Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:22): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The NewsStand poll shows that 87 per cent of people believe it should be easier to make complaints about the media. I ask the minister if he is aware that Mr Turnbull has complained that the inquiry may put some sort of legislative backbone into the Press Council. Can the minister say why it is that Mr Turnbull would want the Press Council, against the public interest, to remain a jellyback? Senator Brandis: On a point of order, Mr President— Senator Carr interjecting— Senator Conroy interjecting— Senator Ian Macdonald: Goebbels would be proud of you, Stephen. The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy! I remind you that the time to debate the issue, if you wish to debate it, is post question time. I have said that already today. Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Brandis: The question asked the minister to speculate on Mr Turnbull's motives and thinking. That is not a proper question—it is conjectural, it is based on hypothesis and it is beyond what the minister can possibly know. Senator Ludwig: On the point of order, Mr President: if we were all to adopt that broad interpretation, many of the questions from the opposition would be ruled out of order. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Ludwig: I am entitled to be heard in silence. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Ludwig: In question time in this place we allow a broad latitude for the question, and the response should be directly relevant to the question. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Sit down, please, Senator Ludwig. Order! I am entitled to hear the person in silence. That is why I have sat the minister down. If you want to debate the issue, there is an appropriate time or you can take successive points of order. That is fine. Senator Ludwig: The fallback always is that the minister may respond to that part of the question which he can respond to. That is what the standing orders say. There is no point of order raised by Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis has not asked that the question be ruled out of order. So I humbly submit that the question is in order. Senator Birmingham: On the point of order, Mr President: I would draw your attention to your memo to all senators of 25 August 2011 in which you state: A question inviting a minister to comment on opposition policies is strictly out of order— you then go on to say— although questions seeking the minister’s knowledge of how other policy proposals would affect matters within that minister’s responsibility have been ruled in order. Mr President, I would contend that both the primary question of Senator Brown and the supplementary do no more than invite the minister to comment on Mr Turnbull's words or policies and are therefore clearly out of order on the basis of your own ruling. The PRESIDENT: The minister need only answer the question insofar as it applies to the minister's portfolio.