Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:32): I thank Senator Polley for the question. Can I say I confirm that the figures that Senator Polley has just quoted are actually not correct. In fact, I can confirm that as at 30 June this year there are over 125,000 home care packages in the market, which is an increase of 25 per cent over the last 12 months, a significant improvement. It is a 25 per cent increase in the number of aged-care packages in the market over the last 12 months. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt on a point of order. Senator Watt: Yet again we have ministers refusing to answer the direct questions they are asked. The PRESIDENT: The point of order is on? Senator Watt: Relevance. Are you ruling that a minister, as long as they talk about a word that's in a question, is relevant? Every time we ask a question, we don't get an answer to the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, I would appreciate a point of order being raised without a reflection upon me before I even have a chance to rule. Senator Watt: It is happening again and again and again. The PRESIDENT: Is it? Senator Watt: Yes. The PRESIDENT: I think no-one has challenged the rulings I've offered so far. If you are challenging a ruling I offered earlier today then I'm happy to review the Hansardif you'd like me to come back to you. On this point of order—you're making a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Watt: I am. The PRESIDENT: You've reminded—sorry; Senator Wong on the point of order? Senator Wong: On the point of order: we do assert that the minister is not being directly relevant. The question is very clearly about those— A government senator interjecting— Senator Wong: Directly relevant. He is not being directly relevant. We asked about the number of people waiting for an approved package. What I would submit to you is consistent with past rulings around what 'direct relevance' means. It is not directly relevant to simply pick up a word—'package'—and talk about something entirely different. The PRESIDENT: My observations then, Senator Wong, were on a reflection being made upon me, in a point of order taken before I'd had an opportunity to rule, on previous rulings. Now, if I could rule on this point of order, on this occasion I happen to agree. Under the previous standing orders, where the word 'relevance' was interpreted more liberally, talking about the topic more generally in my view was the precedent and considered appropriate by the Senate. The insertion of the word 'directly' narrowed the scope of what an answer is. In this case, I remind the minister of the question because talking about a broad policy area, in my view, is not being directly relevant. That said, I cannot instruct a minister on how to answer a question. So I remind the minister of the question. And I would ask that, when points of order are being taken, I be given an opportunity to rule before reflections are made on the rulings. Senator COLBECK: The opposition might not like the news that we are providing to the Australian people a 25 per cent increase in the number of home care packages available— The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, on a point of order? Senator Colbeck: Mr President— The PRESIDENT: I'm going to take Senator Polley's point of order, Senator Colbeck, and, if you want to contribute to that or take that up, I'll hear from you then. Senator Polley. Senator Polley: My point of order is on relevance. You've just ruled on the previous point of order, and the minister has not heeded your direction to him. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck: The first thing I said when I started answering this question was that the numbers that Senator Polley quoted in her question were incorrect. I then proceeded to talk about the number of packages that had come into the market in the last 12 months. I was being directly relevant, in my view, to the question— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Can I hear from Senator Colbeck, then I'll come to you, Senator Wong. Senator Colbeck: So I am cognisant of your ruling previously, Mr President, but I'm just making the point that the first thing I said was that the numbers quoted by Senator Polley were incorrect. And I still have 43 seconds to answer the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, did you wish to address the point of order before I rule? Senator Wong: I think he walked away from it, but I was pointing out that he was reflecting on your ruling, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I don't consider a respectful disagreement with my ruling to be a negative reflection. I'm more than robust enough to be able to handle that. On the point of order, though, the issue of direct relevance narrowed the scope of what is appropriate in an answer. I have ruled previously that all aspects of an answer— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, if I could rule, please—must be directly relevant to the question. One cannot simply be directly relevant in part of an answer and then add extraneous material. That is my interpretation of what the standing orders require. So, Senator Colbeck, I will ask you to turn to the question and be directly relevant to the question asked, which was, if I recall correctly—and I'll look for confirmation—with respect to waiting lists. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: Again, as I said, I know the Labor Party don't like hearing good news about the number of home care packages that have come into the market in the last 12 months, and it's a significant achievement of this government by improving numbers— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Senator Wong: It's on direct relevance. He is directly flouting your ruling. It's a very dangerous thing to do to your own President. Can the minister please answer the question, which is: can he confirm the number of Australians who are waiting for aged-care packages? I think older Australians would like to know. Senator Colbeck: Sit down, shut up and let me answer the question. The PRESIDENT: Order! Could we maintain the dignity of the chamber. Senator Wong? Senator Wong: On a point of order: Senator Macdonald used to tell me to sit down and shut up, but this is new from you, Senator Colbeck. The PRESIDENT: That's not a point of order. That's not a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Bernardi, on the point of order or— Senator Bernardi: On the point of order, Mr President: this is becoming a farce. It's a broadcast day, and people are just making points of order to get on TV. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Well, at least in that sense, Senator Bernardi, you have shown more wit than, on average, has been shown today! To be directly relevant to the question, Senator Colbeck, you've had three-quarters of the time to answer. I don't believe it is being directly relevant for the full period of two minutes to only talk about the issue of what the government has done in this regard. I think the question was quite specific in its nature, and in that sense I am asking that you turn to the question. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: And the number of new home care packages in the market is directly relevant to the question, because it goes to the waiting list— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm going to take Senator Cormann and then I'll take Senator Polley. I'll take Senator Cormann on a point of order. Senator Cormann: We've had this habit in recent weeks where Labor frontbenchers don't even let the minister finish a sentence before jumping to their feet and seeking to make a point of order. I think they should at least let Senator Colbeck finish a sentence. Senator Wong: On the point of order, the minister has had a minute 45. Your President has repeatedly and courteously drawn him to the question— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong: Sorry, I haven't got my glasses on. I might be wrong. He is a President who's nominated by the government. He has repeatedly and courteously drawn this minister to the question, and the minister is flagrantly ignoring his ruling. I think everyone watching can see what is occurring. The PRESIDENT: It is somewhat odd to be sitting here and be spoken of in the third person as if one isn't present, I will grant that. It's a first for me. Senator Colbeck— Senator Watt: Answer the question. The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Watt. It is appropriate in my view, and being directly relevant, for a minister to provide information that is in the policy area. However, on a number of occasions I have asked you to come to the specific nature of the question, which was actually about waiting lists, my notes reflect, and after three-quarters of the period have elapsed I think it is appropriate for me to call your attention to the specific nature of the question. That said, he hadn't finished the sentence he'd commenced before a point of order was raised. Senator COLBECK: Actually, Mr President, I am trying to say that the 25,000 extra places have contributed to a seven per cent decrease in the number of people on the waiting list over the last 12 months, according to the latest figures. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question, and it is not appropriate for points of order to seek direction from the chair to instruct a minister as to how to answer a question or the content of an answer. I am going to start cracking down on those, because today has been somewhat ridiculous. Senator Polley, a supplementary question.