Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (14:58): With the many measures that we've put in place to support younger Australians to get back into work, the unemployment rate will continue to improve. In fact, in some states it has improved over the recent period. In my home state of Tasmania, for example, the youth unemployment rate actually reduced over the last reporting period— The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, on a point of order? Senator Keneally: The point of order is on relevance. The minister is providing an answer about unemployment. The question was actually about underemployment. It asked specifically: 'How many young Australians are underemployed?' I ask you to direct the minister to be relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT: This is where the test of direct relevance, in my view, needs to be much more strictly applied than the test of relevance. It was a specific question that asked for a number, without any of what I'd call loaded or pejorative phrases. So, to be directly relevant, in my view the minister needs to address the issue of what was raised in the question, because it was specific and factual in nature. Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. As I said, the measures that we put in place in the budget are designed to increase employment among younger Australians, to get younger Australians back to work and to specifically encourage employers to employ younger Australians, and we will continue to focus on that area, because we understand what an important part of the economy— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck! I have Senator Keneally on a point of order. Senator Keneally: Thank you. I acknowledge your ruling and I realise the minister only has 14 seconds left, so we would appreciate if he could answer the question: how many young Australians are underemployed? The PRESIDENT: On this particular issue, Senator Colbeck, I am going to ask that you come to the question, which was factual in nature, because there has been a period of time to comment more broadly, and there was no political content to the question. Senator Colbeck—or have you concluded your answer? Senator COLBECK: No. Thank you, Mr President. As I've said a number of times today, the number of people who are unemployed—and I'll add to that the number of young people who are underemployed—is too large. That is why we're investing so significantly— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally: Thank you. I acknowledge your previous rulings about the relationship between unemployment and underemployment, but the minister is again talking about unemployment. The question is, as you have pointed out, quite specific: how many young Australians are underemployed? We ask the minister in the last five seconds to answer the question. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister did mention— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I'll answer the point of order when there's silence. It's only Monday, everyone. Now, on the point of order, Senator Keneally, the minister did mention underemployment then, as you got to your feet. I did hear him talk about both. However, I have not had to ask a minister to stop answering a question. But, when I have a specific question that says, 'How many are?' and, 'When will it return?' that is factual in nature, without any political loading or phrasing in the question, that requires an answer to be directly relevant. A directly relevant answer is not a broad commentary on the topic. So I'm going to remind ministers of that, because I've always said that if questions are specific in nature, without political phrasing, then 'directly relevant' is a very strict test. Where questions actually include arguable phrases and loaded terminology, ministers are allowed to respond in kind, but this was a very specific question about 'how many' and 'when shall it return', without loading; I'm happy to be corrected if the Hansard shows me otherwise. So I ask the minister to be very specific. Ministers always have the ability to take it on notice. We have five seconds remaining. Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Mr President. The rate will return to previous levels as the measures that we have put in place come to pass. Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Firstly, I'm going to take the point of order. But, Senator Keneally, he was talking about the timing of when the rate would return. That was directly relevant. That was actually the phrasing of the second part of the question. I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question. Senator Keneally? Senator Keneally: Thank you, Mr President. Noting your previous ruling and your comments and your advice to the minister that he take it on notice— The PRESIDENT: It wasn't my advice. I said ministers have the option. Senator Keneally: Your observation that the minister could take it on notice. Given that the minister has not advised the chamber of the number, I would ask that he take it on notice. The PRESIDENT: This is not a point of order, Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally: I would ask that he take it on notice. The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, this is not a point of order. There's a time after question time. The minister was being directly relevant after my final ruling there, talking about timing. Time ran out. Senator Birmingham: Thanks, Mr President. I ask and, indeed, particularly invite the opposition, if they wish, to place further questions on notice.