Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:00): I refer Senator Farrell to my previous answer. What I would also point out is that the member for Chisholm, like her challenger from the Labor Party at the last election, was actively involved in the Chinese community in Australia. The smear that the Labor Party is pursuing against the member for Chisholm is a smear against all 1.2 million Australians of Chinese descent, and the Labor Party— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong: I would ask that that be withdrawn. It cannot possibly be a smear and that is an inappropriate thing for the minister to say. The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that you may challenge what the minister said, but—and I'll come to the chamber and correct it if I'm incorrect—off the top of my head, I don't believe that was an unparliamentary reflection on any individual member of parliament nor unparliamentary language. Senator Wong: My name is Wong. The PRESIDENT: We have traditionally required more specificity when it comes to unparliamentary reflections. That was a statement in the broad. I appreciate that it may be a debating point. I will check the Hansard and precedent and come back to the chamber if I'm different, but we've always had the view that general statements—for example, about a group of people in a political party—can be said, but, if they were said about one person, would meet the test that requires withdrawal as unparliamentary language. Senator Keneally: Point of order: what Senator Cormann is alleging is incomprehensible—that Senator Wong, as a Chinese-Australian, would perpetrate a smear on herself. That is what he is alleging here. Quite frankly, Mr President, I ask you to review your ruling. The questions the opposition have legitimately posed today about reports relating to foreign interference to a specific member of parliament have been extrapolated by Senator Cormann to the Labor Party committing a smear across all Chinese-Australians, which would include Senator Wong. It is an incomprehensible and absurd position to assert that that does not apply to Senator Wong. Senator Canavan: On the point of order: Mr President, I think you've being quite liberal during this question time as the opposition has pursued a number of questions raising imputations about a member of the other chamber. We have taken those questions, we have answered those questions, and I think you have been right to liberally apply that. For the Labor Party to now be so defensive about a general point here is not appropriate at all, and it would not be a consistent application of the standards during this question time if this point were to be upheld. to be upheld. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I gave him the same generosity I provided Senator Keneally. On the issue of the point of order that Senator Keneally raises: I will, as I said, review the exact words Senator Cormann used, but, even in the words you restated, which, if they were the words he used, in my view—and, again, I'll correct it if the precedent directs me otherwise—a general comment of that nature does not qualify as unparliamentary or an imputation or reflection upon an individual. We have traditionally required that it be more specific about a person. It may be a legitimate debating point, but I do not believe that it is unparliamentary. I'll happily correct myself if I'm wrong. Had you concluded your answer, Senator Cormann? Senator CORMANN: Yes. The PRESIDENT: We are up to Senator Farrell's final supplementary.