Senator CARR (Victoria—Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (14:37): It really is extraordinary—the crocodile tears we are hearing on these issues! In the case of Malaysia the facts are very clear: the asylum seekers will be there with the permission and the agreement of the Malaysian government; they will have legal authority to remain in Malaysia. There are agreements to ensure opportunities for asylum seekers' claims to be considered and Malaysia will not be sending any refugees back to persecution in their countries of origin. This contrasts with the position of the opposition, which was to send people back. There was a great risk of drowning as a consequence of their deliberate policy to ensure that unseaworthy boats be pursued— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on both sides! Senator Carr has 19 seconds remaining. Senator CARR: It is a remarkable feat that you think that drowning people at sea is a question of respecting human rights. Senator Cash: Mr President, my point of order is in relation to relevance. The question I asked was a very narrow question: does the government accept that its policy places men, women and children at risk of brutal physical punishment in direct contravention of Australia's obligations under the UN Convention against Torture? It demands a relevant answer. Senator Ludwig: Mr President, on a point of order: What the opposition have descended to is using points of order as opportunities to restate their questions. There is no point of order. The minister has been— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Ludwig, sit down. Senator Macdonald, I have just sat Senator Ludwig down because I could not hear what Senator Ludwig was saying. I am entitled to hear what he is saying. I can see that you are anxious to get to your feet, but I should at least be allowed to hear what Senator Ludwig is saying before I take what I presume is your point of order. Senator Ludwig: As I was saying on the point of order, there are two parts to it. The first part is the opposition have simply used that as an opportunity of restating the question. The second part is that the minister was answering the question that was asked. It is not an opportunity for those opposite to simply restate the question again, even if it is not in quite the same form. On that basis there is no point of order. The minister has been answering the question directly. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, on a further point of order: you ruled that my saying to Senator Conroy that Goebbels would be proud was unparliamentary and yet the minister in his answer accuses the opposition of wanting to drown children, which is a far more heinous accusation than 'Goebbels would be proud'. Mr President, in fairness I ask you to require the minister to withdraw the comment that the coalition wants to drown children. The PRESIDENT: If that is what was said, it needs to be withdrawn. Senator CARR: Mr President, it is not what was said. What was said was that the coalition policy— The PRESIDENT: Just wait a minute. I have points of order before me which I will deal with. Senator Bob Brown: Mr President, on a point of order: you previously ruled that if you did not hear a comment you could not rule on it. I ask you to reflect on that and say if there is a different interpretation here. The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Senator Brown; that is a point of argument and debate. On the point of order that was taken, I believe the minister is answering the question. I do draw the minister's attention to the question. The minister has 12 seconds remaining to answer the question. Senator CARR: Mr President, what I have said— Honourable senators interjecting— A government senator: He said he didn't say it. The PRESIDENT: I did ask if that was what was said and I was assured that that was not what was said. I can only go on that, Senator Macdonald. Senator CARR: What I have said is the opposition is crying crocodile tears on human rights standards, given their policy was to tow boats back to sea, the consequence of which was that they risked people drowning at sea. What we have is an opposition— (Time expired)