Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:27): Well, I've already taken the primary question on notice, so I'm not going to accept the assertion that is made. What I would say is that there's absolutely no equivalence between the circumstances of former Senator Dastyari— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CORMANN: Former Senator Dastyari gave advice to a foreign national that he was likely to be bugged, and then gave countersurveillance advice. He gave a press conference in the official Commonwealth parliamentary offices— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: Direct relevance. I simply asked why the Prime Minister denied using a term when he self-evidently had. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann: I think that Senator Wong, for obvious reasons, is incompletely referencing her question. Senator Wong did more than that. Senator Wong— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator Cormann: In relation to the first part of the question, I have already taken it on notice. In relation to the second part of the question, she sought to create an equivalence between former Senator Dastyari and Ms Liu, and I was explaining why there is no such equivalence. The PRESIDENT: If I could rule on the point of order. Senator Wong? Senator Wong: If I may, on the point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: the equivalence that I quoted was in the journalist's question to the Prime Minister. They were not my words, and the question is about why the Prime Minister didn't tell the truth. The PRESIDENT: I made the observation last week in question time—I believe the term I used was 'a glancing comment' on other activities was appropriate to be directly relevant. But in this context this subject matter was specifically introduced in the question, and I believe the minister is being directly relevant by addressing former Senator Dastyari because that was introduced in the question; whereas last week I ruled that a glancing comment, but it not being the focus of the answer, was more appropriate to be directly relevant. So, in this case, I think Senator Cormann is being directly relevant. Senator CORMANN: We're getting to the nub of the question. The Labor Party is trying to create this equivalence. There is no equivalence. Former senator Dastyari took money for himself personally. He then went off and gave a press conference with a foreign national in Commonwealth parliamentary offices in front of the Australian flags and behind the Commonwealth crest, announcing that there should be a change in Australia's bipartisan foreign policy in relation to China. Then not only did he warn the foreign national— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! The rules about parliamentary language apply as much to interjections as they do to formal speeches. Can I urge senators to keep that in mind? Senator Wong.