Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): Sadly, it is my melancholy duty to inform the chamber that unfortunately the opposition simply got it wrong again. We're talking here about a $2 billion bushfire recovery program, which was of course always designed to run over two years. That was always the plan—over two calendar years. And by the end of this financial year—this is by the end of June 2020—about $900 million will have been expensed. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order. Senator Watt: A point of order on relevance: my question was about the spending that has occurred, not what might occur one day in the future. The PRESIDENT: I will continue to listen carefully to the minister's answer. I believe, with respect, he was directly addressing the subject matter of the question. Senator CORMANN: Let me take Senator Watt through the detail. Five hundred million is being paid out this financial year on the following: over $170 million— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance. The question is not about the future. The question was very specific to figures released earlier this week which revealed expenditure to date. The minister has simply been asked to confirm that. He hasn't been asked about future expenditure; he's been asked a very clear question about what has been spent and figures which have been released this week. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann: On the point of order, as much as I hesitate to correct Senator Wong, the data that Senator Watt is referring to is quite outdated. It's March data. That is why I am providing, in a directly relevant fashion, more up to date information. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Mr President, if he wishes to do that, that would be directly relevant, but he's actually saying what will be spent. The PRESIDENT: I will consider whether the nature of 'directly relevant' has a temporal element to it, but, with all due respect, there was a quotation from Senator Watt about the program. I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the subject matter because the minister can be directly relevant to all or part of a question. I've allowed you to restate the point at the end of the question, but I believe the minister is being directly relevant, while going into detail about the program that is referred to in the quotation contained in the beginning of the question. Senator CORMANN: Labor, as always, have got this wrong. A $2 billion two-year program, and in the first six months we will have spent nearly half. This is a program that is implemented on an evolving basis. Over $170 million has been allocated to 10,000 small business support grants, over $100 million in expanded primary producer grants, over $32 million in back-to-school support payments, over $60 million in payments to impacted local government areas, over $27 million in mental health support to school communities and emergency services workers, over $50 million in emergency relief and financial counselling, over $26 million for wildlife and habitat recovery, and, by the end of June, $400 million will be paid out of the fund to reimburse states for clean-up costs. And of course the timing of these payments—and that is something else that Senator Watt doesn't understand—actually depends on when the invoices come in. I know the Labor Party wants to just throw the money out without the invoices having come in, but we actually pay on invoice. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order. Senator Watt: Again on relevance: is the minister suggesting people that living in tents should be sending invoices? The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, that's not a point of order. Senator Cormann, have you concluded your answer? You have. Senator Watt, you have a supplementary question?