Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:45): I thank Senator Kitching very much for the opportunity to refer, at some length, to the Prime Minister's speech to the Lowy Institute, because it is convenient, of course, to read selective quotes from a significant set of remarks, but I think it's important to take them in context. If you were to take them in context—which is not convenient for the opposition—the Prime Minister made a number of observations. For example, he observed: We have entered a new era of strategic competition—a not unnatural result of shifting power dynamics, in our modern, more multi-polar world and globalised economy. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: The question was very simple. It was whether or not when the Prime Minister warned of 'an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy,' he was referring to the United Nations. The PRESIDENT: I'm listening carefully to the minister's answers. I believe it is directly relevant for the minister to be answering the question by referring to other contents in that very speech. I think that is directly relevant and a narrower construction than the word 'relevant' would imply. Senator Pratt: We don't know who he was talking about. The PRESIDENT: It would be helpful, Senator Pratt, if I could offer rulings on points of order your leader has raised without your interjections. Senator PAYNE: If Senator Pratt is finding it hard to get the call on the other side, we could allocate one of our questions to her, I presume. As I was saying— Senator Pratt interjecting— Senator PAYNE: Senator Pratt seems to be seeking the call; I was pointing that out. As I was saying— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong! Senator Cormann, on a point of order? Senator Cormann: Under our standing orders, interjections are always disorderly, but they're particularly disorderly in the way they were just thrown across the table by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I would ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order. The PRESIDENT: Order! They are particularly disorderly from the centre table, where leaders are granted extra liberality in the application of the rules. I ask them to lead by example. There is the time for debate of this after question time. Senator Payne is to continue. Senator PAYNE: And the Prime Minister went on in his remarks through a number of the challenges that we face in the current strategic environment. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a Prime Minister to do. He also talked about the changes and the impact they have on Australia on a number of areas—on our jobs, on our environment, on our safety and on our freedom. Our freedom— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order? Senator Cormann: Even from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and with all of the courtesies, interjections are disorderly, and these are particularly uncalled for interjections. I asked you to call Senator Wong to order. Senator Wong: You did call me to order. The PRESIDENT: I will do so again. You correctly point out that I did call you to order, Senator Wong. I will call you to order again. I would ask all senators to obey the call to order when their name is mentioned—at least to count to 30 before they interject again. Senator PAYNE: What I was going to say was, before the remarks to which Senator Kitching alludes, the Prime Minister talks about the impact on our freedom— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: I again raise a point of order of direct relevance. She can read the whole speech out as a way of avoiding answering the question, but the question is: 'To whom was the Prime Minister referring when he talks about "an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy"? Was it the United Nations?' Reading the rest of the speech out, in my submission, does not comply with the direct relevance provisions of the standing orders. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Payne? Senator PAYNE: If Senator Wong had listened to what I was saying in my most recent submission to the Senate in response to Senator Kitching, I said that the paragraph to which I was referring immediately preceded the paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred. They need to be considered together. Selective quoting is convenient for the opposition, but it's not accurate and it's not truthful and therefore it's not unexpected from them. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order: Senator Wong, with respect, I believe your point of order goes to the nature of the answer. The issue of direct relevance does not go to the nature of the answer, only to whether the content of the answer is directly relevant. I do believe a minister providing an answer that refers to a speech raised in the question is directly relevant. Senator Wong: Mr President, I accept your ruling. I'd ask you to consider this and take advice from the Clerk, having looked at the Hansard and the questions after question time, and perhaps respond to the chamber tomorrow. The PRESIDENT: I'm happy to do so. Senator PAYNE: As I was saying, the impact on our freedom depends on our dedication to national sovereignty, the resilience of our institutions and our protection from foreign interference. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator PAYNE: In that context, the Prime Minister went on to— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann on a point of order. Senator Cormann: You've now ruled twice on points of order raised by Senator Wong. She is again interjecting, seeking to raise the same point of order that she previously said she accepted. I would ask you to call Senator Wong to order. The PRESIDENT: I will always take a request from senators, particularly leaders, to reconsider an issue on a ruling I have given. But the ruling I have given will stand until and unless I reconsider it, so I will ask senators to cease interjecting on the same point, whether it is to me or to the minister. Senator PAYNE: As I was saying, he went on to say, after that paragraph to which Senator Kitching referred— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?