Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (15:13): Let's take some of the heat out of this and reflect on what we did actually hear today and what we did hear in Senator Brandis's statement. Senator Brandis had notice this morning, in Laura Tingle's article in The Financial Review, of the most critical question that, once again, he has failed to answer. The question was: did the Attorney-General prevent, discourage or inhibit attempts to challenge a Western Australian bill that would have favoured Western Australia over federal taxpayers to the tune of $300 million? Senator Hume asks, 'What evidence do we have of that?' Well, the evidence we have is what the Western Australian government tells us; that is what the evidence is. But more than that, Senator Hume, in trying to support her argument about a pantomime, then goes on to form a very solid opinion herself—although she is talking about what is truth—over and above even what the Attorney-General claims. The Attorney-General told us today that he formed an opinion that there was no deal. This fine legal mind will tell us that he formed that opinion— Senator Brandis: Deputy President, I have a point of order. Because this potentially matters, this is not a pedantic objection. I told the Senate that I was of the opinion that there was no deal. That is my opinion. That is not what Senator Collins just said. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, I believe that is debating point, thank you. Senator Collins, please continue. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That was, indeed, exactly what I said. Now I am going to address the issue of how he formed that opinion. This, as I said, fine legal mind formed that opinion in ignorance. He did not even bother talking to his own office about what contacts they had in this matter. He did not bother talking to Mr Hockey, who, as he has informed us, was the representative of the Commonwealth upon whom the Western Australian government members relied in forming their opinion. Sure, as he tells us, different people can come out of exchanges with different opinions, but you do not then go on to conclude an opinion of your own in ignorance. We have all heard about convenient memories and the 'I do not recall' defence. Senator Sinodinos had it down to fine art. The 'I do not recall' defence was used so many times that the stature of the argument became very questionable. In this case, we do not have a convenient memory; we have convenient ignorance from Senator Brandis on behalf of the Commonwealth. What I took out of yesterday's statement, listening carefully to Senator Brandis as he delivered it, was that he had been sprung by the Solicitor-General in attempting to prevent the Commonwealth becoming involved in the matter and nowhere has he been able to refute that that was the case. So we will continue for days on end to get senior commentators and others continuing to ask these questions. Remember how Senator Brandis started this with, 'No comment.' If these issues had not been canvassed in the Senate, we would be still be on the, 'no comment' response. 'The Attorney-General does not respond to questions around matters in which the Commonwealth has been engaged'—that would be his answer. But of course the heat and the temperature rose after his initial response. Pressure came from a number of areas that he did need to at least try to present what he could argue was a comprehensive statement. But we all know, despite its length, despite the grand words and the grand arguments that Senator Brandis sought to put across, there are just so many unanswered questions. The questions that Senator Watt asked today were not answered. There are so many things that Senator Brandis remains ignorant of or refuses to help us understand. Indeed, he refuses to refute the suspicion that he did seek to prevent the Commonwealth's involvement in this matter. This is no pantomime. Sure, it has attracted humour. I was today sent a reference from the SBS about how Senator Brandis is now ordering more buses because his behaviour here has become a farce. The length of the scandals and the gaffes that reside around this Attorney-General just continue to grow. The SBS humour was that he had to order a fleet of buses so that he could throw more— (Time expired)