Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:24): I'm very happy to be honest with the Australian people about the reality, which is what I always seek to do. I would make this point: I'm asked about facilities and so forth; I have it made clear that I've been asked about that publicly and I have responded, and I refer you to that answer. A point I would make is that being honest about it might include a question on the attack on Dubai airport by Iran. Being honest about it might include an Iranian drone strike attack on the Royal Air Force base, the UK base, in Cyprus. Given your interjection before, sir, you might say that's okay because it's a base. Well, these are not countries— The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge: Two things. Firstly, what the minister said is false. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, stop. Senator Shoebridge: Point of order! I have a point of order, if you'll hear it. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. When you stand, and I've drawn this to your attention before, you indicate to me that you are seeking a point of order. You didn't do that. You started on: 'I have two points to make.' I have no idea what those points are. So I remind you once again, Senator Shoebridge, when you stand, indicate that you are seeking a point of order. You've made it clear to me now that you are seeking a point of order, so please put your point of order. Senator Shoebridge: The first is that the minister is falsely asserting that I made an interjection. She knows it's false. And the second— The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, that is not a point of order. Senator Shoebridge: if you will hear it. To mislead the chamber is unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Those are debating points not points of point of order. Senator Shoebridge, I've ruled that they are not points of order. If you have another point of order, please make it, but they're not to be debating points, and you know to difference. Senator Shoebridge: The minister is not even pretending, in the second part of her so-called answer, to respond to the question, and you know that, and we all heard her. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Ayres. Senator Ayres: I ask Senator Shoebridge to withdraw that. That was contemptuous of you in your role as the chair. It was deeply sarcastic, deeply offensive. He ought to know better, and there's enough of the bloviating from him. He ought to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Allman-Payne? Senator Allman-Payne: Point of order: Senator Shoebridge just got pulled up for not indicating at the start of his statement that he had a point of order. At no point did you ask Senator Ayres to do the same. The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres rose, which is the right of any senator in this place, to object to the language used in Senator Shoebridge's response to me, and he asked for it to be withdrawn. So he was seeking a withdrawal, not a point of order. I would also remind—Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge: What on earth—point of order. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge: Point of order. The PRESIDENT: Yes. What on earth am I being asked to withdraw? Please explain. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I did find your response to me, in the last sentence you made, offensive. I haven't asked you to withdraw, but I would ask you to reflect on how you respond to me. I have ruled your points of order out of line; they're not points of order. I'll ask Minister Wong to continue her response. Senator WONG: I don't know if you want me to deal with this, because you've ruled on the point of order already, President, but I've been accused by the senator of saying something that was incorrect. When I spoke about an attack on the bases, I thought I heard you say, 'It's a base.' Now, if that's— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG: Then it must have been another one of the Greens, because it was one of you. It was not one of us and it was not one of them. My point is you have to be consistent, and the problem for the Australian Greens is they have one narrative. They simply want to weaponise a narrative and campaign around being against the United States but they're not prepared to stand up to an authoritarian brutal regime which has killed its own people in order to stay in power. You don't hear the Greens political party talking about Iran, even though their own members have spoken about this. Publicly, former Greens members— Senator Whish-Wilson: How did toppling Saddam Hussein go? The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WONG: have spoken about the fact the Greens have not wanted to talk about the situation in Iran. That's been shown today. Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, this is the second time in question time I specifically referred to you. As I said earlier, these are difficult questions and they are difficult answers. I have asked senators to be respectful of that and to listen in silence and, Senator Whish-Wilson, that includes you. If you wish to make a contribution, make it some other time. Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary?