Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:31): In responding to the senator's question, I continue to support the views of Senator Cormann. However, the way to beat bad ideas, bad arguments and absolutely unacceptable views is through debate, especially with those— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, can I please hear Senator Cormann on a point of order? Senator Cormann: Obviously interjections are highly disorderly, and, in this case, if the Labor Party wants to show that they're not just trying to be politically opportunistic about this, they should listen to Senator Ruston in respectful silence as the standing orders require. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'll call Senator Wong when there's silence. Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong: I understand Senator Cormann is sensitive about this, because he understands there is a difference between bad ideas and hate speech. This is about vilification. The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong. I grant some leeway to the leaders of parties—the opposition and the government. Technically any point of order calling someone to account for interjections and asking for order in the chamber is probably the one point of order that's always guaranteed to be in order. I ask senators to remember that. Senator RUSTON: As I was part way through saying, the way to defeat bad ideas, bad arguments and, in this case, absolutely unacceptable views is through debate, especially with those that we disagree. The PRESIDENT: Order! Have you concluded your answer, Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston has concluded. A final supplementary question, Senator O'Neill?