Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:14): As I have said, I did raise this matter in response to a question from Senator Lambie and I did clarify that statement, which is available on the public record, about that letter. But that was advice to government, and the Prime Minister has been very clear that the government did not accept that advice. As I have just said, in light of these differences of opinion, the Prime Minister said—and I'll read out from his press release: Given there are different views on whether there is compelling new evidence about Sheean's actions in 1942, I have today commissioned an expert panel to provide me with advice as to whether the 2019 review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong: Again, on direct relevance—and I again reiterate we'll give the minister leave to explain how she misled at the conclusion of question time if she wishes—Senator Urquhart's letter goes directly to the content of Mr Sullivan's letter which references Mr Chester's indication that he was comfortable with the recommendation and that that would be communicated with you. Senator Urquhart has asked whether in fact you could confirm that that is in the letter. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator Wong: With respect—well, I'm responding to the interjection. I asked for an answer, and she hasn't answered it— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on the point of order, I'll take Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann: On the point of order, firstly, interjections are disorderly but furthermore repetitive points of order are also disorderly, and the minister could not have been more directly relevant to the question asked. It is not up to Senator Wong to determine how the question is answered. The standing orders require direct relevance, and the minister is directly relevant. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I'll rule on the point of order when there's silence. I have ruled before that to be directly relevant it must directly address material contained in a question or a preamble, or, in this case, a quotation. I believe the minister was being directly relevant by directly addressing part of the question. I cannot instruct her how to answer a question. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you, very much, Mr President. Again, I'll say for the third time— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order. Senator Cormann: I just make the point again: interjections are disorderly, and leaders in this place ought to lead by example. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on the point of order. Senator Wong: If he's making the point, perhaps an example might be: don't mislead the parliament. The PRESIDENT: Order! Points of order are not an opportunity for debate across the central table of the chamber. All senators are reminded that interjections are disorderly. I assume people would like to hear an answer. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr President, and, as it's been asked and answered three times now, the matter that Senator Urquhart raised was answered by me after question time to clarify the matter. It was not a case of misleading, but I did clarify one comment that I made. However, the bigger issue— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question.