My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. On 10 September the Prime Minister listed superannuation reform as an area of achievement during his first year of office. Over the past four months, backbencher after backbencher has campaigned against these reforms, and they are currently being held hostage in the coalition party room. How can the Prime Minister list superannuation reform as an achievement when he cannot even get it through his own party room?

Well, Senator Gallagher, you seem to claim an acquaintance with what occurs in the coalition party room that is not the reality. That is not the reality. The proposition, Senator Gallagher, that you have put in your question is simply not the reality. This government understands that there is a need to deal with the issue of superannuation reform. We have taken this issue to an election, and at that election we put to the Australian people a series of reforms—many of them, I might say, Senator Gallagher, supported by your side of politics—which was more adventurous and more comprehensive than any reform of that sector that we had during the six years during which your side of politics was in power and your leader, Senator Wong, was, at least for part of that period, Australia's most unsuccessful finance minister. Senator Gallagher, do you want to have a grown-up debate about reform of superannuation, because that is an important part of the tax system, or do you simply want to do what Labor—

Mr President, a point of order on relevance. The question goes to the issue of listing superannuation reform as an achievement, and the question was: how can this be an achievement when it cannot even get through the party room? The minister has not gone near that question.

The minister did address the key element of the question. The minister is in order.

But you see, Senator Gallagher, we are on for a debate about public policy, but you never engage. You never engage. Every question that we had from the opposition yesterday—and, it seems, every question that we are going to get from the opposition today—was about playing trivial political games. Unlike our side of politics, which does come to terms with the serious business of economic reform, the serious business of budget repair, the serious business of structural reform to the economy, we cannot get a discussion from the Labor Party, because you do not have an idea.

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.

Last week the division within the government forced the Treasurer to release draft superannuation legislation that contained only part of the government's plans, and these resulted in a net cost to the budget. What is the government's current superannuation policy?

I have got a minute, Senator Gallagher. The government has released the first instalment of its superannuation proposals, which was, as you say in your question, released by the Treasurer last week.

Half!

I will take the interjection. Senator Gallagher says, 'Half'. We have announced a series of superannuation measures, and there will be more. It may be, Senator Gallagher, that in the ACT assembly it was unknown to introduce large areas of legislation in a single block, but in this parliament it is the most commonplace thing in the world for legislation to be introduced in tranches, and that is what we have done. We will be bringing that legislation to the chamber, and— (Time expired)

Final supplementary question, Senator Gallagher.

When will Tony Abbott and the right wing of the coalition finalise the government's superannuation policy?

Senator Gallagher, I thought you were a bit better than that, frankly. Seriously, I did. Why is it that every single question is about insider political games and the Labor Party's obsession with political game playing? Whether it be on the question of the plebiscite to give Australians marriage equality, whether it be on the question of superannuation or whether it be any other area of policy, we have not had a question from the Labor Party this week about policy. Every single question we have had—

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order?

Mr President, a point of order: the minister just asserted that he had not had a question about policy. We asked him one. He did not answer it.

That is a debating point. There is no point of order. Senator Macdonald?

Can I just speak on the same point of order, Mr President?

There was no point of order.

Well, I will raise my own. I am having trouble in hearing the leader give a response because the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, continues to shout all the way through the answer. I would ask you to bring her into line.

Order on both sides! Senator Macdonald has raised a very important point of order. I remind all senators from both sides that interjections are disorderly, and I am struggling to hear parts of the answer, as well as parts of the question. Attorney-General, you have the call.

Mr President, through you—Senator Gallagher, we are up for a serious debate about superannuation policy, but we cannot engage you on it because all you want to do is play political games on this and on every other issue. Ask us some policy questions. (Time expired)