Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:05): I move: That the Senate— (1) reaffirms the principle that ministers are accountable to the Senate, and through the Senate, to the Australian people; (2) notes the failure of the Assistant— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Fifield. Senator Fifield: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. In order to stand up and speak, the senator is required to seek leave. Given that the vote has concluded on the previous matter, we should be returning to the order on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT: The motion that has just been passed enables Senator Wong to take that action. The advice that I have received is that Senator Wong should be able to proceed to move her motion. Senator Fifield: On a point of order, Mr President: the opportunity for Senator Wong to move the motion was contingent on the failure by Senator Sinodinos to comply with the motion. The motion was passed after 12 o'clock. Point (3) of the motion says: …if no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 pm today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply. There has not been an opportunity for Senator Sinodinos to fail to comply, because the motion was passed after 12 o'clock, the vote on which has only just been concluded. Senator Moore: I too rise on a point of order, Mr President: on reading the motion that we have just passed in this place, there is no limit on how or when Senator Sinodinos could come in before 12 o'clock and make a statement. He did not come into the chamber before 12 o'clock— Senator Ian Macdonald: The motion had not been passed! The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Moore: Point (3) of the motion we have passed says that if no statement has been made by 12. We have passed that motion. It could have been passed at any time. It has now been passed. Senator Sinodinos had every opportunity to come into this place before 12 o'clock— Senator Brandis: He could not! Senator Moore: I am sure, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Order on both sides! Senator Moore, I am not going to tolerate this. If there are views to be expressed there is an appropriate way to take the appropriate point of order. Shouting across the chamber at each other does not resolve the issue. Senator Moore: Senator Sinodinos was fully aware—I am sorry I will take that back. I believe that Senator Sinodinos was fully aware of the debate that was going on in this chamber this morning. We have a three-point motion that clearly identified a time— Senator Ian Macdonald: It wasn't passed by then! Senator Moore: In the end that motion was passed and that allowed a time for Senator Sinodinos to come in and take action. He did not choose to do that. My understanding of the motion we have passed allows us to take further action. The PRESIDENT: I am going to recognise you, Senator Abetz, but you know that I insist that everyone who stands on their feet should be heard in silence, with respect. Senator Abetz: Thank you, Mr President. On the point of order, the motion that the Senate has just passed said that it required the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber. That has now passed. Senator Fifield: At five past 12. Senator Abetz: Yes, at five past 12, Senator Fifield—absolutely right. Point (3) of the motion says that if Senator Sinodinos has not abided by this motion by midday, he is deemed to have failed to comply. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Wait a moment, Senator Abetz. Senator Abetz: And so, Mr President, if there is any suggestion of procedural fairness and decency, one would imagine that, if a senator is to be called upon to provide an explanation to the Senate, that senator should have a formal communication made to him or her indicating that the Senate requires something of that senator. In this motion that requirement is deemed to have been required before he actually receives the notice. In other words, this motion says that if he fails to comply to something before midday he will be deemed to be in breach, but the Senate only decided this after midday. The clever tacticians on the Labor side have really got themselves into a dilemma yet again. Like their own leader's questions being ruled out of order yesterday, we now have their own tactic in absolute disarray. How can somebody comply with something if the deadline is set and voted on after the deadline? This is an absolute and utter shambles, but fairness clearly demands and determines that any resolution of the Senate be communicated to the senator so that senator can respond to it. If the deadline you give to the senator is midday but you actually pass the motion past midday and say, 'Guess what? You are caught already; you're already in breach because of our motion,' it shows how bad the Labor Party's tactics are or, indeed, that they have no understanding of what appropriate procedure or fairness is. If the Labor Party genuinely wanted midday, they should have curtailed their speakers and should have had Senator Carr move immediately that the motion be put, rather than wait until a circumstance where the vote was taken after midday. Senator Conroy: I raise a point of order. What we have here is a further pathetic defence of Senator Sinodinos' refusal to turn up in this chamber to give an explanation. Senator Ian Macdonald: This is not a point of order; it is a debate. Senator Conroy: Let us be very clear— The PRESIDENT: Order! If you did not interrupt me, that would be very helpful indeed. I am prepared to take a point of order, but I am not prepared to have this debated. Senator Conroy: Senator Sinodinos had every opportunity to be in here at the conclusion of that debate, rise to his feet, stop hiding— The PRESIDENT: Order! That is debating the issue now— Senator Conroy: rise to his feet and speak on this matter.— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy: He chose not to be in this chamber— The PRESIDENT: Order! That is debating the issue. I will take representations on the point of order. Senator Brandis: I am confining myself to the point of order, Mr President. The Clerk might be able to advise you, but, as far as I could tell, the motion was passed at eight minutes past 12. Until eight minutes past 12, there was no motion. At eight minutes past 12, a motion in the terms before you was passed; compliance with which was not possible, because, the hour of 12 having expired, it was not possible for Senator Sinodinos at eight minutes past 12 to make a statement in obedience to the motion by 12. If you look at subsection (3), Mr President, of the motion just passed, the key words are 'a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply'. The motion that we have just passed allows Senator Wong to move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. Because there was no motion with which Senator Sinodinos could have complied, there has been no fulfilment of the condition. The PRESIDENT: I think we need to work our way through this. Let me say one thing on the points of order that have been raised today and then let us work our way through it. On the point of order about the time the motion was put, I am reliably informed, because I was not in the chair, that it was prior to midday. I am going on the advice of the Clerk because I was not here. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I am not in this to debate it with you, Senator Macdonald; I am trying to assist the process. I can only go on the advice that I am given by the Clerk at the table. The advice that I am given by the Clerk at the table is that the motion was put prior to 12 noon, and the practice of the Senate is to dispose of the business that is before the chair. The next thing that happened was, as you found out, you cannot interrupt that process. In a not improper way you raised yourself to your feet and I refused to take the point of order. I have been consistent there, and the Clerk advises me that it was proper for Senator Wong, as the next matter, to stand to her feet to move the motion that she did. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have Senator Macdonald, who has been seeking the call. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I will respect that. Senator Wong. Senator WONG: Thank you. As I understand it, the nub of the proposition the government is making is that Senator Sinodinos has had the opportunity to comply with the order and come to the chamber. I would make two points. The first is that we heard from Senator Brandis twice this morning, we heard from Senator Abetz I think twice this morning, and we heard from Senator Fifield many times this morning. With respect, they are not the senators we wish to hear from; it is Senator Sinodinos we wish to hear from. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator WONG: By making an offer, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicates to me that Senator Sinodinos wishes to come to the chamber prior to question time, or later today in order to comply with this order, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate says that we should not move this motion because Senator Sinodinos has not had time to comply, my invitation to him is this: if he as Leader of the Government stands up in this place and says— Senator Abetz: That is not a point of order, Chair. Senator WONG: I am making you an offer. The PRESIDENT: Order! If it is not a point of order, it is not a point of order. Senator Abetz: She should be sat down. The PRESIDENT: If you wish to work out a resolution to this matter with the Leader of the Government, I cannot do it by point of order. Senator WONG: With respect, Mr President, I think this demonstrates the lie at the heart of those opposite because of their submissions. They are not interested. The PRESIDENT: That is now debating it. Senator WONG: I am making an offer. The opposition would be prepared to look at a deferral of this if Senator Sinodinos wishes to come to the chamber. If the Leader of the Government is not going to bring him to the chamber we will proceed. The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I can see you are on your feet. