Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (15:13): Mr Deputy President, I appreciate that you have drawn our colleague's attention to that standing order. I do think that, if we were ever to have an integrity commissioner in this place, the previous speaker's comments would be exactly the kind of thing that would be referred in the first instance. I too would like to take note of the answers to questions posed to Senator Conroy this afternoon. In doing so, I go to the issue of the extent to which a question like that, which was posed in such a way as to provide an opportunity for Senator Abetz to come into this place and make such a personal attack on a colleague, belies the extent to which we try to have some integrity in the way we operate in question time. To use question time as an opportunity to frame a personal attack on someone in this way is pretty low. But are we supposed to be surprised when we hear of this today? The questions in question time today were all over the place. The challenge we have as a government is to see a coherent message around economic policy, integrity and opportunities. We had a spate of questions today that did not seem to make any sense at all. They seemed to be relying on the latest stories in the press— Senator Abetz: You're struggling, Ursula. Senator STEPHENS: Senator Abetz says I am struggling—I am actually struggling to see what the point was of question time today. We had lacklustre and inaccurate questioning and reflections upon people which had no sense of logic at all. In fact, it demonstrated a lack of coherence and strategy, a sense of disunity that we all know exists in the opposition and a lack of commitment to the whole issue of the clean energy bills. The opposition is trying as hard as it can to say that it will repeal the clean energy bills but it has no chance to do so because of what that repealing will mean. We heard a question today that went to our international reputation with the IMF. The first question from shadow spokesperson Senator Cormann about what the bailout of the International Monetary Fund would be was such a naive and pathetic question. It went to the issue of— Senator Brandis: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The motion before the chair is that the Senate take note of the answer by Senator Conroy to the question asked of him by Senator Macdonald. I am sorry, but I am struggling to see how anything that Senator Stephens has been saying for the last little while now bears any relevance to Senator Conroy's answer to Senator Macdonald's question. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Stephens, the motion was quite specific and I draw you back to the motion that was moved by Senator Abetz. Senator STEPHENS: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am sorry, I was just reflecting on the chaos and the lack of coherence that was question time today. Senator Macdonald is here and I am sure we are going to hear from him this afternoon. A question was asked about this issue of a donation to the Greens' campaign and the proposal by Senator Brown on the issue of not-for-profit journalism being able to receive tax deductibility. On that issue, and the challenge for not-for-profit organisations and the definition of 'not for profit', we come to a debate that the opposition has again not been prepared to tackle. For a decade the challenge for not-for-profit organisations in Australia has been the plethora of amendments to the tax law and to definitions that nobody really understands. Senator Macdonald's question was a deliberately provocative question to the minister, and as such— Senator Ian Macdonald: Was it? Oh, good. Thank you. Senator STEPHENS: We know it was a deliberately positioned question to the minister to enable Senator Abetz to make his statement after question time. We understand that. However, the kinds of enterprises that deserve to be considered in much broader— (Time expired)