Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (15:02): I could not have been any clearer in answering this. There was a course of conversations, as I said last week, and incrementally as those conversations—the privacy of which I have maintained and I still maintain; I will not breach the privacy of those conversations— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: This minister is accountable to the Australian people through this chamber. We are not asking her questions about what discussions occurred with Ms Higgins, although Ms Higgins's statements can speak for themselves. It is a very straightforward question: when did you first see the advice and what action did you take? Mr President, I would ask you to ask the minister to come back to the question. Otherwise, really, one wonders about the purpose of question time if ministers are allowed to obfuscate and duck in this way. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I've allowed you to restate the question. My view on this matter is: if the minister is explaining the reasoning behind a course of action taken— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: There's an opportunity after question time for debate. Senator Pratt, on the point of order? Senator Pratt: We can ask questions of fact and we are asking, in this case, for a date. When did the minister first see that advice and what action was taken? We are able to ask direct questions. I've been through many of these iterations in estimates, where we're told we can ask for facts and dates without revealing what the advice was. We are not asking for the advice; we are asking for a date. The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, please. My view on this matter is that if the minister is explaining a course of action that she took then it's not up to me. If that is directly relevant to the question being asked—and I am listening carefully; I've allowed opposition senators to restate the question—there's an opportunity to debate the content of answer. But I'm not in a position to direct— An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I will listen carefully to Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS: I have said many times now in this chamber that I became aware of this incrementally in terms of the circumstances. On the Monday when I met with Ms Higgins— Senator Watt: My point of order is on relevance. We're not asking about the chain of events; we're asking a very specific question around when this minister became aware of this piece of advice. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, we only got about eight seconds into the minister's answer. If the minister is explaining a course of action, I'm going to decree that to be directly relevant. I do take the point it was a very narrow question, so the course of action needs to be explained in the context of being directly relevant to the point asked. Opposition senators have had the opportunity to restate the question. But I can't instruct the minister how to answer, nor the content of an answer to, a question. Senator Wong, I've allowed opposition senators to do so and I've just advised that a course of action can be explained and it needs to be directly relevant. The question was quite specific. I'll call Senator Reynolds to continue. I am listening very carefully. Senator REYNOLDS: I have no more to answer on this because I have covered this at great length. The fact is those opposite in their questions, by the nature of their questions, are asking questions that go to the heart of the private conversations that I had. At the time, I respected her privacy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question?