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, at midday there was no requirement on Senator Sinodinos to do anything because the Senate had not then passed the motion calling upon him to do something. So at midday there was no requirement for Senator Sinodinos to do anything. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Fifield interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes, you will get your point of order when your colleagues have become restful. Senator Fifield. Senator Fifield: Mr President, I understand that there are some quirks and peculiarities about Senate procedure. For instance a Thursday sitting is sometimes considered to be continuing on a Friday, and that in a Senate sense a Friday can, in effect, be a Thursday. I understand that what you are suggesting is that because a sequence of votes commenced before noon, therefore, the passing of a motion after noon should be deemed to have occurred before noon—in effect, the Senate backdating time. I appreciate that for the records of the Senate— The PRESIDENT: Order! I will just interrupt you. I do not mind you taking a point of order, but I do not like words being put into my mouth. Senator Fifield: I am not putting those words into your mouth. The PRESIDENT: You are. Senator Fifield: I apologise if that was the way it was taken, Mr President. What I am referring to is the way that Senate procedure may apparently operate. If the motion is, in effect, backdated as having taken effect at five to 12 rather than eight minutes past 12, that may be the way the Senate seeks to record things. But, for those of us who follow eastern daylight saving time, I think it is only fair and reasonable to take it that, if there is a motion that calls upon something to happen before 12 and the motion is not actually determined until after 12, that is not reasonable. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Fifield: Mr President, if I can continue, the question that was before the chair before 12 was 'That the question now be put'. The question before the chair was not the motion of Senator Wong. It is quite possible that the question 'That the question now be put' could in fact have been defeated. Therefore, I cannot see how the commencement of a vote on the question 'That the question now be put' can be deemed to be the time at which the question on Senator Wong's substantive motion took effect and was passed. The PRESIDENT: Can I make one thing quite clear: I am operating in conjunction with the advice that is coming from the Clerk, as I was not in the chamber. You have got to understand that in the first instance. I am being fair to everyone on that. Obviously, we need an action replay screen here somewhere but I have not got that at my disposal, so I am listening to the points of order. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, can I raise a point of order? The PRESIDENT: No. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I have just asked the Clerk. The PRESIDENT: You might have, but Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Ian Macdonald: He told me it was at five past 12. The PRESIDENT: That is not the advice that the Clerk gave me. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! That is now debating it with me, and I do not want to enter into that. Senator WONG: I make three points. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator WONG: Mr President, the berating of the Clerk by government senators is not appropriate. Senator Ian Macdonald: I am asking a question. Senator WONG: I am here and I can hear what you are saying. Senator Ian Macdonald: You've got very good ears. Senator WONG: This is bullying of the Senate Clerk. This is utterly inappropriate and it should stop! The PRESIDENT: Order! None of this is assisting the resolution of this matter. Senator Fifield: Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Wong was reflecting on Senator Macdonald. She made a very serious allegation and she should withdraw it. The PRESIDENT: If you were reflecting on the senator, you should withdraw that comment. Senator Conroy: An accurate statement is not a reflection. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator WONG: I withdraw whatever aspect that he was offended by. Mr President, I make three points. The first is that the motion that the Senate has passed has three separate paragraphs. It does require the Assistant Treasurer to immediately attend the chamber and give some subject matter which the explanation should reflect. A separate paragraph, at paragraph (3)—which I assert to you is a continuing obligation and separate from the obligation in paragraph (1)—says that if no statement has been made by 12 noon today that I may immediately move a further motion relating to his failure to comply. On that basis I say to you that the Clerk's advice is correct and I should proceed to move this motion. I again say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that, if he says that Senator Sinodinos has not had time to attend, we will defer this motion. Senator Fifield: Mr President, on a point of order, which may assist the chamber: the Dynamic Red says that the motion moved by Senator Wong was put at 12.01 pm and that it was concluded at five past 12. Senator Brandis: That is an official record, is it? The PRESIDENT: I do not doubt what you say. