Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): I thank Senator Birmingham for his question. I personally haven't seen those reports. But can I say—and I've said it many times this week—that it's the objective of the Albanese government to ensure that the sorts of issues that you've just referred to are dealt with in a competent, sensible and compassionate way so that this government puts downward pressure on all of those things that Australians are currently finding difficulty with. I've referred on so many occasions, Senator Birmingham, to the sorts of things that this government is doing. Our first objective, of course, was to produce a $20 billion surplus, and, of course, that does have that downward pressure on interest rates. In addition to that, we've been providing a range of benefits to the Australian people to keep that downward pressure on—things like child care and things like rebates on your electricity. In the same process—again, I don't know if this particular article refers to it—of course, we have created 561,000 jobs in the time that we've been in government. All of those— The PRESIDENT: Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham: On direct relevance: the minister acknowledged at the start of the question that he, perhaps unsurprisingly for the minister, didn't know and wasn't aware of the OECD analysis, but, having waffled on from the couple of minutes after giving that indication, he could at least be directly relevant and helpful to the Senate and take on notice for the government its response to this and the particular question about whether it is correct that the OECD analysis shows Australia is the worst-performing advanced economy for the impact on household incomes. The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong? Senator Wong: On the point of order on relevance, I would say to you, President: perhaps it's only the Liberal opposition that might suggest an answer about jobs is not relevant to living standards, but we on the other side recognise that it is. The PRESIDENT: In response to the point of order, obviously I can't direct the minister as to how to answer the question or whether or not he takes it on notice, but the minister is being relevant, and, as you pointed out, he did acknowledge he wasn't aware of the article in the first part of his response to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL: I was talking about jobs, and, as Minister Wong said, I would have thought that was quite a crucial response to the issues that you've raised. You're obviously always in a much better position if you've got a job— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?