Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:50): Senator Polley demonstrates her lack of understanding of the way that the system currently works, because— Senator Wong: Mr President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. This minister, instead of misleading or engaging immediately in an attack on the questioner, should do his job and answer the question. Mr Broadbent's quote is a direct contradiction of the minister. We're asking the minister to explain. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on the point of order? Senator Cormann: The minister is being directly relevant, of course, because— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, your point of order was heard in silence. I'd like to hear Senator Cormann's response. Senator Cormann: The minister was being directly relevant because he was about to explain how the system currently works. Indeed, it is actually not working the way Senator Polley has repeatedly asserted and the way other Labor members have previously asserted. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann and Senator Wong, I'm going to respectfully disagree with both of you in that, after the minister speaking for seven seconds and not having got to a punctuation mark in his first sentence, I am incapable of ruling on whether the answer is directly relevant. Senator Colbeck may continue. Senator COLBECK: I reject the assertion that Senator Polley has made with respect to contracting out the service. As things currently stand, the Commonwealth does not deliver any services. We contract to the states for ACAT services and we contract to RASes for other assessments. The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, on a point of order? Senator Polley: Yes, it's on relevance, Mr President. Was Mr Broadbent correct? He has actually read the Tune review. Was your colleague right— The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, that goes to the substance of your question. You've made a point of order on direct relevance. I'll hear from Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann: Minister Colbeck is clearly being directly relevant. He's at pains to explain why the premise of the question, which somehow seems to suggest that there is a plan for privatisation, is incorrect. How we are implementing the Tune review recommendations is being directly relevant to the subject matter raised. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, the minister is being directly relevant. He is directly dealing, from my notes, with the quotation that was used in the question. Your point of order, Senator Polley, goes to a preferred method of answer, which is not a matter for the chair. The minister is addressing the quotation in the question, in my view. Senator Wong: Mr President, I accept that ruling. I have a different point of order. My point of order also goes to direct relevance. The quote is Mr Broadbent's, not Senator Polley's. So it is not in order for the minister to assert that Senator Polley's position is incorrect. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on the point of order? Senator Cormann: The minister is of course being directly relevant because he is explaining why the misrepresentations that have been made by Labor and which may have been taken onboard by a member in the other place are inaccurate. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong! With respect, I'm listening very carefully to the minister's answer. I am not convinced that is a characterisation of what he was doing. If he was, I would also be of the view that that is a matter for debating the merits of answers after question time. Senator Colbeck can continue. Senator COLBECK: As I was saying, the Tune review recommended bringing together a seamless workforce. In fact, the Tune review says, 'It should be a priority to combine the RAS and ACAT assessment workforces.' That is what the government is determined to do. I have had a very amiable conversation with Mr Broadbent, and we agree on the outcomes of the process. The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?