Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:18): We provide two sorts of packages. We provide a home care package—something that they're talking about—but we also provide additional funds beyond the packages. I will give you a comparison. Personal care, mobility, domestic assistance, nursing, nutrition and transport for the home care packages. The Commonwealth support package: domestic assistance, home maintenance, transport, meals. Identical. For the Commonwealth home support package, we provide $2.7 billion. If you're asking, 'Who isn't on a home care package?' it is more important to say, 'Who isn't on either?' We actually provide $2.7 billion for 800,000 people— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Scullion, please resume your seat. Senator Bilyk, on a point of order. Senator Bilyk: Once again, it goes to relevance. It's not up to Senator Scullion to tell me which questions I should ask. I asked a very straightforward question and he should be answering it. The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, on the point of order. Senator Canavan: Mr President, on the point of order: I realise that, in the break, you'll be looking at the topic of questions. I just draw your attention to Odgersin relation to the three questions that have been asked here by Senator Bilyk. Odgers' 'Rules for questions' does say: requests for statistical information should be placed on the Notice Paper and should not be sought on the floor of the chamber on any occasion We've had three questions on detailed information for which there are other avenues through the parliament by which this information can be sought. There's a constant flouting of this. There are points of order on questions that are probably not in order in the first place. It is a waste of this Senate's time when there are more important things to be debating and discussing. Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. First, Senator Canavan puts to you that these are very detailed and somewhat obscure statistical questions. My point is I would not have thought 'how many older Australians are on the waitlist for home care?' is obscure, given the current political circumstances. If the minister is unable to answer the question, we understand he may have to take it on notice. He has not done the chamber the courtesy of responding in that way. The PRESIDENT: On the first point of order raised by Senator Bilyk, I was listening very carefully. The minister was talking about, for lack of a better way of putting it, home care funding arrangements. I do consider that to be directly relevant to your second supplementary question. On your point of order, Senator Canavan, I would suggest that the context of that in Odgers is a little bit different. Also, it might rule out a number of questions from the government's side when they want to talk about other economic statistics, so I don't think it should be applied that narrowly. Senator Wong restated the question and made a point about a minister being able to take a matter on notice, which ministers are always free to do. I call Senator Scullion to continue; he has 18 seconds remaining. Senator SCULLION: We provide $2.5 billion for home care packages. What hasn't been discussed about the packages we provide in the Commonwealth Home Support Program—you need the context—is an additional $2.7 billion for much the same provision of the excellent services that we provide to our First Australians.