():  My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, you and your government have consistently referred to the shared values Australia has with the US, even as the Trump regime is planning to live stream a public execution. Can you please explain to the Australian public the shared values between us and a government that publicly broadcasts state sanctioned snuff films?

In relation to the application of the death penalty, Australia has a longstanding position—which is bipartisan and cross-party, I hope—that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and for all peoples. That is a principled position that every Australian government, regardless of whether they're coalition or Labor, has taken and that every Foreign minister has taken in relation to death penalties being imposed on others and certainly in relation to Australian citizens. That has been our position. The United States and other countries have a different view on this. I put this position on these issues consistently, whether it is to those with whom we work more closely or those with whom we have more disagreement.

In relation to the vision of an execution. I agree it would be deeply distressing for any such vision to be live streamed. We don't believe anyone should be confronted with it, particularly younger Australians. Australians have a right to expect such content would not appear on their screens or on their teenagers' feeds. I would make the point that we believe that platforms do have a responsibility to meet these expectations, and I would also note—

I'm sorry? You want to interrupt? In relation to the US government, they are very clear about the Australian government's position. It has always been the position of the Australian government. We've always put this view about the death penalty. I also note— (Time expired)

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

I asked about shared values when it comes to live streaming an execution. Well, what about shared values when, as we saw just this week, US congresswoman Ilhan Omar had her home raided by the President's ICE paramilitary force, with federal agents going in just three weeks before a midterm election? It was clearly politically motivated. Are these also values that your government shares with the United States?

Senator Shoebridge, my apologies: I said 'second', but it was your first supplementary.

I'm not sure what—we don't comment on every domestic action that every government takes.

I know you're the leader now, but perhaps you could allow me to respond. I know you don't like the answer, but we don't comment on every domestic action that every government takes. We don't comment on every domestic, repressive action that President Putin takes. We don't comment on everything we disagree with that every democratically elected leader takes. We comment on things if asked, and we comment on things where they are in Australia's national interest. As a matter of principle—we are a democracy—we believe that democracy should function with the ability of individuals to fully and fairly contest elections and to be free to do so.

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

Minister, will you criticise a single thing that Australia's largest ally does? For example, the United States has just made a fresh deal with Russia to buy billions of dollars of Russian diesel that will fund the Russian war machine in the illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is while your government refuses to join Europe and close the loophole that allows billions of dollars of Russian oil to be sold in Australia after it's washed through third-country refineries. Are they also values you share with the United States?

Really?

It's you and Babet. You're the same.

Senator Watt, order! Senator Ayres, I'm not going to go around the chamber calling out the interjectors. I'm going to remind the chamber that Senator Shoebridge has the right to have his question heard in silence, and I shouldn't have had to call order.

I cannot believe Senator Shoebridge is seeking to lecture anybody on Russia and Ukraine. It really is quite extraordinary that he is seeking to lecture us on Russia after his comments. That really demonstrates a level of front that is quite remarkable. There might be other words for it. Hypocrisy might be one of them. But, seriously, you stood up, as Greens leader, and one of your first proper foreign policy statements was to back away from Ukraine.

On a point of order on relevance, my question is about this government allowing billions of dollars of Russian oil to be sold in Australia and saying nothing when the United States has done the same.

Senator Shoebridge, I have reminded you on many occasions that standing up for a point of order is not an opportunity to make a statement.

Senator Shoebridge, you are not in a debate with me either. I've also reminded you of that. You've raised your point of order. I'll remind Minister Wong of the question, and I would ask you to respect me when I am speaking.

You asked me about differences of views on Russia. I made clear yesterday our position—

No, I asked you about sanctions on oil.

I made clear yesterday our position on Russia and Ukraine. It is you who has changed position. You are lining up with both One Nation and President Putin when it comes to Ukraine, so don't give us a lecture about the position on Russia.

On a point of order, again, on relevance, I know the minister doesn't want to talk about letting billions of Russian oil in—

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. You are being disrespectful to me as the president of this chamber. On the last point of order, just a few seconds ago, I reminded you not to make a statement. I've reminded other senators of the same thing in this chamber. I expect all senators to do as I've requested them to do. You've made a point of order. There is no point of order. I'm going to ask the minister to continue, and I will listen carefully to the minister's answers.

We have a very clear position on Russia. It's a pity the Australian Greens do not.