Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:43): I thank Senator Moore for her question. Can I say at the outset that we welcome the report. We have an open and transparent approach to aid and we support periodic public reviews. This is part of a process that OECD DAC members go through, and we encourage other nonmembers to consider undertaking public reviews. It's a bit rich for the opposition to come in here and attack our overseas development assistance. When you were last in government, $750 million was diverted out of the overseas development assistance budget to pay for your blowout in border protection. You became the third largest recipient of your own overseas development assistance program, and this meant that assistance was cut to 25 developing countries, including— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please resume your seat. If I call ministers to order during an answer, I ask them to resume their seat while I address the point of order. In this case, it is being raised by Senator Moore. Senator Moore: It's on relevance on the particular question, which was: can the minister confirm that the current development assistance is projected to fall to the lowest level since records were kept? That is the only question. The PRESIDENT: That was part of the question, Senator Moore. There was a preamble to the question. Ministers are entitled to address the preamble to a question. Senator Moore: Mr President, I just want to follow up on your ruling. I accept the discussion about the preamble, but the particular question was just about that particular issue about the level. Could you draw the minister's attention to that part of the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Moore, if a minister is being directly relevant to part of a question, they are relevant to a question. That has been a longstanding principle since the word 'directly' was inserted in the standing orders. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: The Australian overseas development assistance program remains focused on delivering high-quality results within the budget determined by the government. The government does not support a prescriptive time-bound aid target as a percentage of GNI. As I was saying— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Those opposite don't like to hear this, but I will go on. They were, when they were in government, the third largest recipient of their own aid budget. This meant 25 developing countries, including very small Pacific island states, had their assistance budgets cut. They cut the emergency humanitarian assistance fund by $30 million. But let me go back to the last federal election. They promised to increase the aid budget by— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Moore, a supplementary question.