Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): That is a disgraceful question. The member for Chisholm is absolutely suitable to be a member of this parliament, and she was elected as such by the people of Chisholm where she was facing a Labor candidate who equally was an Australian of Chinese descent and who was a member of similar organisations. Indeed, none other than the then shadow Treasurer accepted hospitality from the organisation that is supposedly now this major national security risk. This is a transparent Labor smear against a Liberal member of parliament in an electorate that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: I ask the minister to return to the question— Senator Abetz: No. Senator Wong: Senator Abetz, I would have thought you would have taken this seriously. Senator Abetz: What's the point of order? Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance. The front page of the papers assert that there were intelligence warnings about a person. How is it a smear to ask what you have done about that? The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I believe, with respect, that that is a debating point. I believe the minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct him how to answer a question nor on the content of it. Senator CORMANN: We in this business all know how things get into newspapers. Let me just say again what I said before: the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm, as the people of Chisholm expressed their confidence in the member for Chisholm at the last election. All this is about is still the seven stages of grief that the Labor Party are going through after the last election. They can't accept the fact that they lost the election and that they lost the election in Chisholm too. The PRESIDENT: I would like to make a brief statement to the chamber. The statement I'm about to make is not a reflection on the previous question, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind senators of two elements in the standing orders. Standing order 73 says, 'Questions shall not contain imputations.' Standing order 1933 includes the following phrase: … all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses— that includes the other house of this parliament— members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly. So, while I'm not making an observation about the previous question, I would like the senators to keep that in mind when asking questions about any matter that may involve an imputation or improper reflection upon a member of another place. Senator Wong: And answering— The PRESIDENT: That is quite right— Senator Wong: Thank you. If the standing orders— The PRESIDENT: That implies the answer— Senator Wong: The imputation was in the answer, with respect. The PRESIDENT: I'm not making an observation on either that question or that answer. I am just providing a pre-emptive warning to the Senate that the standing orders are very strict when it comes to reflections or imputations on members of either house. We have let the issue of imputation slip a little more generally, but on that issue I think it needs to be applied strictly. It can be avoided through the careful wording of questions and answers.