Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (15:00): It really is quite distasteful—the hatchet job that the Labor Parry are trying to undertake on Mr Barnier. Mr Barnier was first employed— Senator Polley interjecting— Senator COLBECK: Senator Polley, you should be careful about your comments across the chamber, because Mr Barnier was first engaged by the Labor Party in 2013 to work on forums for the Australian government. It is really quite disappointing that the Labor Party come into the chamber to undertake these sorts of smear campaigns. Mr Barnier, as Senator Walsh said in her question, was the CEO of Opal Aged Care. Opal Aged Care, subsequent to the allegations that were being raised, employed the Nous Group to undertake an independent review of the circumstances that were raised. That independent review made no findings against Mr Barnier. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order? Senator Wong: Mr President, it may be the minister is getting to it, but I have a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Walsh asked this minister about when he first became aware of the allegations against Mr Barnier. That was the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, there was a preface to the question. Senator Wong: Point of order, Mr President. We recognise that there was a lead-in, and I have not taken a point of order for over a minute, recognising that he wanted to get to a whole range of other political issues. But I do remind him of the question. The PRESIDENT: You've reminded the minister of the last part of the question. I can't instruct him what part to address, as long as he's directly relevant to all or part of it. I am listening carefully. By addressing the claims made in the question, I consider the minister to be directly relevant. I will call him to continue, having allowed you to restate part of the question. Senator COLBECK: Mr Barnier is doing some important work, specifically related to his particular skills with respect to his understanding of the financial structure of the aged-care sector. He's supported a number of aged-care providers and the government in getting a better understanding of the financial circumstances of the sector more broadly. It is an important piece of work. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: Mr President, my point of order is direct relevance. I don't know why the minister's avoiding the question. We're asking when he knew. The PRESIDENT: The question referred to a number of contracts the person in question has with the government. The minister is talking about the content of that work. That is directly relevant to the question. Senator COLBECK: What the Labor Party is trying to do here is run a hatchet job on somebody who has, by independent review, had no findings made against him. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: Mr President, this minister appears to be defying standing orders again. I again take a point of order on direct relevance. He was asked a question about his state of mind. He should answer the question. It makes a mockery of question time. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, when a question has a substantial preface—in this case, not loaded but mainly for assertions of fact—the minister is entitled to address those facts in his answer. Shorter questions narrow the definition of direct relevance. The minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct him which part of the question to answer nor how to answer the question as long as he remains relevant. Senator Colbeck, you have seven seconds remaining. Senator COLBECK: Mr President, I have no intention of participating in an attempted slur of somebody who's doing good and important work. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, on my left. Senator Wong, your colleague Senator Walsh is on her feet.