Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:57): I'm not sure how that relates to the first question. Senator McGrath: It's a budget question! Senator GALLAGHER: Well, I'm not entirely sure that they flow on from each other, one being on the social housing affordability accelerator. The cash rate is 4.1 per cent, and I believe the budget was—and I will correct this because I do not have right in front of me—3.85 per cent, from memory. Those forecasts will be updated in the normal way in the usual fashion, as they are, and as they do for every budget, in the next economic update. The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: President, I would request that you review the Hansard and come back to the chamber about the appropriateness of that as a supplementary. If the justification is that it uses the word 'budget', that would have the effect of having anything in the budget supplementary to another part to a question. That cannot be the gravamen of direct relevance. I am just asking you, respectfully, to look at the Hansard and to give us a view about whether the use of the word 'budget' in a primary is sufficient to enable a supplementary which goes to another part of the budget, another aspect of the budget, to make it directly relevant. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham: In making a submission on Senator Wong's point of order, which you're going to consider, I put two points to you. The first relates specifically to this question being asked by Senator Hume, and I think you will find when you review it that both the primary question and the first supplementary question went to the accuracy of budget forecasts. The primary question did not make any comment or seek any response in relation to the policy propositions that the $2 billion was allocated for. It was about the accuracy of budget forecasting, as was the first supplementary, and so I think you will find that they clearly are related. The second point I would make, though, is that in Senator Wong speaking about tangential relationships, if the word 'budget' is there is that sufficient for further supplementaries? I would note that, in many answers given, ministers take one word out of a question, one particular title out of a question, and use that as their defence for direct relevance, even if it is not clearly responding to the question that has been asked. So it is quite a stretch, in relation to the argument being offered by Senator Wong in this regard. If we want to have a tighter ruling, in relation to questions, the opposition would certainly welcome a tighter ruling in relation to direct relevance of answers. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senators Wong and Birmingham. I will certainly review that tape and come back to the chamber. Senator Gallagher, you had 11 seconds. Senator GALLAGHER: I've answered the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a second supplementary?