Senator STEWART (Victoria) (15:20): I want to start by saying what an absolute disgrace that last contribution was to our parliament, an absolute disgrace on what I thought was bipartisan support of the efforts in Ukraine and its leader, President Zelenskyy. You might not seriously care about our international relationships and the responsibility with which we carry that, but we certainly take it seriously. We stood in the House of Representatives chamber all together, with all leaders of this place, in solidarity with Ukraine. It was mere lip-service, given what this senator has just said, and I won't repeat the disrespectful comments. That is all this opposition is worth: absolute lip-service. It's like we saw when the Leader of the Opposition talked about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Stewart, can I bring you back to the question. Senator STEWART: He raised it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that's not what take note is for. I'm sorry, I have— Senator STEWART: He talked about the Prime Minister travelling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please take your seat, Senator Stewart. I have had advice from the Clerk that you need to be relevant to the question. I would ask you to go back to the motion put by Senator Fawcett. Please resume. Senator STEWART: Thank you. I was making comments given that he raised it in his contributions to this parliament and I felt it deserved a response, to restate how seriously we take our relationships. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There are many opportunities to make contributions but they are different to this. You must be responding to the question put by Senator Fawcett. Senator STEWART: Thank you. Back to the topic of superannuation—once I calm myself after that disgraceful display. We have made our priorities clear as a government about who we stand for: the Australian working people. Those opposite have made it clear who they stand for: the 17 people with over $100 million as their superannuation balance and one person with over $400 million as their superannuation balance. That's who they stand for. It's 0.5 per cent of the Australian population, some of the wealthiest people in our country, and good on them. But they should be asking taxpayers—who work on the factory line and our nurses and teachers—to be paying the $2 billion in taxes that we will get from these changes in the first year. These are very modest—I know people love the word modest in this chamber—and sensible changes. We've already heard some quotes today from those opposite who agreed, back in 2016, about having to make some changes to the superannuation in this country. We are the government for the Australian working people. They are the opposition for the half a per cent. It was great to hear Peter Dutton make his first election promise for 2025: reinstating tax breaks for those 17 people with over $100 million in their superannuation and that one lucky person with over $400 million—Peter Dutton is on your side—in their superannuation. We have finally found something the Leader of the Opposition will stand up for and show some spine for. It's certainly not veterans at risk of homelessness. It's not women fleeing family violence. It's not Australian manufacturing. It's not businesses looking for energy security. It's not families seeking cheaper child care. It's not people needing cheaper medicine. It's not households seeking energy bill relief. He says no to any of those things, but, if you're one of those lucky 18, he's got your back. When it comes to the wealthiest half of one per cent, those opposite have your back. Last week we heard the federal member for Fadden admit at the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more than loyalty to the Australian people. What a perfect summary of their entire time in government—loyalty to themselves and not to the Australian people. I think it's a bit rich for those opposite to sit over there and talk to us about trust. I'm pretty sure that a former prime minister just appointing himself to a couple of portfolios might be considered a bit of a broken promise to the Australian people. I don't know. Not being there when the country's on fire or going underwater might be considered breaking a promise to the Australian people to have their backs. It is an absolute indictment. There were more people at the Ed Sheeran concert last weekend—thank you to Senator White for pointing this out—than there will be affected by these changes. It is an absolute disgrace. We know who those opposite are on the side of. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Van ): Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres: If I may, just on a point of order and seeking some further clarification: I'm happy, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you come back to the chamber later. I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the contribution before, but you directed Senator Stewart to return to the motion moved by Senator Fawcett and indicated to her that she should not continue to reflect on the comments that Senator Antic made and—I won't go into them—his extraordinary reflection on the President of Ukraine. I accept that Senator Stewart said that all of us were there for that photo, in solidarity with Ukraine. It's not the case that Senator Antic was there, but I would appreciate— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, what is your request? Senator Ayres: I would appreciate some clarification of whether or not senators are entitled to reflect on the comments of the senators before them in the ordinary debate on taking note of answers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ayres. As I said before, I was distracted by Senator Shoebridge when the remark was made, so I did not hear it. The Clerk gave me advice that the senator wasn't being relevant to the motion that had been put, and that was the basis of my ruling, if you accept that. Otherwise, I'm happy to go away and review it with the clerks and come back.