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I am trying to be fair to as many points of view as I can. Senator Milne. Senator Milne: Thank you, Mr President. The Senate agreed to a motion relating to the conduct of the Assistant Treasurer, saying that the motion that was to be moved would take 'precedence over all other business this day until determined'—and that is what was passed. The motion was then moved and debated to take precedence over all other business until it is determined. The motion was then moved and determined in the affirmative—that is, it does not matter what time; it was determined in the affirmative. Part (3) of that motion said— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have asked other senators to be heard in silence. Senator Milne is entitled to be heard in silence as well. Senator Milne: So the motion that was to be given precedence over all other business until it was determined said that if no statement had been made before 12 noon the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. When the motion that was given precedence over all other government business was determined in the affirmative, it automatically gave Senator Wong the right to move the motion that she has now moved, and that is why I support your ruling. Senator Abetz: Mr President, I understand the information that has been provided to you by the Clerk and I believe that it was given to you in good faith. However, the motion that was put at one minute to 12 was in fact not the substantive motion but a procedural motion. Before the Senate at any time there can be only one question, and the question at one minute to 12 was that the motion be put. That was dispensed with— Senator Brandis: That the question be put. Senator Abetz: Thank you: 'that the question be put'. That then was dispensed with. We then moved back to the substantive issue, the substantive question, which was the motion moved by Senator Wong; and that motion, without any shadow of doubt, was put after midday. It was put after midday and the Dynamic Red discloses that. I think, if you were to ask the Clerk what time the actual, substantive motion was put, you would find that it was put after midday, which meant that there was no capacity for the senator who is the subject of this motion to have actually complied with it. Indeed, Senator Milne in her point of order indicated to you that the motion moved by Senator Wong gave that issue precedence over all other matters—which includes the capacity, if he wanted to or not, of Senator Sinodinos to give a statement. So as a result of Labor's own move, of this motion taking precedence over all matters, it was impossible for Senator Sinodinos to comply. I understand the situation you regretfully find yourself in, Mr President. But the actual motion, the substantive motion, there is no doubt, was put after midday, and that is why the Labor Party are now the architects of their own demise in this matter. Senator Brandis: On the point of order, Mr President: I adopt what Senator Abetz has said. What he said is plainly right. But, further to that, can I draw your attention to standing order 84, from which it is perfectly clear that the Senate may only deal with one motion at a time. Senator Conroy: Eric said that. You don't need to clarify what he said. Senator Brandis: What Senator Abetz has said is right. But my point is that the standing orders actually make it clear. That being the case, the only motion to which Senator Wong's motion relates was, according to the Dynamic Red itself— The PRESIDENT: We are now debating it. I understand— Senator Brandis: a motion put after 12. The PRESIDENT: I understand your point of order. Senator Fifield: Mr President, on the point of order— Senator Conroy interjecting— Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator WONG: How desperate they are to avoid him giving a statement. Senator Fifield: Mr President, could I— Senator WONG: They are filibustering their own— Senator Fifield: On the point of order— Senator WONG: Everybody knows what you are doing. Senator Brandis: You're the one who screwed up your own— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator Ronaldson interjecting— Senator WONG: Well, you don't need to listen to— The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides! Senator Fifield, make your point of order. Senator Fifield: Thank you, Mr President. Can I offer the suggestion that this particular episode and the keeping of Senate time be referred to the Procedure Committee for examination? I think the fact that a senator is required to do something before they are asked to do something— Senator WONG: Is this a point of order? The PRESIDENT: That is— Senator Brandis: It is a helpful suggestion. Penny, you're getting flustered. The PRESIDENT: Order! Excuse me! I am not going to take barracking from my left— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: or my right. Senator Fifield: Because at the moment, Mr President, the Senate is appropriating for itself a Matrix-like capacity to slow time! Senator WONG: