Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): Senator, I have not seen Sen Abetz's remarks, so I will not be commenting on them. But I can tell you, Senator, in relation to the issue that you raise that, while Australia has a generous, targeted and fair welfare system, Australians rightly expect that support should only be provided to those who need it. Everybody who relies on the welfare system are entitled to what their entitlements prescribe—nothing more and nothing less. Senator Cameron, if we are going to have a fair and generous welfare system in this country there has to be a system that ensures that there is not overpayment and that where there is overpayment that overpayment is recouped. The way the system works is that every relevant person receives a letter asking them to explain their circumstances. Where the Department of Health and Social Services have found a discrepancy between what that person told Centrelink that they earnt and information matched against the ATO—so if there is, evidently, a discrepancy between what the relevant person declared to Centrelink and what they declared in their return to the ATO—that data is matched. In the event that there is a discrepancy, the person concerned is asked to explain it. That is, Senator Cameron, a perfectly sensible way of identifying apparent discrepancies while at the same time— The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: On my left! You have a colleague on his feet waiting to take a point of order—I assume. A point of order, Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron: My point of order goes to relevance. The question was in relation to the Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, and his quote saying, 'The system is working and we will continue with that system,' and the statement from Senator Abetz which said, 'The department's program was not as robust as it might have been.' The question was: who is correct? I do not think you can run away from that by simply saying, 'I didn't see Senator Abetz's claim.' The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, there is no point of order because the minister indicated up-front that he is not aware of Senator Abetz's comments, so it would be unfair of the minister to respond accordingly. Senator BRANDIS: Through you, Mr President—I actually have not— The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Brandis? Senator BRANDIS: No, I will resume my answer. Can I point out that having had Mr Tudge's quote, with which I am familiar, drawn to my attention, that was about how the system works. I am explaining to the senator how the system works. (Time expired)