QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE › Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:46): Given the minister has failed to give a full and frank account of her knowledge and involvement in this affair to the Australian Federal Police and has refused to answer questions in this parliament on the basis of ongoing legal proceedings again today, will the minister rule out relying on parliamentary privilege when she appears to give evidence to the Federal Court? And if not, is there any forum where the minister will tell the truth? Senator Cormann: I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that Senator Collins or her advisers would have drafted the supplementary before the answer was given but that is not actually a supplementary question in the context of the answers provided by the minister because you are making the precise opposite assertion to what the minister actually said in her primary answer. And you are asserting something that is 180 degrees different to what the minister said in response to the primary question. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Collins. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: On the point of order, we have not been satisfied that a full and frank answer has been provided by the minister on this matter. I have asserted that in the supplementary question. It is directly related to the question that I asked. Senator Ian Macdonald: I rise on a point of order and, Mr President, perhaps you could deal with both of them together. Senator Collins made an imputation against the character of another senator and she should be made to withdraw that suggestion of 'telling the truth this time'. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, there is no use of unparliamentary language that I can immediately recall—my handwriting is pretty bad, writing it down. I will reflect to see if there is any imputation that is covered by the standing orders. I didn't hear one. However, in responding to this supplementary question, which must be relevant to a previous question or previous answer given—and I do believe it to be relevant to a previous question asked—the minister is entirely in order to challenge the assertion made in the question and that would be directly relevant. I don't believe it rules it out of order. But the minister is free to address the assertion and be entirely in order, even if it is not the answer that the asker would request. Senator Cash.