Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (14:18): I assume that this is the same message that the criminals this morning painted all over the front of Parliament House, painted all over— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Hume. I won't anticipate, Senator McKim, but I'll call you to make your point of order. Senator McKim: Thank you, President, and, if you had anticipated that my point of order would be on relevance, you would be entirely accurate. This was an extremely narrowly scoped question, and it didn't go to the brave protesters raising really important climate issues at the front of Parliament House this morning. The PRESIDENT: Order! Given the damage done to the building, Senator McKim, I'll assume you're talking about a protest, rather than an illegal act. Senator Hume was only speaking for seven seconds. I'm reluctant to call a minister before the first full stop in their answer, Senator McKim, but you've reminded the minister. I call Senator Hume to continue. Senator HUME: Thank you, Mr President. I don't think that the environment minister would make any apology for defending this government and defending the Australian people against climate vandals—the people that defaced government property this morning that you have just called 'heroes'. Senator McKim interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Hume, I'm going to ask you to turn to Senator McKim's question. I'm not going to instruct you how to answer it, but he has reminded you of it. Senator Hume. Senator HUME: Thank you again, Mr President, but I am unclear as to exactly what Senator McKim's question is. Does the environment minister owe— The PRESIDENT: On a point of order, Senator McKim—but question time is not meant to be interactive. Unless you are raising a point of order on relevance. Senator McKim: I am raising a point of order on relevance, Mr President. This is the third attempt that the minister has made and on none of those attempts has she come anywhere near addressing a very simple question. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, on the first point of order, when the minister is speaking for seven seconds, I'm not going to rule a minister is not being relevant at that point because I haven't had an opportunity to hear what they are going to say. Senator Hume to continue. Senator HUME: Thank you again, Mr President. I think I now understand what it is that Senator McKim is trying to get to. It is nothing to do with the climate criminals that painted slogans all over Parliament House this morning. It's nothing to do with the climate criminals that painted slogans all over The Lodge this morning. It is nothing to do with the climate criminals. This is my understanding, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, on your point of order, I'm assuming you're going to make it on direct relevance. Senator McKim: I am, Mr President. I want to make the submission to you that Senator Hume is coming perilously close to disrespecting your rulings. The PRESIDENT: When it comes to interjections across the chamber, I think there are dozens of senators that disrespect my rulings. Senator Hume, I am going to ask you to turn to the question asked by Senator McKim rather than repeat what the question might not be. Senator HUME: I am assuming, Senator McKim, that what it is that you are trying to refer to is the case that is currently before the courts, the Sharma and Ors versus the Minister for the Environment case. Is that correct, Senator McKim? Opposition senators interjecting— Senator HUME: Thank you very much—that the minister has a duty of care to young people regarding climate change. On 27 May 2021 the Federal Court delivered a document declining to grant an injunction preventing the Minister for the Environment from approving the Vickery extension project. On 8 July 2021 the Federal Court made final orders and provided further reasons in the matter. The court declared that the Minister for the Environment owed a duty of care— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Hume, I have Senator McKim on a point of order. Senator McKim: Thank you, Mr President. The point of order is again on relevance. I make the point that my question did not reference the case that Minister Hume is referring to. We are now three-quarters of the way through the time allotted. The question is very simple: does the Minister for the Environment owe Australia's children a duty of care? The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, I will hear from Senator Birmingham before I rule on the point of order. Senator Birmingham: Just on the point of order: whilst interjections are of course always disorderly, sometimes they can help to clarify matters in the chamber. When Senator Hume started to reference the case and posed it in the question of 'I assume this case is what the question is referring to', I heard cries of 'yes' coming from the Australian Greens corner. So I fail to see how Senator McKim can now suggest that Senator Hume is somehow not being directly relevant to the question he asked, on which it sounds like he and his team confirmed she was being directly relevant. Senator Thorpe interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I'm sorry; I can't take points of order remotely under the provisions for remote participation, Senator Thorpe. My apologies. On the point of order: when Senator Hume did reference that case I definitely did see nods and hear acknowledgements of 'finally' from part of the chamber that happens to be down your end, Senator McKim. Given that this matter is in the public domain, I can't instruct a minister how to answer the question and I believe in this sense she is being directly relevant by turning to this particular issue. There's an opportunity to debate the answer after question time, but she is being directly relevant. Senator Hume. Senator HUME: Senator McKim, the court declared that the Minister for the Environment had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury or death to young people in Australia arising from emissions of carbon dioxide to the earth's atmosphere in determining the Vickery extension project. But, on 16 July 2021, the Minister for the Environment filed a notice of appeal and is seeking an expedited hearing for that. The Minister for the Environment and the government take very seriously their responsibilities under the act to protect the environment and, in doing so, the interests of all Australians. But, as the matter is before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment on this case any further. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, on a supplementary question?