Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:49): Can I say the claims that are being made by the opposition with respect to aged-care workers in the last couple of days—the suggestion that they will have a wage cut by Christmas—are an absolute disgrace, given the hard work that aged-care workers in particular have undertaken over the last 12 months. The suggestion that aged-care workers are going to get a cut in their salaries by Christmas is an absolute disgrace. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong is on her feet. Senator Wong? Senator Wong: The word 'disgrace' coming out of this minister's mouth is interesting. The PRESIDENT: Order! To the point of order— Senator Wong: My point of order is direct relevance. He was asked a question about whether or not older workers would be worse off as a result of the government's changes. I ask him to return to that point. The PRESIDENT: While the people who asked the question may not like the terms in which it is answered, he is addressing the point raised in it, and there's an opportunity, I think today after question time, to debate it. I call the minister to continue. He was being directly relevant. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: The suggestion that aged-care workers are going to get a wage cut for Christmas is wrong. It will not happen. It's a disgrace that the Labor Party is suggesting it. Senator Wong: On a point of order: it is the Morrison government's industrial changes about which we are asking. I'm asking him to return to that point, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: That was part of the question. I think, with respect, Senator Wong, I've allowed you to emphasise it. He is talking about what I would consider to be the policy currently before the other place that is the subject of the question. There are 16 seconds remaining. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: Coming from this party, who at the last election specifically ruled out an increase in wages for aged-care workers— The PRESIDENT: Order! What I will say is that a phrase in response to a point in question can still—I will hear your submission, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Mr President, how can what this party may or may not have done prior to the last election possibly be directly relevant, under the standing orders, to a question which goes to the effect of this government's proposed industrial relations changes? If you say it's not going to happen, guarantee it. Senator Birmingham: Mr President, on the point of order: I've almost lost count of the number of points of order that Senator Wong has chosen to take in interrupting Senator Colbeck. On the point of order, Senator Colbeck, in responding to this question, has spoken very clearly about aged-care workers, the wages of aged-care workers and the wage arrangements for aged-care workers. And the repetitive points of order from those opposite, now seeking to take one sentence out of a two-minute answer that has overwhelmingly being directly relevant, is simply an abuse of procedures and the standing orders. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, I have ruled previously that a glancing phrase in an answer is not going to make someone not directly relevant. An answer that consisted of attacking the opposition or outlining their policy would not be directly relevant. That said, I do grant some latitude to the Leader of the Opposition in making points of order, and I think I do need to allow the minister, when points of order are made and parts of the questions are restated, to use a glancing phrase in response to that. He did at the end of that, in my view, turn back to the answer, because he was then talking about the wages of these particular workers. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: The intention of the reforms that are being proposed, as I said before, is to make people better off— (Time expired) Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Gallagher is on her feet. Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?