Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:06): Yet again Senator Abetz asks me a question which makes a false assertion. Implicit in his question very clearly is that the United States will not meet the pledges it made. That is the implicit proposition in his question, because the assumption that the government is making in its modelling—as Treasury has explained to senators on the other side—is that the United States and other major economies will meet the commitments they made at Copenhagen and Cancun. Surprise, surprise! What did President Obama say on this issue when he visited Australia? He said that the United States would meet the pledges it made at Copenhagen and Cancun. So yet again we have those on the other side asking questions which assume nonfacts. What they cannot abide is not only that the legislation has already passed the Senate— Senator Brandis: Mr President, on a point of order: my point of order does not go to direct relevance. It goes to standing order 73(4). Very frequently in the last year or so this minister has been in breach of the prohibition not to debate the question in answering it. The standing orders say: (4) In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it. The PRESIDENT: Order! On my right, I need silence. Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Brandis: We accept that, in challenging assumptions that a question makes, a minister may be relevant and within the prohibition of that standing order. But this minister has gone beyond challenging the assumptions and is explicitly debating the question, and I ask you to bring her to order. Senator Conroy: Mr President, on the point of order: that is truly one of the most absurd claims that Senator Brandis has made. They constantly interject. Their questions are constantly broad and they try to define themselves when they take their points of order. They constantly change the goalposts because they just cannot get their act together on their taxes committee. This is a spurious point of order and I urge you to reject it, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I am listening to the minister's answer and I draw the minister's attention to the question and the fact that there are seven seconds now remaining. Senator WONG: As I said, the question contained an assumption which was incorrect. It is a pity that the coalition do not like that being pointed out to them. (Time expired)