Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): I am very wary, Senator Wong, and particularly chastened by the experience of yesterday, in taking at face value when you quote people. Let me remind you, Senator Wong, what you said yesterday. You asked me two questions on this matter yesterday, Senator Wong, and in the second of them you said this—and I am reading from the Hansard— Senator Conroy: Mr President, I rise on a point of order as to relevance. It is quite clear from what the minister has said so far that he has no attention of addressing the question he has been asked. He has indicated quite clearly he is going to talk about something completely different. I ask you to ask him to return to the question and to remain relevant to the question he was asked, not to the one he wanted to be asked. The PRESIDENT: I will remind the Attorney-General of the question. Senator BRANDIS: I will come to the question, I assure you, Mr President. This is what Senator Wong said in the second question—and I am quoting from the Hansard: I refer to the Attorney-General's previous answer to my question in which he claimed not to recall any conversation with the Minister for Justice in relation to the execution of a search warrant on Mr Brough— Senator Conroy: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. He is clearly flouting your request to return to the question. He has continued to read out the Hansard from yesterday, which has no relevance to today's question. He is off on his own frolic and I ask you to bring him back to the question. The PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General did indicate in response to the last point of order that he will address the question. I will take the Attorney-General at his word. Senator BRANDIS: Thank you, Mr President. Senator Wong went on to say: Is the minister aware that, a short while ago— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Order, Attorney-General! Senator Kim Carr: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. You have sought from this minister that he answer the question. He has treated your advice to him with contempt. He has continued with a prepared answer for a question which has not been asked. He is seeking to deal with a problem he got himself into yesterday. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan, on the same point of order? Senator Canavan: Mr President, I rise on the same point of order. You ruled and gave the Leader of the Government in the Senate an opportunity to proceed with his answer. The opposition gave him seven seconds to do that. I think that point of order was in defiance of your ruling and the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be allowed to come to the question. The PRESIDENT: In relation to the point of order, with the first point of order I reminded the minister of the question and during his response he indicated he would get to the substance of the question. In fairness to the minister, the matter was about a referral to his previous answer of yesterday. Senator Wong: That was not the— The PRESIDENT: Order! I will not tolerate an argument, Senator Wong. I am not taking any further points of order on this matter. The Attorney-General has the call. Senator Wong: You are not going to call me? The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I am not going to argue with you. Senator Conroy: What standing order are you— The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, I am not going to argue with you either. I have given the Attorney-General the opportunity. I have reminded him of the question. There have been two successive points of order raised. The Attorney-General has indicated he will come to the question. He is also referring in his answer to matters that Senator Wong herself referred to in her actual question. Attorney-General, you have the call. Senator BRANDIS: Thank you, Mr President. Is the— Senator Conroy: Mr President, I seek clarification. Senator BRANDIS: You don't want to hear this, do you? The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, I am not going to tolerate points of order that are not relevant. Senator Conroy: I am not seeking a point of order; I am seeking clarification. The PRESIDENT: Point of clarification, Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy: You are refusing to take points of order. Could you quote me the standing order which you have decided you want to assert exists to refuse to take a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber? I would like you to specify the standing order on which you are making your ruling. Senator Bernardi: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The PRESIDENT: I will not take any further points of order, Senator Bernardi, not on this matter. I can determine the ruling of a point of order at any place through that point of order. Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Listen, Senator Conroy! Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT: And you, too, Senator Cormann! I do not have to take a number of points of order on the same issue. I can make a determination on a point of order at any particular time. I have made my determination on this point of order. If all the points of order relate to the same issue, I am not taking any further points of order. I am satisfied that the Attorney-General is in order. Senator Wong: Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, this is going to get tedious. Is this a new matter, Senator Wong? Senator Wong: Mr President, I asked to bring to your attention, on the basis of your ruling, as I understood you to indicate, that we quoted from an answer given yesterday. That is erroneous. I would ask you to reconsider your ruling. Given from what you have said, Mr President, it appears it is predicated on an erroneous fact. The PRESIDENT: I have made my ruling on this matter. Senator Colbeck: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The PRESIDENT: Unless this is a fresh point of order, Senator Colbeck, I do not intend to take any further points of order on this matter. Senator Colbeck: Mr President, I do not want to test your patience on this— The PRESIDENT: Well you are. Senator Colbeck: and I know that I clearly am. The PRESIDENT: Is this the same matter, Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck: It is the same matter. The PRESIDENT: I am not taking any further points of order on this same matter. Attorney-General, you have the call. Senator BRANDIS: Thank you, Mr President. Senator Wong said: Is the minister aware that, a short while ago, the Justice Minister informed the other place that he told the Attorney-General the warrant would be executed? Both of those propositions were false, something I pointed out to the chamber yesterday but without the benefit of the Hansard. Now with the benefit of the Hansard, it is perfectly apparent that those propositions were false. The question that was asked of me by Senator Wong was: Did the Minister for Justice inform the his senior minister, the Attorney-General, of the AFP's— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Before you raise a point of order, Senator Wong, Attorney-General, I did give you the opportunity to come to the question. You did inform me that you would come to the question. You are now three-quarters of the way through the question. I now ask you to come to the question. Senator BRANDIS: Senator Wong said: … of the AFP's intention to execute a search warrant to the home of Mr Brough? The point I would make is that Senator Wong yesterday misquoted my answer. If it had time, I would point out— The PRESIDENT: No, Attorney-General. Pause the clock. Senator Jacinta Collins: If he wants to make a statement, he should do so! The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Collins! Senator Cameron: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This is in relation to your advice to the Attorney-General. He is contemptuously ignoring your instructions to come to the point and he is deliberately, deliberately, challenging your authority, and you should deal with it. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I believe the Attorney-General, in the last few seconds, was coming to the question. Senator BRANDIS: Senator Wong, in the question she has now asked me today, has quoted some words from Mr Brough during a 60 Minutes interview. I have seen that interview, and those are not the words Mr Brough used. So, just as she misquoted me yesterday, just as she misquoted Mr Keenan yesterday, she— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Order, Attorney-General. Senator Conroy: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You invited, cajoled and suggested he might come to the question. He is now quoting a different question and, again, the content which he is referring to was not asked. He has actually, again, refused to come to the question, and has defied your rulings, again. I ask you, with two seconds left, if he can possibly come close to referring to the question he was actually asked, not the one he pre-prepared to answer. Senator BRANDIS: On the point of order, I know I have only two seconds remaining for my answer, so let me make the point in speaking to the point of order. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator BRANDIS: The point of order is a relevance point of order. The answer was relevant to the question because the question attributed certain words to Mr Brough during a 60 Minutes interview that was broadcast some time ago. Just as Senator Wong, yesterday, misquoted me and misquoted Mr Keenan, in her question she has misquoted what Mr Brough said in the 60 Minutes interview. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is correct in relation to the question and the reference to Mr Brough and the 60 Minutes interview and the confession made in that interview. Attorney-General, you have two seconds left to continue answering. Senator BRANDIS: I have finished.