Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): The answer is: no, I do not concede that. What the Prime Minister did was entirely appropriate. He first learned about it in question time, as a result of a question from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the matter that the senator is referencing. As it turns out, the police investigation was the result of a letter from serial letter-writer Mark Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General. In fact, he's not just a serial letter-writer; he's actually a serial pest. He's a serial, partisan, politically motivated pest. Senator Wong: I have two points of order, Mr President. One is: I'd invite you to consider whether your request of me to rephrase my language yesterday—in one of the procedural debates on this, about a member in another place—is apposite here. The second is direct relevance: this is clearly not relevant to the response to the former ICAC head, Mr Ipp, and his comments about the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT: On the terminology, I'll check the history of that particular phrase, and if it is I'll come back to the chamber and ask. I'm just not sure whether that's been used in Hansardbefore. But I will ask all senators to keep in mind that it is helpful if they don't use terminology that requires me to check Hansard. On the point of direct relevance, the minister had answered part of the question. I'm listening carefully. I do consider him to be addressing other parts of the question at the moment, but I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator CORMANN: Let me be more helpful. Again, I reject the proposition that there was anything inappropriate in what the Prime Minister did. It was entirely appropriate. I also disagree with the quote that the senator read out. It wasn't in relation to a party matter. The question that was asked in the House of Representatives was a question that related to government. It was a question that related to the operations of government, to ministerial standards. Indeed, the Prime Minister made an undertaking to the House of Representatives, which he fulfilled. And I say it again: we've got this serial letter-writer Mr Dreyfus, and you know what—he's also a serial loser, because, as far as I can see, every letter, every reference that he has made to police or other authorities asking for investigations, at least into those on our side—not one of them has actually been successful, not one of them. Senator Wong: On a point of order. I leave the first issue to your previous ruling. The second point of order I raised is direct relevance. How is an attack on Mr Mark Dreyfus relevant to questions about the criticism of the Prime Minister by the Independent Commission Against Corruption's former chair, David Ipp? Why don't you respond to his criticism? The PRESIDENT: I remind ministers that, even if they consider themselves to have directly answered part of the question, the remainder of their answer must also be directly relevant to the question. I ask the minister to keep that in mind as he continues his answer. Senator CORMANN: I will inform the Senate why it's relevant, and that is because this investigation by New South Wales police is the result of a letter from Mr Dreyfus—a political opponent, politically motivated, partisan. He is somebody who has form. This is part of an established pattern of political smear from the Labor Party. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN: It is part of an established pattern of political smear, and I've already answered that question, Senator Wong. The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?