Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:25): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that Mr Abbott may today meet UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said: We believe, in the UK government, that climate change presents one of this century’s major international challenges in terms of security and peace in the world … … … … We believe the most successful economies of the future will be built on low carbon growth … I ask the minister: do you think there is anything that connects the Australian Leader of the Opposition with this forward-thinking— (Time expired) Senator Abetz: Mr President, on a point of order, clearly this question is seeking an opinion. The question was: do you think there is anything connecting two parliamentarians—one in the United Kingdom and one on the opposition side? That clearly bears no relationship to the ministerial duties of the minister. Senator BOB BROWN: I will rephrase the question. Do you know of anything— Senator Abetz: You can't do that! The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brown. Senator BOB BROWN: The point is, 'do you think' means exactly the same as 'do you know of'— Senator Brandis: You ignorant man! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis, screaming across the chamber such as that does not help the conduct of question time. It does you no good at all as an individual member of the Senate and I think it might help if you withdraw that remark. I am not directing you; I think it might help if you withdraw it. Senator Brandis: If it offends Senator Brown to be called ignorant, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, that really does not help. Senator Heffernan is on his feet. Senator Heffernan, I want to clear this matter up first, so if you will resume your seat. I do not think the manner in which that was done helps the way in which question time is conducted in this place. I admire the fact that there is robust debate in this chamber, but I do not think it helps the conduct of the business for any senator—I am not just selecting you on this matter, Senator Brandis—to call across the chamber in such a manner. There is a time to debate these issues if you disagree with the views that are being expressed. Senator Abetz rightly took a point of order, which he is entitled to do. But if people disagree with the issue then the place to debate it is at the end of question time. In trying to maintain reasonable order in this place—I am not trying to be onerous on people—I just ask that, if people who are asked to withdraw something can withdraw it in a reasonable manner, that does help, and they should not put any caveats on it. Whether it offends Senator Brown or not is not the issue; it is whether it offends the chamber and the conduct of the business in this chamber. Some people need to look at the behaviour in this chamber—and I am not singling out you, Senator Brandis; I want you to understand that quite clearly. I am saying this to all people on all sides, because it really does reflect poorly on the way in which people perceive this chamber when people on both sides—it does not matter which political party—entertain behaviour that is not acceptable to the public. Having said that, Senator Brandis, it would assist me in the conduct of this if you would just say you withdraw it. Senator Brandis: I have already done so, Mr President. Senator Heffernan: My dear friend Senator Brown, there has been a great oversight today. The PRESIDENT: Is this a point of order? Senator Heffernan: The point of order is he forgot to order the camera angle. The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Senator Ludwig: Mr President, on the point of order originally raised by Senator Abetz, can I indicate at the outset that Senator Abetz appeared to be relying on 73(1)(h), which indicates that the question should not call for an expression of opinion. However, in looking at the letter of standing order 73, this chamber has not stuck to that for a long time, as evidenced by questions from the opposition over many years. But there is an ability to express the question more broadly rather than to simply confine it. In addition to that, if I couple it with the second part of Senator Brown's question, Senator Wong in answering can answer that part of the question which she is able to, even ruling out under 73(1)(h) that part which calls for an opinion. The question was quite long and covered a significant amount of territory. The PRESIDENT: There is an opportunity for me under the standing orders to ask for a question to be rephrased, but I am not going to do so. I am going to say, as I have said consistently in this place, the minister needs only to answer that part of the question which applies to the minister's portfolio. Those parts that do not apply the minister does not have to address at all. Minister, answer only those parts that apply to your portfolio.