Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:13): I think it's quite unsurprising that a minister who's looking to promote funding into their portfolio would meet with the Prime Minister proposing to do exactly that. I've done that a number of times in my portfolios, and the record of that is public to see—$1.5 billion into aged care for COVID-19. So, I think it's quite unsurprising that a minister would go to a meeting with the Prime Minister to advocate for additional funding into a program that had received significant— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: The minister is not answering the— Senator Rennick interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Rennick. I'll hear Senator Wong's point of order. Senator Wong: I'm happy to sit down for Senator Rennick. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong: Sorry, it's Thursday; I apologise. The PRESIDENT: Of a week when no-one went home, too, I note. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: The point of order is on relevance. The minister is avoiding the question by talking in the abstract. He was asked a very direct question on whether this program was increased to allow the Prime Minister to make more pork-barrelling announcements. I would ask him to return to the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order? Senator Cormann: The minister is being directly relevant to the extent that he can be directly relevant as somebody who was not the minister at the time. Direct relevance has to be seen in the context of who is being asked the question. Senator Colbeck is answering the question in a directly relevant way to the extent he can, given that he was not the minister at the time and was not involved in this process at the time. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, the minister was asked about a meeting. It contained somewhat loaded terminology, and I've said before that, when there are very specific questions seeking fact, being directly relevant requires a very strict interpretation. When there is more loaded and contested terminology, ministers have more discretion in responding and remaining directly relevant, including challenging the assertions. The minister is being directly relevant, in my view, and I'll call him to continue his answer. Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. As I was about to say, this was a very, very popular program. In the first round, there were over 2,000 applications. Given the popularity of the program, I'm not surprised that the then minister went back to ERC and the Prime Minister— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?