Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:48): There were a number of propositions there. First, in relation to royalties, I know New South Wales was mentioned. I am not sure whether they have actually proceeded any further than the initial announcement telling people how those royalties that they are talking about will in fact be calculated. But the government will update its figures in the usual way in the mid-year review. We have disclosed the revenue forecast in the 2011-12 budget over the forward estimates of $11.1 billion. We will update that in the usual way. The opposition may not like commentary on them, but I would make this point. The hypocrisy of coming in here and demanding more figures when they have $70-plus billion worth of cuts that they have yet to front up to the Australian people— Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There are only three seconds remaining for the minister to respond directly to the question. On no view could anybody believe that by attacking Senator Cormann she is responding to a question about the figures in the budget bottom line. There is no element of the three parts of this question which the minister is directly or indirectly addressing. You should bring her to the question and ask her to quote the figures in the remaining three seconds. Senator Ludwig: Mr President, on the point of order: what Senator Brandis misses in all of this is that there were three parts to the question that was asked— Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator Ludwig: I listened to you in silence. Senator Brandis: No, you didn't. Senator Ludwig: Yes, I did. There were three parts to it, and the third part was a spurious assertion by Senator Cormann. The minister in responding was being directly relevant to the three parts that were asked in the one question. The PRESIDENT: The minister has three seconds remaining. Senator WONG: I responded on royalties and I gave the revenue forecasts over the budget estimates. Senator Abetz: Mr President, a point of order was raised. You failed to rule on it. You simply responded, as I understand it, by saying that the minister had three seconds left. Mr President, I also ask you to give very serious consideration as to whether the change to sessional orders, made some time ago now, requiring direct relevance by a minister in answering a question has ever been applied or has had any significance in changing the way question time has been conducted since. Mr President, many times recourse is had to the precedent. But the problem was question time was turning into a farce. That is why the Senate took a deliberate decision to change the sessional orders to require ministers to be directly relevant. I would invite you to give serious consideration to ruling in accordance with that which the Senate voted for—namely, for ministers to be directly relevant. The PRESIDENT: I will review your comments, Senator Abetz, and if need be I will get back to the chamber. The time for answering the question has expired.