With that context I ask: is it true that the Minister has used privilege to, effectively, decide on the guilt or innocence of a person, making the judgment under privilege? Because if it is, that raises some quite serious issues for the future of the House. You see, this House has enormous privileges. Nobody in this land has higher privileges than this House. We are able to evade defamation law and do all sorts of things that normal citizens could not get away with at law. But there is a quid pro quo for having those privileges: that we must use them very carefully. If it is true, that the Minister in the chair, who's also personally the Speaker, is carrying on a precedent started last year that it's OK to attack people, members of the public, and actually remove the distinction between this House, which makes laws and the courts which interpret them—the comity that is critical to our constitutional arrangements that have evolved over a long period of time—then that, on top of the many other miseries and sagas that have got us to this sad debate, is actually a very important development.