Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:28): Just briefly, I want to correct a couple of claims made by Senator Wong primarily in relation to the question directed to me. She also, in mentioning the question directed to Senator Fifield, at one stage said that Senator Fifield had refused to answer the question. That is what you said. That is not the case. Neither question 2876, which was the question directed to me, nor the question directed to Senator Fifield, has been the subject of a refusal, as I and Senator Fifield explained initially in this debate. In relation to question 2876, which was put on notice on from 16 December 2015, some three months ago, which includes the summer break, which is not entirely immaterial. Senator Wong would have us believe that all that was being inquired into was a series of numbers in relation to FOI requests, but that, I am sorry to say, is not the truth. The question—which, as I pointed out before, is in 17 parts and subparts across each of two years, 2014 and 2015—makes extensive inquiries which involve the characterisation and classification of FOI requests and the fate of them, including, for example, subpart 2(c)(i), in relation to certain decisions which were the subject of an extension: … under which section of the Act was the extension granted … I merely light upon that by way of illustration to make the point that it is not the truth to say that this is nothing more than a request for a number. The exercise being asked is to undertake the classification into different categories of a very large number of FOI requests across two years according to 17 different lines of inquiry and modes of classification. So the suggestion that there is only a number being sought is not the truth. I said that Senator Wong had said there was a refusal to answer this question. That is not the truth either. As I said earlier on, because of the exhaustive nature of the question and the very large body of work that officers of my department will be— Senator Lines: They're statistics. Stop fudging the answer. Senator BRANDIS: Because of the very large body of work that officers of my department will be put to in meeting this question— Senator Lines: Statistics. Collation. Senator BRANDIS: Senator, I will take your interjection. Senator Lines interjects that these are merely statistics and it is merely a matter of collation. No, Senator Lines. You are obviously not familiar with the question. It is not. It is a question of the classification, into the different several categories identified by the question, of a large number of requests, each of which requires an exercise to be taken by the decision maker. So I merely wish to correct the record to explain (a) that there has not been a refusal to answer; (b) that the suggestion that this is merely asking for a number in relation to statistics that are collected is wrong; and (c) that the large body of work undertaken not by me or my office but by officers of my department has been embarked upon.