Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:16): As I said in my previous answer, the specifics of your question I am obviously happy to take on notice. But, more broadly, I would say to you that the Australian social welfare system is designed to provide people with what they are entitled to. The expectation of those in this place should be—and it certainly is on this side of the chamber—as well as the broader Australian public, that they expect us to reasonably recover overpayments made to people, to which they weren't entitled. The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher? Senator Gallagher: A point of order on relevance: the question is about whether, with the childcare subsidy, the word 'balancing' actually refers to the robodebt program. It's a quite straightforward question. The PRESIDENT: I take the opportunity in dealing with this to remind ministers that even when they have answered or taken on notice part of a question, other information they offer must also be directly relevant to the question. I am, however, listening very carefully to the minister, and I do believe that her answer at this point is being directly relevant, because she was just turning to the issue of—to use the phrase you used—balancing or debts or different collections of payments. So, I think this information is directly relevant. Senator RUSTON: As I was just getting to the point of saying, as the Australian public would expect of us and as those on this side of the chamber expect, when you have been paid more than you are entitled to then it seems a reasonable expectation that people pay back anything that they've been overpaid. That is the sustainability nature of the Australian social welfare system. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.