Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:49): I sincerely thank Senator Urquhart for that question, allowing me the opportunity to talk about our policy on child care—and of course I would never comment on deliberations within the party room— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: Yes, a point of order on direct relevance: the minister's refusal to be directly relevant is apparent in that first response. Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong: Thank you—would you like her to speak, or do you want to give— The PRESIDENT: Senator Seselja—please. Senator Wong, your point of order? Senator Wong: The question went to— Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong: Would you like to finish, and— Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong: You go right ahead. You stand up— The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections don't need to be made, and interjections don't need to be responded to. In raising points of order, interjections should not be made; they should not be responded to. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Direct relevance: the question went to how many coalition members opposed the government's childcare policy. The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, on the point of order? Senator Birmingham: On the point of order—and you can tell there's a camera in the chamber today!—the question from Senator Urquhart clearly went to matters that include the content of the government's childcare policy, and Senator Reynolds is entirely within orders to be responding in ways that address the content and the approach of those policies that Senator Urquhart was asking about. The PRESIDENT: If I could rule on the point of order: Senator Wong, you reminded the minister of the conclusion of the question. The earlier part of the question asked the minister about reports regarding a party room discussion that, in my view, did go to the content of policy. I'm not in a position to ever rule on whether a minister's been directly relevant in eight seconds, in my view. So, I'll call the minister to continue. But to be directly relevant, in my view, the minister can go to the content of policy that may or may not have been, or was reported to have been, discussed in a coalition party room meeting, or to the second part of the question, which you mentioned. It was quite broad in that sense. Senator REYNOLDS: As I said, I will certainly not be talking about the confidential deliberations of our party room. But I'm delighted to talk about the outcomes of that party room and the legislation that we bring into this chamber. Let me share with you some of the things we've been doing since we've been in government. We're spending 77 per cent more than Labor did in government on child care—a record $10.3 billion this year, including $9 billion to subsidise the fees set by childcare services. Today over 280,000 Australian children are in child care. And—wonderfully—women's workforce participation reached a record high of 61.8 per cent in March this year, up from 58.7 per cent. We overhauled the childcare system in 2018 to introduce one subsidy. The hourly fee cap we introduced is working to keep downward pressure on fees, with 87.5 per cent of services charging under that hourly cap rate in centre based day care. But we on this side of the chamber know what really matters to parents, and that is their out-of-pocket costs. We have kept our out-of-pocket costs low— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing the minister. Senator REYNOLDS: still almost $1 an hour cheaper, on average, than before we introduced the package in 2018—down from $4.87 to $3.93 per hour. And in this budget we are providing an additional $1.7 billion to further help Australian families who have more than one child aged five or under—those years that we know are the toughest for working families to look after their children— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question?