Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:01): As I indicated to the chamber last week, the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm. Obviously, questions in relation to declarations of political donations are a matter for party organisations. We also note that the member for Chisholm has stated very clearly that at all times she has complied with relevant state and federal disclosure laws, and the Victorian division of the Liberal Party have also advised that all requirements have been complied with. This is just a continuation of Labor's smear campaign from last week. Guess what? The member for Chisholm, who is a long-time Liberal, has a history of supporting the Liberal Party. That's great news. Let's stop the front pages. Breaking news: the member for Chisholm, a long-term member of the Liberal Party, supported the Liberal Party before being elected by the people of Chisholm as a member of parliament. The Labor Party are now so desperate that they are continuing to pursue this smear. This is all a little dog-whistle campaign. Because Gladys Liu is born in Hong Kong, because she's a Chinese-Australian, she must be a spy. That is what this is all about. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: At a personal level, I would ask my colleague to withdraw. He knows that is not true. He knows that is a lie—I'm sorry, sir; that is a line. The only person— Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator Wong: Well, get up and have an argument about New South Wales, but you're accusing the Labor Party of dog-whistling. The only person who is drawing a link between the cultural heritage of Ms Liu— Senator Bernardi interjecting— Senator Wong: I ask that it be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, on the point of order? Senator Bernardi: Mr President, this is not a point of order at all. Senator Wong has got up and made a number of statements. She hasn't drawn your attention to anything specific or made any particular point in regard to the standing orders. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on the point of order? Senator Wong: I take the interjection from my colleague, Senator Bernardi. There is an imputation about members of this place that I ask be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT: I will review the Hansard about anything unparliamentary. Senator Wong, on that, I provided you with an opportunity to put your case with some discretion as leader. I didn't detect anything unparliamentary in what the minister said. I said last week that one of the precedents in this place is that, for something to be unparliamentary and a reflection, it needs to be addressed to an individual. Comments that people take offence to with respect to a party have not historically, in my memory, been taken to be unparliamentary, even if some people would prefer they are not made. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, last week I made the ruling, and I did check it afterwards. No-one has brought to my attention an example where claims against other parties had been deemed to be unparliamentary. I'll review exactly what Senator Cormann said, but I did not hear anything unparliamentary then. On the point of order, there wasn't a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Cormann's at liberty to continue for 33 seconds. He's concluded his answer? Senator Gallagher.