Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:58): I'll take that as a no, Minister. Along with David McBride, your government has aggressively pursued lawyer Bernard Collaery and Witness K, and has demonstrated a chilling complicity in the extradition trial and political witch-hunt of Walkley Award-winning Australian journalist Julian Assange. Minister, why is your government waging a war against whistleblowers and transparency? The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, I have sought some advice from the Clerk. The substantive question at the commencement was about another matter. The second supplementary needs to be relevant to the substantive question, not just to the second question. I am going to allow the minister to address the assertions made, because I don't want to have the situation where questions can be asked but then ministers don't have the opportunity to address them, even though questions might be ruled out of order. But I encourage people to make sure that both their follow-ups are within the standing orders with respect to the substantive question. Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator WHISH-WILSON: A point of order. I'm happy to talk to you about this afterwards. Are you actually ruling my question out of order? The PRESIDENT: No. My practice on this form—and I'm happy to speak to you afterwards—is that I am reluctant to rule questions out of order so that ministers don't have a chance to respond because, quite frankly, I don't want to create an incentive for misbehaviour and questions that then cannot be addressed in the chamber, by assertions being made and then preventing ministers from responding to them. In this case, I think the question could be ruled out of order but I'm allowing the minister to respond to it.