Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (14:27): Senator Collins, I addressed this issue yesterday, as a matter of fact. And as I said to you yesterday—or perhaps it was to Senator Wong—the evidence that Mr Moraitis gave to the Senate estimates committee last Tuesday and the evidence that I gave to the Senate estimates committee last Tuesday was entirely accurate and I have nothing to add to it. I know you find it very difficult— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock! Senator Wong—a point of order? Senator Wong: Yes, Mr President. My point of order is relevance. The question was not in relation to the Senate estimates point; the question was in relation to whether or not the role about which evidence was given was discussed with the PM, his chief of staff or any member of his office before was put on the table. That is the only question the minister was asked. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. I will remind the Attorney-General of the question, although there was a reference at the beginning of the question to matters that were made in the public arena at estimates. But I remind the attorney of the question. Senator BRANDIS: Thank you, Mr President. I know the Labor Party have tried to create a false impression about what Mr Moraitis, according to his evidence and at my request, suggested to Professor Triggs. It is no secret that I have lost confidence in Professor Triggs, and in the debate yesterday I explained why. But it is also the case that, as I said to the Senate estimates committee last Tuesday— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock! Senator Carr—a point of order? Senator Kim Carr: Yes, Mr President. It is a question of relevance. The question was, 'Was the specific role discussed with the Prime Minister, his chief of staff or any member of his office before it was put on the table?' I would ask that you ask the minister to respond directly to the question. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Carr. I do remind the Attorney-General of the question. Senator BRANDIS: This is what I said: it was not my wish that Professor Triggs be reputationally damaged. And so, as a matter of goodwill towards her and in earnest of my good intentions towards her, I did say to Mr Moraitis that I hoped Professor Triggs could be encouraged or would be willing to serve the government in other capacities. Now, I know you have difficulty grasping the notion that, because a person may be bad— Senator Kim Carr: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I draw the minister's attention through you to the specific question. We know what he said at the estimates. We know that his secretary acted on his behalf. The question went to whether or not the minister discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, his chief of staff or any member of his office before that matter was put on the table. The PRESIDENT: The minister has plenty of time left in his response to the question. I call the Attorney-General. Senator BRANDIS: I am coming to the question, but I just make the point that just because a person may not do a satisfactory job in one role does not mean that they would not be very good at a different job. Take the case of Senator Wong, for instance, who, as the world knows, was a very bad finance minister but a very good backstabber! A backstabber as Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and former senator Nick Bolkus, indeed, will tell you— Senator Conroy: Mr President, I rise on a point of order of relevance. Senator Brandis is clearly enjoying himself. It is in no way relevant to the question that he was asked. It was a very specific question, and I would ask you to bring him back to the question. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order: the minister indicated that he would be coming to the question. He has nine seconds left to answer the question, and I call the Attorney-General. Senator BRANDIS: To come directly to the question: the decision to give Mr Moraitis the instructions that I gave him was entirely my own.