Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): What we are doing is trying to provide incentives and opportunities to young Australians to get a home. We are doing that through a series of policies and measures that will give them the opportunity to get ahead. I quoted in answer to your leader, Senator Cameron—had you been listening to the first question asked—what the government's record on job creation has been. It has been a fantastic record: the strongest rate of jobs growth since the GFC. That is a result of this government's policies. Most of the beneficiaries of those new jobs have been younger Australians. That is what we are doing, Senator Cameron— The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron: On relevance. The question went to the issue of David Murray's inquiry and his position on negative gearing and capital gains tax. The minister has not gone to those issues. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I make this point in relation to your point of order—and probably to previous points of order—and for those to consider when they make future points of order: it is not for me to judge the merit of the minister's answer; it is for me to judge whether the minister is directly relevant to the question. Senator Cameron, your question was, 'Why will the government not heed his advice?' You added a bit more to that, but the prime portion of your question was: 'Why will the government not heed his advice?' The minister has been directly relevant. Whether you like the answer or not, he's been directly relevant, because he's indicating possibly why the government is not heeding his advice. That's the way I have to interpret, and that is the way I will continue to interpret. So I don't want points of order to be where you restate the question. I've been very generous with points of order for a long period of time. I just emphasise that I will judge whether the minister is being directly relevant to the question and not the merit of the answer. Senator Wong, on the point of order. Senator Wong: Perhaps I could seek leave to— The PRESIDENT: I'm happy to entertain a further point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: The opposition will certainly have regard to what you have said. We accept your ruling. I would simply make the point that Senator Cameron was making a point of order in relation to direct relevance. I accept that you didn't accept that, but that was the point of the point of order. The PRESIDENT: I've made my ruling and I call the Attorney-General. Senator BRANDIS: I'm simply making the point to you, Senator Cameron, that when you make the economy more prosperous, as this government has done as a direct result of its policies, when you create more jobs, as this government has done as a result of its policies, when jobs growth is stronger now than it has been at any time since the GFC almost a decade ago, directly as a result of the government's policies, and when you put more young people in particular into work, into good jobs, into full-time jobs, at better wages, which has happened as a result of this government's policies, then those young people have a greater opportunity to get into the housing market, as they are doing. Nevertheless, Senator Cameron, since you asked me more particularly, let me give you the details of some of the other measures, apart from growing the health of the economy, that the government has also taken to address the issue of housing affordability. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a supplementary question?