Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): Ms Liu made a statement last week which was tabled in the parliament last week. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: Direct relevance. This is not about a past statement; this is about a statement about the process that a government minister is asserting shows that she's all clear. The question goes to whether or not the government will ensure that Ms Liu makes a statement to the parliament about this so-called double-checking process. The point of order is direct relevance. A past statement is not relevant to a future one. The PRESIDENT: With respect, Senator Wong, the minister had been speaking for five seconds. I'm not a mind-reader. I'm going to allow the minister time to answer the question. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm just going to try and rule on the point of order. If a minister is asked about a future statement, I disagree, Senator Wong. I think drawing attention to a past statement, while it may not be the preferred answer, is directly relevant to answering that question. Senator CORMANN: Again, the Labor Party wants to go with this approach of guilty unless proven innocent. The member for Chisholm has been very clear. If the Labor Party has got any specific allegations, if they've got any specific evidence, they should put it. Responding to Senator Wong's previous comments, I won't mention any names, but running into lots of Labor backbenchers at the airport on Thursday, let me tell you that there's a lot of concern on your backbench about your approach to this issue. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! It's Monday. I have allowed a little discretion for people to get used to the chamber. We're wasting question time, which I know the opposition considers a forum for non-government parties.