Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:25): I completely reject the premise of the question, because the question seeks to rewrite the answer to the previous question. If Senator Wong had listened to my answer to the primary question, where I reinforced yet again Mr Taylor's statements, issued publicly and to the House of Representatives, she would have heard that the document was taken from the City of Sydney website. Mr Taylor has acknowledged that there was in the end an error in relation to the document that was used, and that's why he has apologised to the Lord Mayor of Sydney. That's why he issued the apology. But he has been consistent all along: the document came from the City of Sydney website. Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance: I have given the minister very many seconds to answer this. We didn't ask about the history of the document. I asked one question only, and this minister confirmed that he has spoken to Mr Taylor about this issue. I asked if Mr Taylor had told this minister who doctored the document. That's the only question I asked. The PRESIDENT: I've let you restate the question, Senator Wong. I am listening carefully, and I do consider the minister to be directly relevant if he is talking about the document. The minister, to my way of listening, has been talking about the document. I don't believe he has to accept the premise of the question, but talking about the document is directly relevant. Senator BIRMINGHAM: As I made clear right at the very outset, if Senator Wong had listened to the answer to the primary question, the answer was: Mr Taylor has made clear that the document was downloaded from the City of Sydney website. That means that your supplementary question is invalid, Senator Wong. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?