Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:22): As I said in answer to a previous question on the very same thing, I actually do not accept the premise on which your question— The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, on a point of order? Senator Kitching: My point of order goes to direct relevance. My first question was in relation to whether the minister would apologise. The second question is about the budget projection of the department. It's relying on $2.1 billion to make the budget target. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Kitching, please do not use the 'direct relevance' point of order to make an argument. In this case, the minister was speaking for six seconds. The minister is allowed to challenge or to reject a presumption outlined in the question. I didn't hear the minister finish that sentence, so I cannot rule on a point of direct relevance at this point at all. Senator Ruston, please continue. Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much, Mr President. As I said, I reject the premise of the question, because you're quoting a figure of 600,000 and I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it's actually an accurate figure. However, the thing that I find quite extraordinary is that, until you lost the election on 18 May this year, we were on a unity ticket about the importance of being able to collect debts to make sure that our welfare system is sustainable. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong: The point of order goes to direct relevance. The question goes to a budget savings target—$2.1 billion—and the question is about whether there is a revision to that. I know she's been given press releases and has been asked to use them in defence—by her staff or someone else—but the reality is that talking about unity tickets is not directly relevant to a question about the revision of budget figures. The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on the point of order? Senator Cormann: On the point of order: Senator Wong did not actually completely relate the question that was asked. There was a particular aspect to that question which meant that the minister was quite right to say that she did not accept the premise of the question. The assumption in the question was that, just because a particular methodology was used, no debt was actually incurred, and that is wrong. And, in any event, Senator Kitching should know that any updates are always provided at the relevant budget update. Senator Wong: She's the relevant minister! The PRESIDENT: I will take the interjection. I have allowed some discretion with points of order on my left. On the point of order, my notes reflect the question went to a projected saving, a claim about a number of debts and then seeking an announcement about a position from the government. To be directly relevant to that question, I do not consider the position of the opposition to be directly relevant, because that was quite a specific question. I call the minister to continue. Senator RUSTON: To absolutely clarify that position, I said that I rejected the premise of the 600,000 people on whom Senator Kitching was basing her question. As I said, it seems really interesting that, at one stage, we had the opposition saying, 'No-one gets a leave pass,' and now, post the election, when they have been unsuccessful in victory, we somehow seem to have a completely different thing—'everybody gets a leave pass.' It's like all debts are waived and we don't have to pursue the sustainability of our welfare system. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I am going to do something I have not done yet but which my colleague in the other place has done. I would ask ministers to listen to my rulings, because I just made a point that I did not think the position of the opposition was directly relevant to the terms of that question. Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?