Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): I would make the point—and this demonstrates yet again that those opposite want to fight, not fix—that the opposition was specifically briefed on the risks associated with prejudicing a case by talking about specific individuals. But, despite that, they have continued to ask questions in this place. You were specifically briefed. It really demonstrates that you are much more interested in making political points and fighting than fixing this. The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, I have Senator Reynolds on her feet. Senator Reynolds: Again, a point of order on relevance: 30 seconds in, the minister again, for a third time, has not come close to answering a question without a preamble. The minister is now implying that this question is out of order. The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, you have called your point of order. Senator Reynolds: It is a question I believe is not out of order. I seek your ruling. The PRESIDENT: I've asked you a couple of times not to go into a long statement. The minister is being relevant to your question and is explaining how and in what circumstances the question can be answered. Senator WONG: Through you, President: no, Senator, I'm not implying the question is out of order. What I am asserting is that you have been briefed on the legal prejudice which might apply to matters when you deal with specific individuals in this way. Secondly, if you really cared about people being safe, you would not prejudice applications for detention orders in this way. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Reynolds? Senator Reynolds: Given that the minister has now failed to answer three questions in a row, I ask that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, is this— Senator Reynolds: My point of order is that I'd like a ruling on what the minister has just said, because she has clearly indicated that this is out of order, which is why she's not answering it. Could I seek your ruling on why the minister is saying she can't answer it? The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, please resume your seat. As you know, it's not the role of the President. I can't put words into the minister's mouth. I can't direct the minister to use particular words or phrases. I have to listen to the whole of the minister's answers, and the minister has been relevant. She may not be giving you the answers you want, but the minister is being relevant. She was relevant to your primary, your first supplementary and the second supplementary. Senator WONG: I'm not implying the question is out of order. I'm directly stating that prejudicing an application is not what you would do if you cared about community safety. I am absolutely stating that.