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) (14:02): It won't surprise you to hear me say that I disagree with Ms Savva. The phone call by the Prime Minister was entirely appropriate. He advised the House of Representatives that that's what he would do after he was first asked the question by the Leader of the Opposition. He did what he said he would do— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong: Direct relevance. The minister has answered neither the first nor the second question. The question is whether or not the Prime Minister, who this minister is representing— Government senators interjecting— Senator Wong: Maybe you should deal with the— The PRESIDENT: Order! Can I hear the point of order, please. Senator Wong: I don't even have my glasses on, so I can't see who I'm responding to! The question is whether or not the Prime Minister sought any advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriateness of the call. I hope the minister, given he has dodged the first two questions, might actually answer this one. The PRESIDENT: I'm not going to deal with points of order on previous questions, because that is not in order. It is not in order to raise points of order to answers to previous questions. The minister is entitled to challenge an assertion in the question, in this case a quotation, and be directly relevant. I call on the minister to continue. Senator CORMANN: Thank you very much, Mr President. Of course, the Labor Party are clearly embarrassed, because, after they kept this key fact secret, they were absolutely exposed for the partisan, politically motivated process that this whole thing is by the revelation that it was the shadow Attorney-General— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong: How is discussion of the opposition directly relevant to whether the Prime Minister sought advice, Mr President? I'm interested. The PRESIDENT: As I've said before, I'm not going to pull up ministers—directly relevant is not possible to police on every single sentence. The minister is entitled to challenge the assertion, quotation or otherwise of a preamble in any question. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, if I could finish before I take another point of order. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Can I finish this and then, please, by all means, come to me. What I will ask the minister to do is to turn to either the quotation used, which I believed he was in order in addressing or challenging before, or the question asked at the end of that preamble. As I said, glancing comments around other matters are appropriate, because one couldn't police— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: He was in the middle of a sentence, Senator Wong. I'm not going to pull up ministers in the middle of a single sentence. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I'll take the interjection then, but, quite frankly, the previous question, which you did raise a point of order to, referred to 'why', and I think the minister was in order in using those words in answering why the government did not do something. I don't think I can rule that is not directly relevant. There is a time to debate this after question time, and that's the appropriate forum for it. Senator CORMANN: Mr President, Senator Wong can be as touchy as she likes. The truth is, and the reason the Prime Minister was forced to act the way he did was, because the shadow Attorney-General was the one who initiated a process in a partisan politically motivated way and, of course, being asked about it by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Sorry, I was trying to deal with the order of questions I was being informed of by whips. Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance—and everybody can see what he's doing—it is not directly relevant to be talking endlessly about the opposition, as obsessed as he might be. Did the Prime Minister seek advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriateness of the call? The PRESIDENT: On this matter, unlike the previous two questions—on the point of order, Senator Cormann? Senator CORMANN: The supplementary question that was asked actually made an assertion about the appropriateness or otherwise of putting a quote to me, and the only way I can answer that question in a way that is directly relevant to the question asked is by putting it into the context of the way this process was initiated. That is why I submit to you, Mr President, that my answer is 100 per cent directly relevant. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, my apologies, I was receiving advice from senators about the order of questions during that sentence, which I occasionally do during question time. I ruled previously the minister was entitled when asked a question which started with 'why'—that's a very wide-ranging question. On this particular matter, I don't consider the opposition's policies to be directly relevant, but, as I said, I'm not going to pull up a minister in the middle of a glancing sentence. There are nine seconds remaining to answer, and I call the minister to continue. Senator CORMANN: Thank you very much, Mr President. The only reason why the Prime Minister was forced to make these inquiries was because the Leader of the Opposition asked a question in the House of Representatives without revealing the fact that it had been initiated— (Time expired)