Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Leader of the Government in Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:59): The Australian people not only deserve the truth; they are getting the truth. The Australian people saw right through what they were getting from the Labor Party at the last election, which is why they re-elected the Liberal-National government, which they know is delivering for them. They knew that the alternative was going to be a real disaster for them. I'm being asked about Washington and things over the last year—the Australian people clearly knew that a future Prime Minister Shorten had a secret plan to make Senator Keneally the ambassador to the United States. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: Direct relevance: I know that Senator Cormann knows a lot about secret plans—we saw that this week—but he seems to be obsessed with Senator Keneally. That's a matter for him—dear me, I probably shouldn't have said that! The question actually relates to his government and his Prime Minister's failures. The PRESIDENT: With a question like this there is a very wide amount of discretion given to the person answering, but I do believe the minister is not directly relevant to the question. Senator CORMANN: I was asked a question about dinners in Washington. We now know that there was a secret plan for Senator Keneally to be at the dinner in Washington. The PRESIDENT: Order. I remind the minister of the question. Senator Cormann: On the point of order: I actually answered the question up-front. I'm now providing further context to the question that was asked. I was asked about why we're not revealing the truth. I think truth telling is something that we need from all around the chamber, including from the Labor Party, because we now know that Senator Keneally doesn't really want to be in the Senate. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, I grant a lot of discretion to leaders at the table. I take that as a point of order. It did cross into debating the matter. I remind ministers answering questions that all the material in an answer must be directly relevant. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I'm trying to provide a ruling, Senator Wong. I remind ministers that all material in an answer must be directly relevant, but I do remind those asking questions that, with a question like this that covers a great deal of material and has a great deal of what I might call loaded rhetoric in it, the minister has a great deal of discretion in answering it as well. Senator Cormann: On the point of order, Mr President: I would like to invite you to reflect on that ruling and perhaps come back to the chamber at an appropriate time. I believe that presidents in the past have ruled that, when there are politically framed and politically charged questions, the way this one was, there is quite a level of discretion around the definition of directly relevant. I do submit to you that, in the context of the question and the way it was framed, my answer was absolutely directly relevant. I would like you to reflect on that. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on the point of order? Senator Wong: Given the submission the Leader of the Government in the Senate has made, I also make a submission. My submission, when you consider this, Mr President, is that what this matter goes to is the Prime Minister's failure to answer a question about Brian Houston; the Prime Minister's inappropriate contact with the police commissioner; and the Prime Minister's refusal to make the member for Chisholm, with all the public allegations against her, make a statement to the parliament. Those are not political questions; they are questions of accountability, transparency and government. The PRESIDENT: I might say, Senator Wong, you did raise those points, but the end of the question was what I would call highly politically charged and loaded, and the minister is granted a great deal— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I will wait until there's silence before I continue talking. I'm more than happy to, as I always do when people ask me to reflect on rulings. My view is that 'directly relevant', as I said the other day, is a much tighter test than the old test, which basically said that you could talk about the same subject matter. I'm more than happy to reflect on that. I don't know if I'll be back this afternoon, but I'll make sure I do before the next question time. I call Senator Cormann to continue his answer. He has concluded his answer. Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?