Senator BUTTON ( Victoria ) -by leave-Mr President, for the benefit of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), I shall recount what happened. I take it that that is what he wishes me to do. Shortly before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, Senator Walsh moved, in essence, that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Government in the Senate from making a statement explaining why he had misled the Senate in Question Time this morning. I take it that I have been invited to indicate the background to the matter. I do so in these terms: At Question Time this morning I asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, some questions relating to the reasons for the failure to proclaim the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The first question I asked Senator Webster this morning was:

Senator Websteranswered that question by saying, firstly-, that it had been asked five times before and that I was stupid to ask it again. As I indicated this morning, that is an allegation to which at times I plead guilty. As I think every honourable senator ought to do. I went on to say that in respect of this particular issue I did not regard the question as a stupid one and that, as it was a proper question, it required a proper answer from the Minister. Senator Webster told the Senate that the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park had not been declared because of constitutional questions which had to be resolved in discussions with the

Queensland Government. I then asked a supplementary question of Senator Webster. I asked whether he was aware of the fact that in the House of Representatives today the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) had given a completely different answer to the same question, saying yes, it was a fact that the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park had not been declared because of the permits to which I referred in my question this morning.

In answer to the supplementary question which I directed to Senator Webster as to whether he was aware of the answer which Mr Newman gave in the House of Representatives, he gave an answer which I am not able to quote in detail, because in spite of inquiries to his office as to whether the ' pinks ' of that answer would be available to me, I have not been able to obtain the answer in detail. However, perhaps it is not terribly important to the substance of the issue that is now before the Senate. The substance of Senator Webster's answer was that the question asked in the House of Representatives was a different question altogether. I then drew the Senate's attention, in a question addressed to Senator Carrick, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to the precise question which had been asked in the House of Representatives and the precise answer which had been given in the House of Representatives, which precise answer was quite contrary to the precise answer given to the same question asked of Senator Webster in the Senate. I drew attention to the fact that the questions were identical. I drew attention to Mr Newman's answers and I then sought to ask the Leader of the Government, Senator Carrick, which of the two Ministers was misleading the Parliament: Mr Newman in the House of Representatives or Senator Webster in the Senate.

In the course of the exercise of addressing that question to Senator Carrick, a note was passed by Senator Webster to Senator Carrick and Senator Webster rose on what he said was a point of order while Senator Carrick was starting to answer my question. Senator Webster interrupted the answer which was being given by Senator Carrick and said:

Armed with that interjection or point or order from Senator Webster, Senator Carrick then proceeded to answer my question. I had asked which of the two Ministers was misleading the

Parliament. In answering that question Senator Carrick said:

Firstly in respect of the allegation which Senator Webster made in answer to my earlier question this morning, namely, that it was a stupid question, and secondly in respect of Senator Carrick 's statement that 1 was misleading the Parliament, if you please, Mr President, in a question, I sought to make and did make a personal explanation to the Senate before the luncheon adjournment. I did so on the basis of a perusal of the exact answers to the questions taken by Hansard in each place and my interpretation of them. 1 think there is nothing that has happened since that has led me to change my interpretation of what the questions and the answers mean. In those circumstances, I claim to have been misrepresented. I appreciate that the Minister has in the course of proceedings in the Senate this afternoon, indicated an apology to me. I respect him for the manner in which he has dealt with this matter to date. Those are the matters on which the alleged misrepresentation is based.