Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:33): There were no cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Senator Polley: There were! Senator SCULLION: No, there were not! The amount there was actually a prediction of where it might go. Oh, come on! The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins: Thank you, Mr President. The point of order is on direct relevance. The question is: can the minister guarantee that the government has not considered—not considered!—further cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument? Answer the question, minister! The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann: On the point of order. Senator Scullion was being directly relevant because he was asked about further cuts. The minister pointed out that given there hadn't been any cuts then there couldn't be any further cuts, which was being directly relevant to the question. Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, can I hear other contributions? You were heard in silence. Senator Wong, on the point of order. Senator Wong: The point of order is direct relevance. There is a temporal issue here. Whatever his view about the initial, we're asking about what else was considered. I think it's fair for him to come to the question. If he wants to avoid giving the guarantee then I think that would be clear. The PRESIDENT: The minister has been speaking for nine seconds. It is difficult to rule on direct relevance nine seconds into an answer. Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, please remain silent while I'm ruling. On that ground, I think the minister needs to be given time. On the second point, you restated the second part of the question. The minister is also allowed to address the earlier part of the question that was asked. So, at this point, I'm not going to say the minister is not being directly relevant nine seconds into his answer. Senator SCULLION: Thank you, Mr President. The Aged Care Funding Instrument, historically, under that lot opposite was being rorted. They dealt with it by saying, 'We're going to try to fix it up,' and they notionally made sure that they didn't invest $1.6 billion where they otherwise might have—just an efficiency divided that reasonable legislators would take. We took the same view. There were efficiency dividends of $1.2 billion— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator SCULLION: In exactly the same way that those opposite did it—but it is not a cut. We are not handling rorts. We do not support providers who overcharge—nor did you. So I don't really understand the point they were trying to make. We will make sure that First Australians get the very best services possible. The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.