Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:31): As I've indicated, significantly more Australians enter into the area where they're going to require an aged-care package. There are many more receiving support services through our record $5.5 billion investment in the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which assists about— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Scullion! Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. I am mindful of the ruling you made earlier, but, if I may submit an entirely different matter, the question goes to how many people aren't receiving it, so it cannot possibly be directly relevant to talk about the people who are. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, with respect, I don't agree with that particular interpretation to require it to be directly relevant. I'll read something I have pulled out from the past, which is a ruling by Senator Beahan, as President, when he referred to President Baker. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: It is. Senator Wong, I'm going to that. He ruled: … relevance means relevance to the subject matter under consideration. A speech, amendment or answer is relevant to a motion, bill or question if it deals with the same subject matter. Thus, if a question concerns the state of the economy, a minister's answer is relevant if it refers to the state of the economy. The insertion of the word 'directly' narrowed that interpretation, so it is not as broad as was ruled in that case, but the ruling goes on to say: … there is a tendency to confuse relevance and responsiveness. An answer can be relevant to a question—that is, it can deal with the same subject matter—without necessarily being responsive to the question. I'm listening very carefully to Senator Scullion, and I do not believe that the minister, in the first 22 seconds of an answer outlining how many people do receive care, is not directly relevant to a question asking about how many do not receive care. But I am listening very carefully to the minister's answer. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Mr President, we have listened to your reference to Senator Beahan's ruling. I don't propose to take up question time for a longer discussion, but I do flag that the opposition's view is that that was substantially altered by the changes to the standing orders and the lengthy discussion—as someone who was here during that period—that accompanied the change to direct relevance, which, in fact, went to some of the issues that President Beahan raised. I want to flag, now, that your indication from the chair is something we would like the opportunity to make submissions on, if you propose to take that approach. I maintain my point of order that it cannot possibly be directly relevant to talk about the number of people who are receiving care when the only question that has been asked of this minister is to confirm a number of those who are not. The PRESIDENT: Last week there was an extensive discussion on this, and I will be coming back to the chamber in writing. I invited submissions last week, and a number of people have made them. I'll be coming back to the Senate prior to the next period of sitting. I read out that ruling from President Baker to reinforce what I said last week— Senator Jacinta Collins: Beahan. Senator Wong: Beahan. The PRESIDENT: I read out the ruling from President Beahan, which refers to a ruling from President Baker—he was the first one, I think. Senators will recall I did address the importance of the insertion of the word 'directly' last week. That substantially narrows that. I'm happy to take submissions, but, as I said, in the first 22 seconds of the answer from the minister, I do not believe outlining how many people do receive something is not directly relevant to answering a question about how many do not. But I'm listening carefully. The minister has 38 seconds remaining. Senator Scullion. Senator SCULLION: Mr President, I think it was in February of 2017 that we indicated that we have a new home-care system which gives older Australians more choice. The demand for home care, which is quite correct, particularly in levels 3 and 4, is a reflection of people's indication that more and more people wish to stay at home. And so we have invested an additional $1.6 billion in— The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins: On a point of order, Mr President: the difficulty with the minister's answers on relevance is that we all know—the Australian public at large know—that there is a growing number of older Australians. Relying on that to avoid answering a question about the number of older Australians that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, please direct your point of order to me. Senator Jacinta Collins: can't access services is not appropriate. The PRESIDENT: When ministers are asked a question, they are granted the opportunity to provide some context. The first point of order was 22 seconds into the answer. Senator Scullion, you've been reminded of the exact nature of the question. One does need to be directly relevant to it, which does narrow the scope of what extraneous material can be directly relevant. Senator Scullion. Senator SCULLION: Thank you, Mr President. I think the important point that those opposite missed is that it's actually in the level 3 and 4 care which is the most important, and we'll be investing in the vast majority— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?