Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (14:23): If I may finish the sentence I was in the middle of when answering the primary question, Mr Shorten, who did not approach the royal commission for the purpose of helping the royal commission as Ms Jackson did, was nevertheless afforded the courtesy through his legal representatives of being given advance notice of the documents on which he was going to be questioned. So the suggestion that Ms Jackson was given some sort of special treatment that was not vouchsafed to others who approached the royal commission, including Mr Shorten himself— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Cameron: Mr President, I again rise on a point of order on relevance. The issue I have asked about is not whether documents were supplied but whether a thematic approach to hearings involving Ms Jackson was given and an initial plan was provided. That is the question and the Attorney-General should go to that question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, the second part of your question was did she receive any favourable treatment. The minister has answered that directly. Senator Wong: Mr President, on the point of order: with respect, the question was 'Is the Attorney-General aware of any other plans agreed between the commission and witnesses or did Ms Jackson get special treatment'—in relation to plans, not documents. He has not answered the question, with respect, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I do not believe there is a point of order. Senator BRANDIS: Senator Cameron, you seem to think that for a witness to be interviewed before they give evidence is unusual. You seem to think that for a witness to be given an idea of the topics that will be covered in their examination before the royal commission is unorthodox. That is not the case— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Cameron: Mr President, I again raise a point of order on relevance. I did not go to the issue of whether a witness was interviewed—I clearly went to the issue of whether Ms Jackson got special treatment by a plan being prepared. That was the question. The Attorney-General is studiously avoiding that question. The PRESIDENT: I did rule earlier that the part of the question about special treatment the Attorney-General answered. As has been ruled by Presidents past as well as me, a minister can enhance the answer. The minister has been doing that. Senator BRANDIS: The treatment of Ms Jackson was utterly orthodox, utterly usual, so, Senator, the answer to your question is plainly no. (Time expired)