consistent with the standing orders, for a minister simply to say, 'I wrote a big statement,' and thereby avoid any further questions. The PRESIDENT: I will take further advice on this. I am always happy to do so and to come back to senators individually or collectively. The question is in order because it refers the minister to a previous statement. That is within the standing order. However, a minister, in my view, can refer to a previous statement in answering that without necessarily detailing what is in that statement. If I have any change to that advice, I will report it to the senators involved individually, or to the chamber if it is of grave interest. Senator McKENZIE: Thank you very much, Mr President. I have never avoided answering those questions in those public forums ad nauseam, so I actually have nothing further to add to my public commentary, including answering that specific question during the Senate inquiry that Senator Chisholm chaired—he had over an hour to ask me any question he liked on that day—in addition to the 6,000-word public statement. So I am very comfortable with the management of that program. I am very comfortable with the exercise of ministerial discretion that saw more projects delivered to Labor seats than if I had not exercised my ministerial discretion. More clubs right around the country were able to avail themselves of a highly popular program that was oversubscribed by a factor of 13. Those programs were helping local clubs to increase physical activity right around the country in a whole raft of sports. I have publicly dealt with this through a whole raft of mechanisms that this chamber avails itself of to provide accountability and transparency to the public on the spending of public moneys. I stand by those public comments, and I have nothing further to add. The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?