Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): Senator Watt, you must not have been listening to my first answer. The Solicitor-General did not act on behalf of the ATO on my instructions. He acted on behalf of the ATO on the ATO's instructions. I have no involvement in instructing the Solicitor-General on behalf of the ATO. The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong: The point of order is on relevance. The Attorney-General is insisting on using the word 'instruction' in order to avoid the question. The question was, 'At any point did the Attorney-General direct the Solicitor-General, whether personally or through his office or department, not to intervene on behalf of either the ATO or the Commonwealth?' It did not say 'instruct'; it asked about a direction from him. The PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General did make it very clear in his answer, Senator Wong, that there were no instructions or no involvement in relation to the Australian Taxation Office. The senator is aware of the question. I call the Attorney-General. Senator BRANDIS: The point I am trying to convey to Senator Watt through you, Mr President, is that the ATO, not the Commonwealth of Australia, was Mr Gleeson's client. The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong: Yes, again on relevance. We are not asking who the client was. We are well aware of that. We are asking what this minister directed. What directions did this minister give? He ought to answer that question. The PRESIDENT: I am assuming from the Attorney-General's answer—it is difficult for me to arbitrate, but I am assuming—that he is answering the question and that he is relevant, because he is indicating that the client, the Australian Taxation Office, was not a client of the Commonwealth and so there would be no direction and no instruction. In any event, the minister is aware of the question. Senator BRANDIS: Mr President, the point I am trying to explain through you to Senator Watt is that, because the ATO was Mr Gleeson's client in relation to its intervention in the Bell Group proceedings, I had no role in providing instructions on its behalf to the Solicitor-General. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: A final supplementary question, Senator Watt.