Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): There is evidence emerging of a clear split between Mr Albanese and Mr Chalmers, and clearly Senator Keneally, for the moment at least, is on Mr Albanese's side, because this is the point Mr Albanese raised when Mr Chalmers, the shadow Treasurer, was all in favour of the way we'd framed it, saying it was better to err on the more generous side than the less generous side. The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally on a point of order? Senator Keneally: I think you know, Mr President, my point of order is going to be direct relevance. The question that I asked clearly went nowhere near any of the things the minister is talking about. I would appreciate it if you could draw him back to the disparity between the single mother and the university student. The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, I will draw the minister's attention to the question you asked. Senator Cormann, I ask you to return to the question. Senator CORMANN: Clearly Senator Keneally is very sensitive about what I have just revealed to the Senate chamber. The argument that she is picking up, which is directly relevant to the question that she has asked, is the argument that Mr Albanese pursued on Fran Kelly this morning, where he raised precisely that question. It is directly relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, on a point of order? Senator Keneally: Again, direct relevance. He seems to be ignoring your ruling to draw him back to the matter in the question. He is speaking about a member in the other place, not the disparity between the single mother teacher and the university student, a design flaw under his own program. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on the point of order? Senator CORMANN: How can I not be directly relevant when I'm directly referencing the question she has asked me, which is directly the same as the question raised by Mr Albanese this morning? The PRESIDENT: I am going to listen to the minister's answer. He is asserting that the quotation or reference he is about to point to is directly relevant. I do take senators at face value when they indicate that. I call the minister. He has 11 seconds remaining. Senator CORMANN: This is what Mr Albanese said this this morning, and it goes directly to the question that Senator Keneally raised: 'I don't think there has ever been a justification for people to get more money than they were getting before.' The PRESIDENT: Time has expired, but I will take a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Thank you. Perhaps it might be relevant to the next answer, Mr President. I don't think any President has ruled it in order simply to persistently quote the opposition. This goes to the administration of public moneys in this minister's portfolio. The PRESIDENT: On Senator Keneally's point of order, I allowed some latitude in her making it due to the first part of the minister's answer. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question or to address a specific term or example in it, as quoted by Senator Keneally. The minister must remain directly relevant. I didn't get to hear the end of that, but I will ask ministers to keep in mind the need to be directly relevant, not broadly relevant, to the question asked. Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?