Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:18): They do indeed; the finance minister's quite right. They earn $1,100 more now than they did before thanks to the initiatives of this government, which were fought tooth and nail by those opposite. Indeed, since the coalition came to office, increases in the minimum wage have never dropped below inflation. When Labor was last in office, those on the minimum wage were hit by real wage cuts in three out of six years. The real wage cuts under those opposite— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Payne, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, can I hear the point of order first? Senator McAllister: My point of order is direct relevance. It's a tightly worded question that goes to how much less Australian women earn on average per week than men. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, this is a very tightly worded question that essentially seeks a factual answer. I will ask the minister, who has been given half a minute to address broader issues, to turn to the specific nature of the question. Senator PAYNE: I was actually turning to the specific nature of the question, because, of course, the minimum wage reflects payments across all— Senator Wong: Mr President, a point of order. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I need the minister to be able to finish a sentence before I can make a ruling on direct relevance. Senator PAYNE: It must have been a very bad caucus meeting this morning; you're very grumpy. Senator Wong: It was a very good one, actually. Mr President, the minister is actually being utterly disrespectful to the warning you just gave her, and you should call her to order. The PRESIDENT: I wouldn't characterise my— Senator Cormann: Mr President? The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order? Senator Cormann: Senator Wong should apologise for that reflection on Senator Payne just now. Senator Payne is answering in a way that is directly relevant and courteous—as she always does—not only to Senator Wong but also to the Senate. I would ask that you require Senator Wong to withdraw that imputation on a senator in this chamber. The PRESIDENT: I didn't hear an imputation. I will say to Senator Wong: I would appreciate it if you didn't characterise my rulings with terms like 'warning'. I would not characterise what I just said to Senator Payne as a warning. However, I will ask ministers, when they are asked for factual answers— Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Cormann, you're asking for something to be withdrawn? Senator Cormann: Senator Wong knows precisely the imputation that she has made in relation to Senator Payne, and I would ask you to consider the Hansard—hopefully the interjection was picked up—and come back to the chamber, because there has now been a barrage of disorderly interjecting on a continuous basis over the last 20 minutes. Quite frankly, I think what is starting to become unbecoming is the level of disorderly interjections coming from the other side. The PRESIDENT: I will say we—yes, Senator Wong? Senator Wong: Thank you, Mr President. If the President wishes to look at the Hansard—I'll always abide by the ruling you make, Mr President. So I'm happy for you to do so and I'll respond accordingly. I would make the point, for the benefit of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and perhaps for the chamber, that in large part the reason that you are seeing interjections is that senators on this side do not believe that ministers are answering questions, and I think that is objectively demonstrable. Question time is for a government to be held to account. The opposition is entitled to ask questions. I think that the Australian public and the Westminster system expect answers. Ministers are not answering questions, and you are accordingly seeing a response. The PRESIDENT: I'll take Senator Cormann before I make some rulings and observations. Senator Cormann: Firstly, rulings in relation to what is consistent with standing orders in terms of ministerial answers are a matter for the President, not for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—with the greatest of respect to my friend and colleague Senator Wong. Secondly, when there are clearly partisan political questions being asked, the Labor Party should not be surprised when they invite a somewhat more political answer than would otherwise be the case. The PRESIDENT: I think it's got to the point where we're 30-all between you and Senator Cormann, Senator Wong. I would just like to make some— Senator Wong: Mr President? The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong. Senator Wong: I appreciate your patience. The last comment that was made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate was that questions invited political answers. This, as you pointed out, is an entirely factual question about an amount, which the minister could have googled in the time that we've been arguing about the point of order. The PRESIDENT: So we have made some observations both generally and specifically. I will start generally. Senator Wong, complaints from the opposition regarding governments and question time are not unique to either side of the chamber. While it has been noisy in the last two days, since we resumed from the winter break, I haven't detected a noticeable difference in question time, other than the amount of noise. When I come to Senator Cormann's point about the claimed observation he wanted withdrawn, I didn't hear it. I'll look at Hansard and I'll approach senators. If there is something recorded that Senator Cormann may have heard—I'll see what I can find out. On other questions today, there have been more-broadly-worded introductions to questions. This has, in my view, allowed ministers to be directly relevant to the question and to provide some of the comments that you've highlighted, Senator Wong, which you don't think are appropriate but I think are directly relevant. The way I have interpreted and recorded this particular question is that it was seeking a fact from a minister. To be directly relevant to a question like that, one must be speaking about the fact. One does have the right, as a minister, to provide some context around that, which is why answers are not just 10 seconds long; they can be a minute long. So I'll ask the minister and remind the minister of the specific fact sought by Senator McAllister in asking the question. Senator Payne. Senator PAYNE: Thank you very much, Mr President, and, if I had been allowed to finish my response, I was going to observe that the gender pay gap can be influenced by a number of factors, and currently all industries continue to have a gender pay gap in favour of men. What WGEA assesses, in terms of full-time average weekly earnings, is that FTAWE for women currently is $1,484.50 and for men is $1,726.30. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?