My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to answers given by the Prime Minister yesterday in question time. Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister refused to rule out appointing Senator Brandis to a diplomatic or judicial post before the next election?

I have actually seen the Prime Minister's answer. I found it quite flattering, actually, Senator Kitching. But I think the point that the Prime Minister was at pains to make is the extraordinary obsession the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, has with me. Senator Kitching, this is the point of the Prime Minister's answer. Senator Dreyfus, I am sorry to say, Senator Kitching, has developed a very, very unfortunate reputation around this place in the last year or two as the man who cried wolf, because every time Senator Dreyfus has mounted a political attack on me it has fallen flat. Do you know why it has fallen flat, Senator Kitching? Do you know why it has fallen flat?

Point of order, Senator Gallacher.

My point of order is that Senator Brandis should refer to people in the other place by their correct title.

I know. I did note he promoted him to senator, but he's not a senator; he is Mr Dreyfus. Senator Kitching, on the point of order.

On the point of order, I hate to keep pointing out the Attorney's lack of knowledge of the standing orders, but, under standing order 193, I do not think he can refer to the shadow Attorney-General in the way he just has. I refer particularly to sub order 3.

And, that is, reflecting on a member in the other place. I will remind all senators to refer to members in the other place by their correct title and also not to reflect adversely on members of the other place. The Attorney-General has the call.

Mr President, I do owe the Senate an apology in referring to Mr Mark Dreyfus as a senator. I am sure every senator would be embarrassed by that misattribution. Senator Kitching, the reason everyone of Mr Mark Dreyfus's political attacks on me have fallen flat is the absence of one essential ingredient, and that is relevant facts or evidence. That is the problem.

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

Unsurprisingly on relevance. The question was why the Prime Minister refused to rule out appointing Senator Brandis to a diplomatic or judicial post before the next election.

I think the Attorney-General has been on track in relation to the question with the answer he is providing. Attorney-General.

Thank you, Mr President. I was asked about the Prime Minister's answer and I was referring to it directly. So, Senator Kitching, if you are going to mount a political attack on somebody, you ought to make sure you have the evidence. We know that the Hayden royal commission had plenty of evidence about you, Senator Kitching. We know the Hayden royal commission had enough evidence about you, Senator Kitching, to refer not one, not two but in 11 criminal prosecutions to the police or the Fair Work Authority. But, nevertheless, in relation to what Mr Dreyfus has said about me from time to time, it would strengthen his hand if he had any relevant facts. (Time expired)

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question.

Given Australia's current High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer, was furious about rumours Senator Brandis would be handed the job in London, has the Prime Minister reached out to Mr Downer to reassure him he will not be giving his job to Senator Brandis?

Senator Kitching, and returning to Mr Dreyfus, who asked this question of Mr Turnbull yesterday—

Order! Point of order, Senator Wong.

Mr President, do I even need to explain it? He is flouting the standing orders.

Senator Wong, I think the nature of the question is bordering on not even being relevant. I have allowed it to happen. If you are raising points of order about relevance, Senator Brandis has been addressing the question, considering the nature of the question, I think quite well.

I seek your indication, Mr President, of how a question about the Prime Minister's actions in relation to Mr Downer has anything to do with Mr Dreyfus.

I will allow the Attorney-General to answer the question, in the frame it has been asked of him, as he wishes. Senator Brandis.

If I may say so, Mr President, I am being directly relevant to the Prime Minister's answer, because, in the Prime Minister's answer, he pointed out the morbid and unhealthy and—to use Senator Fifield's words—slightly icky obsession that Mr Dreyfus appears to have with me. But, of course, it is not just with me that Mr Dreyfus has an obsession, Senator Kitching. Mr Dreyfus has threatened to resign from the parliament if Senator Kitching were to be appointed to the Senate.

Order! Senator Wong, point of order.

Mr President, you ought not allow him to flout the standing orders in this way. If he wants to give a speech about these matters, he is entitled to do so. We will deal with that. This is question time, Mr President.

Senator Wong, it is question time. I adjudicate on the information before me. Senator Brandis has indicated that the Prime Minister's answer contained exactly the information that he is reporting to the Senate, and that is what the question inquired about. The question inquired about the Prime Minister's answer. The Attorney-General is completely relevant in relation to this question. Attorney-General.

Thank you, Mr President. If you ask an open-ended question, you must expect the answer that you get. Mr Dreyfus is not just obsessed with me, Senator Kitching; he is obsessed with you. Why otherwise did he say that he would resign if you were appointed to the Senate? We are waiting to see Mr Dreyfus come good on his threat. (Time expired)

A final supplementary question, Senator Kitching.

Just in the last three months, the Attorney-General has faced controversies relating to his attempted muzzling of the Solicitor-General, his appointment without process of mates to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and his attempt to hand over $300 million to his Liberal mates in Western Australia. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Attorney-General's Liberal-National Party colleague who was prepared to tell the Courier Mail: 'London can't come soon enough'?

Senator Kitching, in the spirit of the season I will overlook the jibe and I will say to you that what we have achieved—as recently as today, by the way, as I addressed in my answer to Senator Fawcett—is to concentrate on what really matters to the Australian people, in my portfolio and in the portfolio of every minister represented along this front bench. In my portfolio, had you bothered to attend the debate, which you did not, you would have seen two important national security bills passed by the chamber as recently as this morning, and you would have seen, earlier this week, the Prime Minister and I announce the appointment of the first woman to be the Chief Justice of Australia, something I would have thought you would have celebrated. That is the difference, Senator Kitching: you may choose to waste your time in question time on political gossip and tittle tattle but we in the government get on with real achievements.