Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:00): Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, for your question. Obviously the government has a responsibility to continuously improve the protection and integrity of our welfare system. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator RUSTON: In providing some context to the question that's just been asked by Senator O'Neill, I would just like to say that the federal government spends in excess of $110 billion a year on our welfare system, and obviously there's the absolutely essential— The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, on a point of order? Senator O'NEILL: On a matter of relevance: there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who are hanging on the minister's answer. They very much understand the context. I draw her attention to answering the question on the number of Australians affected by the government's backdown with regard to robodebt last week. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, if I may provide some advice to the chamber, the term 'direct relevance' has narrowed the meaning that was previously allowed, where broad context was allowed in response to an answer. My interpretation of the term 'direct relevance' adopted by the Senate is that that has been narrowed. However, Senator O'Neill, you did restate the last part of the question. I do consider it to be directly relevant for the minister to be talking about the first part of your question, which was the change in government policy, as well. I do consider that to be directly relevant. That answer can be debated after question time if appropriate. Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON: In direct response to your question, Services Australia is currently in the process of identifying those people who may be impacted by this particular change in measure for ensuring the integrity of our social welfare system. I see there is no value whatsoever in pre-empting that process. But it is very important for people to understand that income averaging does not occur in all debt determinations. In past cases where we identified the debts or part-debts involved were solely the case of income averaging, we are in the process of identifying those people and giving them the opportunity to have a review of their particular cases. It is also very important to note that, generally, the people that we're referring to here are people who have chosen—actively chosen—not to engage in the process of the Australian government seeking to recover debts that have been incurred by Australians. I think the average Australian would be very concerned to think that the Australian government was not meeting its responsibility for reducing debt and making sure that, when people receive payments to which they are not entitled, we continue to recover those debts. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?