Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:48): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Yesterday the minister was forced to correct her misleading statements made in the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday about the impact of Labor’s sensible reforms to dividend imputation cash refunds. Given it is the government’s entire argument that is misleading and not just her confusion between earnings and taxable income, when will the minister withdraw her misleading statement in its entirety?

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:48): I certainly take issue with Senator Sterle’s use of ‘sensible’ in relation to your policy. Can I just say, as you should be aware, Senator Sterle, I represent the Minister for Social Services, so I will deal with your question insofar as it relates to my portfolio responsibilities. Labor’s policy will take money from the pocket of—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order?

Senator Wong: There is a well-established precedent, Mr President, that ministers can be questioned about statements they’ve made.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, as you know, the minister can choose to answer the question in any manner she sees fit, as long as it is directly relevant. The question is in order.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, can you let me conclude before I get some advice? A minister is allowed to say they will answer part of the question. The question was in order, as I have outlined. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question.

Senator Jacinta Collins: Point of order, Mr President. The free advice you were referring to was making the point that she has been asked to withdraw her misleading statement in its full. Leaving a statement that is misleading in the Senate is a different issue to what you are referring to.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, you were interjecting on me while I was providing a ruling from the chair. That was what my comment about free advice was about. The question is entirely within order, as ministers can be questioned about their statements. The minister is also able to answer parts of the question, and I am not allowed to instruct the minister as to how they answer the question. That is a matter for debate.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I refer to the statement that I made yesterday in this place, and I suggest that Senator Sterle go and have another read of it. As I indicated yesterday, on this issue, insofar as it relates to pensioners—and I will deal with that in a moment—Senator Sterle, you need to understand that these questions in relation to this issue should be directed to the—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, on a point of order?

Senator Sterle: My question was completely about the senator’s statement. I asked her whether she’s going to withdraw her statement in its entirety.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, your question had a substantive preamble to it and commentary around it. The minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer or what parts of the question to answer when it was of such length.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I gave a statement to the Senate yesterday. That statement deals with the issue. Go and have a look at my statement, Senator Sterle.

Now I will deal with that part of your question that is pertinent to my portfolio, and that is that Labor’s policy will take money from the pockets of 230,000 pensioners and part-pensioners. It is clear from the way Labor has designed this policy that it is to take money out of the pockets of pensioners. We know this. When the policy was introduced by the Howard government, with the support of those opposite, it was deliberately designed to put money into people’s pockets. Pensioners with shares who will be negatively affected by this policy include age pensioners, war widows and war widowers, veterans, disability support pensioners and carers.

Can I break that down for Senator Sterle a little bit more. In Western Australia, there are 21,011 pensioners who are affected by this. So you go and explain to them the money that you’re taking out of their pockets, Senator Sterle—21,000 of them! (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, do you have a supplementary question?

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:52): Yes, I do. While making the misleading statement on Tuesday, the minister claimed in relation to Labor’s proposed reform of dividend imputation cash refunds, ‘It’s a bit like The Castle.’ Is the minister’s understanding of Labor’s proposal based on legal advice from Dennis Denuto? Is it Mabo? Is it the Constitution? Or is it ‘the vibe’?

Senator Cormann: Tell him he’s dreaming!

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:53): That’s right—’Tell him he’s dreaming’! Thank you, Senator Cormann. As I’ve indicated to Senator Sterle, there are 21,011 pensioners with shares in Western Australia who will be negatively affected by Labor’s policy. I now share with the Senate the figure in my home state of New South Wales—84,569. In Victoria, it’s 60,956. In South Australia, it’s 18,294. In Queensland, it’s 42,721. And, in Tasmania, it’s 6,091. So you are robbing pensioners. You are taking thousands of dollars out of the pockets of pensioners at the same time as you are exempting groups associated with your union mates. That shows your priority, Senator Sterle.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, do you have a final supplementary question?

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:54): I do. Rather than trying to use misleading information put forward by the Prime Minister and Treasurer Morrison, why doesn’t the minister reject their misleading scare campaign and, to quote the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Cormann, tell them they’re dreaming?

Government senators interjecting —

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Cormann, is this a point of order?

Senator Cormann: It’s a very important point of order. I think that Senator Sterle needs to work on his accent.

The PRESIDENT: In the spirit of Thursday afternoon, I won’t rule on that. Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:55): In the spirit of Thursday afternoon, Senator Sterle, in relation to this issue, Senator Cormann’s sitting right here. He represents the minister for financial services and the Treasurer, and so there you are—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Scared of asking? Why don’t you ask him the question? Are you scared of asking Senator Cormann a question? Are you scared of asking Senator Cormann? My, my, my, Senator Cormann’s ferocious reputation is scaring Senator Sterle from asking a question.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please resume your seat. Senator Collins.

Senator Jacinta Collins: Point of order: once again, we are simply asking the minister to be relevant to the question. The question relates to her previous statements where she prosecuted this argument in relation to pension cuts.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, I think it would be unreasonable of me to try and apply an incredibly strict definition of ‘direct relevance’ to that question, as asked; in fact, it would be very difficult to do so. Senator Reynolds.

Senator Reynolds: I rise on a point of order. It relates to debate yesterday, and we’ve heard that behaviour from those opposite again today. Several comments from those opposite taken in isolation are one thing, but we’ve heard again an exchange about ‘cats’ and ‘she’—the discussion about the ‘cat’s mother’ and ‘she’. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred repeatedly, in a very derogatory way, not to ‘the minister’ but to ‘she’. The Hansard will show that you’ve also made comments about the minister being a joke. Again, this is a pattern of behaviour and language that I find highly insulting and inappropriate. It is very reminiscent of the shameful behaviour from those opposite towards Senator Fiona Nash, in terms of the language and the inappropriateness.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, I’ve heard your point of order; please resume your seat. I’m happy to rule, but would you like to say something, Senator Wong?

Senator Wong: I’m happy to withdraw ‘she’ if that assists. I would also make the point that the ‘cat’s mother’ reference was made by the minister herself.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Collins.

Senator Jacinta Collins: I too am happy to withdraw—

The PRESIDENT: I would like to rule on Senator Reynolds’ point of order first. Do you want to withdraw? My apologies, Senator Collins.

Senator Jacinta Collins: I would like to withdraw reference to the word ‘she’, if, indeed, the minister finds that offensive. But—well, I won’t say anything further.

The PRESIDENT: A number of the issues Senator Reynolds made towards the end of her contribution are actually matters for debate, not matters for the standing orders. I will however remind senators of the rules around parliamentary language, particularly around language that other senators find offensive, and also imputations.

Senator Wong interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, can I be heard in silence at least? I don’t think there’s a point of order. We have had a couple of withdrawals. I do ask all senators to keep the standing orders and courtesies towards their colleagues in mind. Senator Fierravanti-Wells, to conclude her answer.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: You can go on and on as much as you like, but, in the end, the fact is that you are taking money out of pensioners’ pockets—pensioners all over this country. Two hundred and thirty thousand pensioners and part pensioners are going to lose out under your policies. You’re going to have to go out and explain yourself to all those people and explain why you are taking money out of their pockets.