Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:16): I refer to nine-year-old Angus, whose family were left to transport him around the family farm in a wheelbarrow because of the delays with the NDIS providing him with a wheelchair. Yesterday the minister said, 'We should make no apology about the fact we manage our budgets appropriately.' Why is the government propping up its budget position with a $4.6 billion underspend in the NDIS, a fact confirmed by the minister in the House in question time, when children like Angus are waiting for essential equipment like this? (Time expired) Senator Birmingham: A point of order on the question— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! When I can hear Senator Birmingham's point of order, I'll call him to make it. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Standing orders state that: questions shall not contain: … statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated— As has been made plain on previous instances by Senator Ruston, this government will always receive individual cases from any member of parliament and deal with them respectfully. In this case, though, it is very clear that this person, of course, cannot be authenticated unless the opposition is willing to bring the case to the government. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong? I'll call you when there's silence. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong: As I understand the point of order, the point of order is that there is a name in the question. The second accusation, which I do not believe is a point of order, is a suggestion that this is somehow fabricated. I'll make it clear it is not. The name is included because it is a name of a person, and we are asking questions about his circumstances and why it is that the services in a so-called demand-driven system are not being provided to him. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order? Senator Cormann: I think on this point of order it is quite reckless and irresponsible for the opposition to breach the standing order in this fashion, because the Labor Party actually does know that there is a transition underway which will lead to a full rollout of the NDIS in 2020 and that 115,000 more people are getting it now— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on the point of order? Senator Wong: On the point of order: we are not going to disrespect Australians by calling this person a 'kid'. He has a name. The PRESIDENT: Order! I have granted both leaders at the table some discretion, more than I grant any other senator when it comes to raising points of order. I would ask that it not be stretched further for debate across the table. Firstly, Senator Birmingham's point of order: he correctly read out the standing order. I think it would assist senators if they are asking questions if they provided a reference, as has been done in customer practice to a media report, which allows the claim to at least be verified. This did not do that. I'm not going to rule the question out of order, because it is consistent with past practice that I can ask the minister to answer part of the question. But I will ask senators, if they are going to use examples or case studies, to keep that standing order in mind. One of the ways to address that has been to refer to a report in a media piece so at least, if the minister wished to take it on notice, there would be details. In this case, it would be very hard because I didn't hear reference to an external reference. Senator Ruston.