Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (14:56): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I couldn't hear the question. Call me predictive, but I might predict that a point of order may come up subsequently. Can I ask Senator Kitching to restart it, because I couldn't hear the start of the question. Senator KITCHING: My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said that the statement: … was tabled in the parliament. It has got the force of being tabled in the parliament in her name. But the very same day the Speaker of the House ruled that: … if a member is tabling a statement that's made outside the House, that really is just a record of a statement. Who is right: this minister or the Speaker? Why is the Prime Minister assisting the member for Chisholm to dodge parliamentary accountability? The PRESIDENT: Before I call Senator Cormann: the term used there was specific about a member of another place and actually used the words 'dodge accountability'. I'm going to reflect on precedent, but I think that that dances particularly close to standing order 193(3) concerning an imputation of improper motive and all personal reflections on members of another place. I said yesterday, and I made it clear again earlier today, that reflections upon groups of people or reflections upon actions are very different to reflections upon persons and specific persons in another place. I will take that Hansard away and consult with the clerks about precedent, but I urge senators to be very, very careful about imputations and reflections specifically about individuals, as opposed to actions or groups of individuals. Senator Wong, on what I just said? Senator Wong: On the point of order, we understand your indication that you are taking this matter away to consider it. I also respect your ruling from yesterday and, I think, the day before in relation to plurals versus individuals—collective insults as opposed to individual ones. I would make a point here for your consideration when you subsequently are considering the Hansard, Mr President. There is a point about accountability to the parliament that the opposition is seeking to press. We all know that a statement to the parliament is very different to one outside the parliament. That is the point we wish to press. If the problem is the word 'dodge', we're happy to insert the word 'avoid'. The PRESIDENT: That's what I'll come back with. It is actually the terminology that to me crosses into potential personal reflection upon an individual member of this parliament, which may be inappropriate. I'm not ruling the question out of order. I am asking senators to be very cognisant of that issue. I think the point can easily be made without getting into the territory of breaching the standing order.