Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Hansard source

I will restate what I have said before on this matter: in my view, to be directly relevant means that an answer must directly refer to or address—including challenging material or assertions contained in—a question. There was no preamble for this question. I accept that. I did not say, and I reject any assertion that I said, a minister only had to mention the payment. As long as the minister is talking about the payment, and only the payment, and the supplement that was asked about in that question, and not ranging across other matters—the point, Senator Wong, is that this minister has to directly address the topic raised. It is not appropriate for the chair to try to insert words into—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, if I could be honest: I will continue to make my ruling. I can take as many submissions as senators want, but I haven't finished making my point yet. I did not say that the minister only had to mention the name of the payment. I said, previously, the minister had to be talking directly about the payment. Now, that was a very specific question. I made the point there is no preamble. I've allowed you to remind the minister of the question, and I have made it clear that I'm going to strictly apply the test of direct relevance so that the minister must talk about that payment or supplement, as the case may be, in your question, but I cannot instruct her as to a manner or fashion of answering it.