Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Senator McKim, that is just not the way it works. That is just not the way it works. When you instruct a barrister, you have a discussion with the barrister about the case, and of course Mr Gleeson and I had a discussion about the case. Mr Gleeson in particular, as I said in my detailed statement, had a very strong view that the Commonwealth should argue the Corporations Act point, or be in a position—let me express myself more carefully—to argue the— The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, a point of order? Senator McKim: Yes. We have dealt with this issue already in the substantive question I asked—at least, we have dealt with it in the question, not the answer. This particular supplementary question does not go to anything that occurred between Senator Brandis and Mr Gleeson. It goes directly to whether anyone from the Commonwealth or Western Australian governments asked the Attorney-General to instruct the Solicitor-General not to run a particular argument in the High Court. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, on the aspect of relevance, which is what I am here to adjudicate on, the Attorney-General indicated that it does not work like that. That was his opening line, and the Attorney-General is continuing his answer. Senator BRANDIS: So, Senator McKim, what Mr Gleeson came to me—and I am paraphrasing, of course—to urge upon me is that he should be instructed to raise the question of sections 5F and 5G of the Corporations Act, which was an issue that was canvassed in the statement of claim, and I gave him the instructions he sought.