Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): I will take on notice those parts of your question that I am not a position immediately to respond to. But may I make this observation to you, Senator Whish-Wilson? I reject outright your suggestion that there is systemic criminality in the Australian financial system. I think that is a very wild and irresponsible thing to say. In fact, we have a very strong financial system, a strong and well-regulated financial system whose integrity and strength is undergirded by institutions—created by both sides of politics, I might say—most particularly by APRA, a product of the Howard government. The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Brandis is misleading the chamber. I never said that there was systemic criminality in the Australian financial system. He has misquoted me. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. There are ways of addressing that after question time. The minister is in order. The minister has the call. Senator BRANDIS: I thought you did say that in fact, Senator Whish-Wilson, but if I misheard you then I acknowledge that. But there is not systemic criminality in the Australian financial system. Australia's financial system is one of the best regulated, best governed and strongest in the world. As a former member of that industry, Senator Whish-Wilson, you would be in a position to know that. That is not to say, however, that there are not instances of misconduct. In relation to the particular instances you have given, some of them, I am aware, are currently the subject of proceedings before the courts and, for obvious reasons, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those particular instances. But the suggestion that there is the kind of widespread wrongdoing in the Australian financial system that we have seen, by comparison, in the trade union movement, leading to the Heydon royal commission, is simply wrong. The direct answer to your question, as I said at the time of the establishment of the Heydon royal commission, is that you establish a royal commission where the wrongdoing is comprehensive and systemic, and that is not this case.