Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:47): Again, as many of us have done here in the chamber over the last week, I completely reject the characterisation by the Labor Party of the CSIG program. It was a very, very good and, quite frankly, very, very popular program. In fact, the program was so popular that Labor Party members of parliament wrote letters of endorsement for projects in their electorates, seeking for their projects to be funded. So this was a very popular program. I completely and utterly reject the characterisation that's being made by the Labor Party. It was a very popular program. It was so popular that not one member of the opposition has offered to send the money back for the projects that were announced in their electorates where the intervention of Senator McKenzie and her decision-making processes increased the proportion of grants in Labor electorates from 26 per cent to 34 per cent, which much more closely aligned them with the number of Labor seats in the parliament. So I reject completely the characterisation of this program that is consistently put by the Labor Party. The PRESIDENT: Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: My point of order is on direct relevance, Mr President. I am conscious of previous rulings and the minister has now had over a minute. There was one question related to the release of guidelines as per the Prime Minister's commitment and I'd ask him to return to the question. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Wong, I allowed you to restate that question at the end. I realise that, and you are entitled to do that. The minister has been speaking for over a minute. He is addressing part of the question. As we found out in the last question, very specific questions can get very specific answers. But the minister is entitled to challenge assertions made in a preamble to a question. You've emphasised that part of the question. Senator Colbeck to continue. Senator COLBECK: Thank you for your ruling, Mr President. As I've said, and I will repeat, the CSIG program was a very, very popular program, supported by members of parliament across both sides of the parliament. In fact, it was advocated for by members on both sides. The PRESIDENT: On a point of order, Senator Farrell? Senator Farrell: The minister is simply addressing the preamble. There was a specific question, and it said: when were the details of these projects released and to whom? Could you please— The PRESIDENT: I cannot direct a minister to answer part of a question. A minister is entitled to address a contestable assertion made in the preamble. It is up to others to judge the merits of answers and questions; it's not up to the chair. The minister is entitled to continue by addressing all or part of the question. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: I will continue to assert that this very good and popular program. It was supported by members across all sides of the parliament and advocated for by members on the other side who sought funding under the program. As I've said and as the parliament— Senator Wong: Mr Morrison gave a commitment. Why don't you tell us— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann, on a point of order? Senator Cormann: Under standing orders, interjections are disorderly. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate constantly interjects even when her entire side is silent. I think you should call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order. The PRESIDENT: All interjections are disorderly at all times. I remind senators of that. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator Cormann: Now the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is even interjecting while you are addressing the chamber. The PRESIDENT: More latitude is granted to leaders, but I would ask all senators to remain silent. I call Senator Colbeck to continue. Senator COLBECK: This popular program, supported by all members of the parliament— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?