Senator HUME (Victoria) (15:16): I thank Senator Cameron for raising this extremely trivial issue. I can't believe we're back here talking about ourselves once again. There are so many important things going on in the world and there are so many important things going on in our nation, yet those opposite once again decide to play the man, and not the ball, by talking about section 44. Last week, it was all about Senator Nash. Not a single question during question time in this chamber was not directed to Senator Nash, yet this was at a time when we could have been talking about the military brinkmanship going on in North Korea. There was not a single question from those opposite about that. We could have spoken about the incredibly good news stories that were coming out of the economy, the green shoots that are showing through in the Australian economy—a quarter of a million new jobs—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. We could have spoken about the genuine action that is taking place on energy prices—imposing downward pressure on energy prices and finding a solution to the energy crisis in this country going forward—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. The repetition is becoming not just tiresome for those of us in the government but tiresome for those in the gallery. How very dull this can be. And yet, this week, they've decided to move away from Senator Nash and to move onto Senator O'Sullivan and whether Senator O'Sullivan directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in an organisation. The irony, of course, in all of this is that whatever contract there may or may not have been was definitely a contract with the Queensland government, not with the Commonwealth. Again, what we see is a significant misunderstanding of the issue by those opposite and an opportunity to play politics as opposed to dealing with issues of policy. I've got to say, at one stage I thought there was a moment there where, potentially, we could have been speaking about energy policy—energy policy which, let's face it, is possibly the most pressing issue facing this country right now. And what is it that those opposite are doing on energy policy? Well, I can't imagine— Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator HUME: I've not heard a single solution, Senator Cameron; not a single solution. Now, I'm not going to go the way of Senator Scullion and start talking about Blackout Bill, because I think that saying the words Blackout Bill when referring to those opposite is disrespectful, and Senator Scullion was right to withdraw it— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, please resume your seat. There is a message from the President about repeating offences. You are well aware that that was an issue raised at question time. I would draw your attention to the remarks of the President. I would ask you to withdraw those statements. Senator HUME: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You are absolutely right. I think that Senator Scullion was absolutely right to withdraw those remarks and to not refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a disrespectful name. And I, too, withdraw— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat, Senator Hume. Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron: Senator Hume has reiterated the issue that the President dealt with. She should be asked to withdraw it and she should not be allowed to comment further. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, on the same point of order? Senator Brandis: Senator Hume did not repeat what was objected to. It's as simple as that and, therefore, there is no point of order— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. I think you are now raising a debating point. Senator Brandis: It's not a debating point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, I've asked you to resume your seat. Are you now disobeying a request that I've made? Senator Brandis interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sit down, Senator Brandis. I think I've heard enough on this point of order. Senator Hume, whilst you did not repeat the offence, I think there was an implication there, so I ask you to note what happened at question time and note the comments from the President about repeating language that disparages senators or those in the other place. Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron: Senator Hume on two occasions used exactly the same words that the President commented on. She should withdraw them. It should be clear and simple. That is not appropriate and they should be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I'll seek advice from the Clerk. I think she withdrew them, but I'm more than happy to check the record, Senator Cameron, and come back to you if necessary. Senator Brandis, did you have a further point? Senator Brandis: No, I just want to make the point that Senator Hume did withdraw— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis: and did not repeat the remarks in any event. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've made a decision, thank you. Senator Hume. Senator HUME: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I understand that there is a need in this place of dignity to treat colleagues and those in the other place with respect, and I wouldn't dream of impugning those in this place or those in the other place either. What I am very disappointed about, though, is the inability of those opposite to deal with the issues of importance, not just the issues of importance in this place but the issues of importance to the Australian people. That's something that this opposition seems to have failed to do repeatedly. On the issue of energy, which is how this topic came up—and rising energy prices and reliability are of great importance—what we've seen from those opposite is little more than game playing. It has been a game-playing exercise. The best example of that is this government's policy to abolish the limited merits review. The limited merits review was a policy that was imposed upon the Australian people by those opposite during their time in government. The Turnbull government has been moving in this parliament to abolish the limited merits review to stop the electricity networks gaming the system and boosting their profits. What we've instead seen is those opposite, as part of their game playing and as part of their lack of focus on what is important, not supporting such a basic and sensible policy. The limited merits review has cost consumers approximately $6.5 billion since it was implemented in 2008 under the previous Labor government, because it has come out in favour of the electricity companies, as opposed to the consumers, 31 out of 52 times. If Labor were serious about the cost of living, it would support this very important policy. If it were serious about seeking solutions to rising electricity prices, it would do so. Instead, it has sent this legislation to a Senate committee for review. Again this is a delaying tactic. It could support the government's efforts, but instead it has sent the legislation to a Senate committee. Those opposite clearly are not focusing on the game and are not focusing on the ball; they are focusing on the man by focusing on Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Nash. (Time expired)