Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:25): The government has released a great deal of detail about the Household Assistance Package, which includes a very substantial tax reform package that will increase the tax-free threshold and involve a tax reduction for all Australians earning under $80,000 a year. That is a very substantial and important tax reform package which obviously has good participation consequences as well. The Prime Minister has also indicated that nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance through tax cuts or payment increases and almost six million households will get tax cuts or increased payments that cover their entire average price impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer with assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than the expected average price impact. We have been clear that there are some people who will not be assisted. We have been clear and upfront about that. The question that is never answered by the other side is just how much tax they will impose on Australian families to pay for their direct action policy which is a complete black hole. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, please wait a minute. Order! Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The question was very narrow and specific. We just want to know a number—how many. The minister has not come close to addressing that. Senator Ludwig: Mr President, again we hear from the opposition, who take a point of order and want a specific question answered in a particular way. Of course, it is not within— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Ludwig: If you could allow me to finish. I know it is Thursday and you all want to go home. The PRESIDENT: Senator Ludwig, please resume your seat. It might be easier, Senator Ludwig, if we have a bit of silence. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: You plead guilty. I have a plea of guilty on my left. Senator Ludwig: Their question tries to suggest what that specific answer is. It is not an argument to take a point of order to say the answer is not being directly relevant. The minister in answering the question, while being directly relevant to the question, is entitled to answer the question in the way that is appropriate to provide the information in a directly relevant way, but not to necessarily give an answer that you have suggested you want. That is completely out of order and there is no point of order. The PRESIDENT: I have repeatedly said from the chair that I cannot tell a minister how to answer the question. The minister has 26 seconds remaining to answer the question and I draw the minister's attention to the question. I cannot tell or instruct the minister how to answer the question. Senator WONG: I think I answered in the first part of the answer that nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance. That obviously leaves one out of 10 households who will not be receiving assistance. I would like to point out to the opposition and to the chamber this: the opposition is going to have to go the election with a promise to claw back a pension increase and to impose higher income taxes because they opposed this package. (Time expired) Senator Fierravanti-Wells: As the finance minister, I would have thought it would have been a pretty simple question to give a figure to. Senator Chris Evans: Mr President, I rise on a point of order: it is becoming increasingly the practice of opposition senators to respond to the first answer they receive by running a commentary, often derogatory, before asking the next question. I draw your attention to the increasing practice that has been employed. If they want to have a debate, we are happy to have a debate, but question time is for the asking of questions and the answering of them. The practice is not in accordance with the standing orders, not a good development for the operation of question time. I would ask you to have a look at whether it is in order for senators to continually run commentary rather than just ask the supplementary question. Senator Abetz: Mr President, on the point of order: the difficulty the chair has is simply this, if the chair cannot direct the minister how to answer the question, it will be also difficult for the chair to direct how a question ought to be asked. The PRESIDENT: I have already drawn to the attention of the Senate on numerous occasions the fact that it should be a question that is asked. There should be no commentary at the start. Senator Abetz: Without the commentary. That is your difficulty, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I have no difficulty in this whatsoever.