Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:05): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister in his answer made reference to his earlier statement. In his earlier statement he declined to indicate the terms of his engagement, so I ask him: can he please advise the Senate whether he was paid $200,000-plus bonuses for less than 100 hours work a year? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! On my right! Senator Wong is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Sinodinos is entitled to hear the question, as I am so I can rule on the question. Senator WONG: Was he given equity of five per cent at no cost to him? The PRESIDENT: That question is out of order. Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I have ruled it out of order. Senator Conroy, you are now debating the issue. I have ruled it out of order. Senator Conroy: I ask you to review it after question time. The PRESIDENT: I will review the question after question time. Senator Conroy: Review the question and make a ruling. Senator Cormann: He is reflecting on the chair! The PRESIDENT: I have made the ruling. I have made it quite clear—it is out of order. I have undertaken that I will review the question. Senator Wong: In reviewing the question, I would ask you to consider these facts: the senator gave a statement to the chamber, I acknowledge, prior to him being minister— Senator Brandis: On a point of order— The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, resume your seat. Senator Wong: Thank you, Mr President. I will finish shortly. The senator, as minister in this place, reaffirmed that statement. What I would suggest to you, Mr President, when you review your ruling, is that the principle of ministerial accountability should enable this chamber to consider whether or not— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! On my right! Senator Ronaldson interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Ronaldson! Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann! Senator Wong: Mr President, I submit to you that the principle of ministerial accountability should enable this chamber to test whether or not a statement given and subsequently re-endorsed by a minister is in fact correct. What I suggest to you is it would be an abrogation of the principles of ministerial accountability for that question not to stand. The PRESIDENT: That is now debating the issue. As requested, I will review the ruling I made on that first supplementary question and I will come back to the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order!