Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:11): Yes, I am: Senator Farrell and the Otis group— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I have Senator Wong— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: That was a very big wind-up, but actually yesterday I probably should have taken a point of order on a similar question from, I think, Senator Rennick. It is: there must be some reference to government policies. That wording was slightly better than yesterday's, but I would ask you— Senator CORMANN: They're similar policies to the government's. The PRESIDENT: Let me hear the point of order and I'll— Senator Wong: You are very excited today, aren't you, Senator Cormann. Very excited! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm hearing from Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Mr President, there is a lot of precedent associated with these types of questions; there generally is a form of wording which the government is not complying with. I ask you to consider that. The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, on the point of order? Senator Canavan: On the point of order: the reference here in this question, the relevance of the Otis group, is about government policy, because it's a group of Labor ministers who want to adopt the government policy on coal. The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Canavan. After yesterday, I did consult the Clerk on this matter, with my ability to potentially foresee a question. The previous ruling, which has been applied by numerous Presidents—Sibraa, Reid and Calvert—is that a question which invites a minister to comment on the policies or actions of non-government parties is out of order unless the question seeks an expression of the government's intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility. In my view, yesterday's question probably crossed that line. I will let the minister continue this but I will review the Hansard on the basis that this question, which I don't have detailed notes of, asked for the minister's awareness. So I will not rule it out of order at this point but I will review the Hansard, and can I urge my colleagues who ask questions to keep those standing orders in mind. Senator CORMANN: Thank you, Mr President. I am optimistic about our future, because we now know that Senator Farrell is leading the next generation of Labor leaders into supporting more responsible economic policies, and that is a great thing. Courtesy of Channel 10, we now know who the members of this coal-industry- and coal-worker-supporting Otis group are. Senator Sterle is on there twice, and— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, were you raising a point of order? I was consulting the Clerk. Senator Wong: He's going to hold up a prop. The PRESIDENT: Props are not appropriate. My apologies; I was consulting the Clerk. I call Senator Cormann to continue. Senator CORMANN: There are quite a few Labor senators on there. Senator Sterle appears there twice. Is he particularly committed or is he covering for somebody else? Maybe he's covering for Senator Sheldon, because he wrote a big job application for the Otis group nine years ago. In fact, it was written up by one Matthew Franklin. You might know who that is. I think he might work in Mr Albanese's office. Senator Sheldon appeared in front of my inquiry when he described Labor-Green carbon taxes as death taxes. I table— (Time expired)