Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:36): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister has refused to answer my question with respect to his careful dealings with Australian Water Holdings, with respect to him being aware of the company's dealings at all times and, indeed, managing their financial records. I also ask: did the Assistant Treasurer stand to gain from the awarding of a contract by Sydney Water to Australian Water Holdings in January 2012? Did that gain amount to a parcel of shares, valued at approximately $3.5 million? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Clearly, this is before the minister was a minister. I rule that out of order. Senator Conroy: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I invite you to reflect on your ruling after question time. A ruling that suggests an entire question is out of order is a very broad ruling. Does it go to the supplementary to the first question, which those opposite also claimed was outside the minister's portfolio area? In fact, if any of those opposite chose to listen to the question, they would find it was entirely within his portfolio responsibilities. To suggest that the minister only has to answer parts of the question that he feels are inside his portfolio is, at times, a very reasonable ruling and it has been used on all sides of the debate. But to actually rule something completely out of order is something that I would invite you to consider after question time. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. If you look back at questions through the week you will see specific questions that went to statements that have been made in this place. And I have been consistent.