Like you're doing. Senator Fifield: I think all senators are entitled to operate in this place on— Senator WONG: How desperate they are. Senator FIFIELD: eastern standard, daylight savings time— The PRESIDENT: That is now debating the issue. Senator Fifield: If it could be referred to the Procedure Committee. The PRESIDENT: All right. I am going to make— Senator Ronaldson: Mr President, on a point of order— The PRESIDENT: Order! I am making a ruling on this matter. Senator Ronaldson: But I've got a point of order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Yes, I know. Senator Ronaldson: I am waiting for the call. The PRESIDENT: Yes, well, wait until I have made my ruling, and then you can take your point of order. I am entitled to make a ruling. My ruling— Senator Ronaldson: Mr President, you said that everyone who wanted to make a point of order would be able to— The PRESIDENT: Yes, but there is a tolerance level as far as far as the chair is concerned as well. Senator Ronaldson: But I was in the chamber when this matter was moved. The PRESIDENT: Good! Senator Conroy: So was Kim Carr! Senator Kim Carr: I moved it! The PRESIDENT: Order! This needs to be resolved by the chair. It is unresolved at this stage. I will be ruling that it is well within the province of Senator Wong to move as the first item of business following the consideration of that motion the motion as she moved. That has now got a ruling on the table. I have had consultation with the Clerk on this matter and I believe that that is the position. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides! Senators on both sides, this needs to be resolved by a ruling. I have now given the ruling. Senator Fifield: Just on a point of order, Mr President: I am seeking clarification of your ruling. Are you ruling that the Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with something— The PRESIDENT: That is debating the issue. I am ruling— Senator Fifield: before he was actually required to do so. The PRESIDENT: Just wait a minute. I am not entering into the debate. I have ruled that it was in order for Senator Wong to move the motion, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the resolution of the Senate. Senator WONG: I move: That the Senate reaffirms- Senator Ronaldson: On a point of order, Mr President: I just need some clarification of your ruling— The PRESIDENT: Senator, I have now ruled. Senator Ronaldson: I am seeking some clarification. Does your ruling say that despite the substantive motion being— The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I have made a ruling that it was in order for Senator Wong to move the motion. Senator Wong— Senator Brandis: A point of order— The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Wong has the call. Senator WONG: I move: That the Senate reaffirms- Senator Brandis: On a point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: One minute, Senator Wong. Senator Brandis: Mr President, I have a new point of order, and it does not bear on any of the matters that were debated for the last 20 minutes on the question of the time at which the motion was put. My point of order is that the motion that Senator Wong now seeks to move may only be moved by leave, because the resolution— Senator Conroy: No. Mr President, he is defying your ruling. Senator Brandis: No, I am not. If I may, Mr President, have the call. The PRESIDENT: I hear where you are coming from. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis: Do I have the call, Mr President? The PRESIDENT: Yes, you have. Yes, I am waiting for you— Senator Brandis: I am just waiting for the interjections to stop. The PRESIDENT: No, no. You are right. I am listening. Senator Brandis: The motion that Senator Wong has been given the right to move without leave is a motion described in part (3) of the motion lately passed—that is: (3) if no statement has been made by Senator Sinodinos before 12 pm today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to Senator Sinodinos' failure to comply. It is those last seven or eight words—'relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply'—which define the motion that Senator Wong has been given the right to move. If you look at the motion— The PRESIDENT: That is now debating the issue. You have taken your point of order. Senator Brandis: If you look at the motion Senator Wong has circulated, it is not a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. Irrespective of the debate we had just before about whether in fact Senator Sinodinos did fail to comply—and you have already ruled on that and I do not reflect on your ruling on that point—if you look at the terms of this resolution, it is not a motion relating to Senator Sinodinos's failure to comply. It says— The PRESIDENT: Now we are getting into the debating aspect of it. Senator Brandis: But Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, I am not going to put up with debating points. Senator Brandis: It is not a debating point. The PRESIDENT: I have ruled. There is no point of order, Senator Brandis, and I have given Senator Wong the call. Senator WONG: I move: That the Senate— (1) reaffirms the principle that ministers are accountable to the Senate and, through the Senate, the Australian people— Senator Fifield: On a point of order, Mr President: it is not in order for Senator Wong to move this motion without seeking leave, because this motion does not relate— The PRESIDENT: Order! That is now becoming a tedious point of repetition. I have— Senator Fifield: to Senator Sinodinos's alleged failure to comply. