Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:01): Thank you very much, Senator Bilyk, for your follow-up question. As Senator Bilyk would be well aware, it would be completely inappropriate for any of us to come into this place and start to debate the individual, personal and complex situations of an individual person's disability plan. However, I know that the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in the other place, on frequent occasions has offered those opposite, and those opposite in the other place, a briefing on any of these issues in relation to individual cases, because he believes it is appropriate to discuss them behind the scenes. But, as I said yesterday, this is a demand driven scheme, and we will continue, like we do with many other demand driven schemes, to make sure it continues to be funded. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order? Senator Watt: On relevance. We're seeking an explanation of the minister's comment yesterday that 'this is a demand driven system'. She has not addressed that. We have given an example and we would like her to explain whether this is what she means by 'a demand driven system'. The PRESIDENT: With respect, Senator Watt, you had a quotation from the minister and there was an individual case claimed and mentioned. I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question in speaking to that question—first, about an approach to dealing with an initial case, and I heard her talking about the phrase you mentioned. Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON: As I said, we are not going to come into this place and discuss individual cases. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the individual concerned. The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, on a point of order? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Can I hear the point of order? Senator Pratt: The minister has not claimed public interest immunity as a grounds for not answering this question. You can't automatically just say you don't want to answer it because you're talking about someone's specific personal circumstances, unless you're seeking to use that as grounds for public interest immunity. The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, I'll say—at least in my length of time here, which has matched yours—that it is common for ministers to say they are not dealing with individual circumstances of government programs. I believe that is consistent. There is a different process with documents being demanded in Senate estimates. On this point, I think the minister is being directly relevant and I'm not of the view she needs to make such a claim to answer the question in this fashion. Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question?