Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (16:02): I also rise to take note of answers to all questions from coalition senators today. Can I say that I'm really disturbed by what I've heard today—the responses here and also to the questions that I asked. We have an Attorney-General who has deemed that he is not accountable to the Australian people to respond to serious questions as to what has transpired here. I'm going to read what he said: I will not be apologising for upholding the law. I will not be apologising for pursuing the rule of law and I will not be apologising for acting... … … … Do not interrupt! I will not be apologising ... for acting in accordance with a High Court decision. Your question is an absurd one … This was an attack on a journalist who was doing her job. If Mr Dreyfus, our Attorney-General had been doing his own job, then the journalist would not have been compelled to ask these questions. I am deeply concerned that he berated her and admonished her for daring to hold him to account. That is unacceptable. I'm going to lead on to the excuses that have been used here. Senator O'Neill: On a point of order: per standing order 193, it is highly disorderly for a member to attribute imputations of improper motives. The senator is entitled to make her observations, but to impugn the motives of the Attorney-General is beyond what is required in the standing orders, and I ask that she withdraw any reflections. Senator Scarr: On the point of order, from my perspective, my good colleague has couched her words appropriately. She has not mentioned the motive of the Attorney whatsoever. She's simply given an accurate characterisation, which is for everyone to see, as to how the Attorney acted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Pratt ): Senator Scarr, do not increase the imputation. Senator Kovacic, I will return the call to you. Can you be mindful of the standing orders and not make such imputations in your remarks. Senator KOVACIC: It's my understanding that I didn't breach any standing orders, but thank you. Going back to my concerns and what I want to take note of, there was further commentary from those on the other side that the opposition is seeking to politicise something that wasn't a government decision. That's not what we're doing here. We're talking about the fact that the government didn't actually do their jobs. They didn't do anything, when they needed to do something. That's the problem here. They didn't protect the Australian public. The commentary from Senator O'Neill before I stood was that the Labor government is always going to look after its own citizens. What about the woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted in Adelaide? What about her? Was she protected? No, she was not. And that is what this is all about. It's the fact that Australians were not protected. Senator O'Neill also stated that it is the fundamental responsibility of a government to uphold the law. I put it that it's the fundamental responsibility of a government to protect its citizens, and this has not transpired here. It has been a month since the High Court decision on NZYQ, and this government has been caught flatfooted. My colleague spoke of the fact that it is the job of a government to anticipate and react, not just to follow and not just to do. Again, this government didn't do anything to anticipate or to react to the decision of the High Court and has waited almost a month in a bumbling shambles to deliver some form of mechanism to protect Australians. What we do know is that Minister O'Neil failed to prepare for this expected High Court loss and then advised that she was told that she would probably win. She also claimed that legislation wasn't necessary, until the coalition wrote tough laws and amendments for her. In November she claimed that the coalition's preventative detention proposal was utterly impossible, but now she says that the parliament won't rise until that is legislated. Meanwhile, we have some 147 hardened criminals released into our community while Clare O'Neil, Andrew Giles and the Prime Minister can't get their act together. That is what is absurd. The question from the journalist today was not absurd. The concerns from the coalition are not absurd. The inaction of this government is what is deeply concerning, deeply troubling and completely absurd. Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles have completely and utterly botched this process, and our Prime Minister is silent on it. (Time expired)