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on that point of order. There is no point of order. I have given Senator Wong the call. Senator Abetz: Mr President, if I may raise a fresh point of order? Just for absolute clarity, can you confirm that there is nothing in any way, shape or form in your ruling that suggests that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with any request of the Senate— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made a ruling on that. Senator Abetz: because that is a fundamental proposition— The PRESIDENT: I have made my ruling quite clear. That was raised earlier. Senator Abetz: Well— The PRESIDENT: I have, Senator. I have made it quite clear. Senator Abetz: If I may then seek your indulgence, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: No, there is no indulgence. You have had your chance at a point of order. I have given the call to Senator Wong. Senator Abetz: On a fresh point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: No. Senator Abetz: But— Senator WONG: You cannot keep doing this! Senator Cormann: On a point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have two people on their feet. I call Senator Abetz. Senator Abetz: Mr President, I heard your ruling in relation to allowing Senator Wong to proceed. With respect, I have a certain view on that, but I do not want to relitigate that aspect. I am, however, seeking to obtain from you clarification whether there is, in any way, shape or form, a suggestion that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with an order of the Senate. The PRESIDENT: I have already made that very clear. I made no suggestions in my ruling. Senator Abetz: Right, thank you. So there was— The PRESIDENT: My ruling was quite clear. Senator Wong has the call. Senator Abetz: no suggestion of Senator Sinodinos's failure— The PRESIDENT: No, I made no suggestions in my ruling about anything. I made that quite clear. Senator Cormann: Mr President— The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Cormann: I am on— The PRESIDENT: I know you are on your feet. Senator Cormann: I was on my feet. The PRESIDENT: I do not care. You will sit down because Senator Wong got to her feet. Senator Cormann: I wanted to raise— The PRESIDENT: Excuse me! I have had someone on this side of the chamber— Senator Cormann: But I have a point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: You will sit down! Senator Cormann: My point of order— The PRESIDENT: Excuse me! You will sit down. Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Cormann: But— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, you will resume your seat! Senator Cormann: I still have— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann! I am standing now, something I have not done in my time as President. Senator Cormann: On a point of order, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: No! Senator Wong was— Senator Brandis: Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, I will give the call in due course as I have done fairly throughout this debate. But I am not going to be put to the test by people. Senator Wong has the call. Senator Cormann: But I have a point of order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong might have a point of order. I do not know what Senator Wong is getting to her feet for. Senator WONG: I move: That the Senate— (1) reaffirms the— Senator Cormann: I have a very specific point of order, Mr President. I am seeking clarification on a very specific point. I have been here throughout the whole debate this morning. I have been here through every aspect of these proceedings and there is clearly a very important point in relation to the motion that was eventually passed by the Senate after 12 pm. It relates to the part that Senator Brandis pointed to before which makes the motion that is about to be moved contingent— The PRESIDENT: This is becoming a tedious point of repetition and I have ruled on that point of order. Senator Cormann: I am asking for a clarification, because if there— The PRESIDENT: I have clarified everything in respect of that motion. Senator Cormann: Have you made a ruling that Senator Sinodinos has failed to comply with an order— The PRESIDENT: I have just answered that in respect of a point of order made by Senator Abetz. Senator Cormann: I did not understand the answer. The PRESIDENT: The answer is very clear, sir. You go and read the record. Senator WONG: I move: That the Senate— Senator Fifield: On a point of order, Mr President— Senator WONG: Ministerial accountability under the Abbott government is on display today! The PRESIDENT: Senator Fifield has the call. Senator Fifield: I am seeking clarification because it is still—