It's always a delight to follow Senator Bragg. That was quite the ride, through the different areas that you thought we were talking about. But thank you for your contribution. I want to go to one of Senator Bragg's points. It's a point that was raised in question time as well, in response to the questions asked by me and by other Labor senators, and it was the government's accusing us of engaging in personal attacks. I want to lend my support to what Senator Bragg has said: of course there is no room for personal attacks on individual senators in this place. But these are not questions of personal attacks; they're not questions of personality. They are questions that go to integrity, questions about the way government is run. And what diminishes the debate in this country, as well as personal attacks on individuals, is dishonesty in the public discourse. That's why we're asking these questions. That's why we were prosecuting these questions: because from this Prime Minister we've seen a pattern of dishonesty since he's taken the prime ministership, and indeed perhaps long before that, too—a pattern of dishonesty, which goes to a question of integrity, which runs through the heart of how this government is run, which goes to the heart of how this government deals with issues of accountability, which goes to the heart of how this government approaches issues of scrutiny. So they're relevant questions, and I don't think it's fair to say that they diminish the debate. It's the dishonesty that diminishes the debate.

In question time today, when we posed these questions about the mistruths told by the Prime Minister, we saw members of the government wilt, delicate as flowers. They were so sensitive and so delicate they couldn't even answer the questions. I get why you feel a little delicate, little petals. You feel scammed too. You feel scammed by this Prime Minister. You had one bloke once, right? He was Prime Minister. And then you had another bloke who wanted to be Prime Minister. You guys weren't too keen on him, so you looked through your ranks and got the guy from marketing. You gave him a crack, only to learn that, when it comes to the one thing you thought he was good at—marketing and spin—he can't actually prosecute. He's missing the point of marketing: brand consistency. To be a good marketer, you've got to be able to run with brand consistency, which means you've got to have a consistent message on what you're selling. The Prime Minister can't get his story straight about anything. He can't even get his story straight in question time on one issue. Then he has to come back and correct the record when no-one's looking, when no-one's in the chamber, because that would be pretty embarrassing for the Prime Minister. It's interesting, for a marketing guy, if he can't handle that. So I get why you're feeling a little delicate and a little precious about these questions. You feel ripped off that you went for the dude from marketing and he can't even do that job properly. It's pretty disappointing.

This Prime Minister cannot tell the truth. He cannot tell the truth, and he falls over himself. He can't even tell the truth about telling the truth. That's embarrassing. Worse than being embarrassing, it goes to issues of integrity. That's why it is perfectly reasonable for us to raise these questions in question time, when it goes to integrity, accountability and scrutiny. This government seems allergic to all of those things. It seems allergic to scrutiny and allergic to accountability. You let mistruth run through the heart of your government. And I agree, Senator Bragg, that in this place, in this chamber, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than others, which means that it's more than appropriate for us to call out that dishonesty. It's appropriate for us to call out the examples of dishonesty, not just the one I referred to in my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister but also the questions Senator Grogan asked about Ms Holgate and the questions that Senator Wong asked about the Prime Minister's dealings with the President of France. Indeed, ask him how he feels about the Prime Minister's integrity. These are legitimate questions about accountability and scrutiny. I appreciate you feel a bit delicate in answering them, but it's more than reasonable that we pose them.