Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:48): Thank you very much, Senator Watt. As I've often said in this place, if you have individual examples of people who have concerns, whether it is in my area of social services or in other areas that I represent, I am more than— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Watt on a point of order. Senator Watt: The question is not about an individual example. The question is why— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm going to hear the point of order and then I will rule on the point of order. Senator Watt. Senator Watt: The point of order is on relevance. The question was about why bushfire victims, like the example, can't access the system. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, I have repeatedly ruled that the part at the end of the question is not the only part of the question. The minister may be directly relevant by being directly relevant to any part of the question. The minister is being directly relevant in this case because you did quote a specific example. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Mr President, it is the case that you have—and I think correctly—indicated that— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Let me hear the point of order. Senator Wong: Even when I'm being nice, you're mean. Really! A government senator interjecting— Senator Wong: That's harsh! Wounded! I am wounded, Eric—all those years at the table. A government senator interjecting— Senator Wong: Now that's mean! You have ruled, Mr President—and I would indicate that we believe correctly—that direct relevance can pertain to different aspects of the question. But this minister can't get out of answering anything by simply saying, 'Oh, you mentioned an individual.' That is not the test of direct relevance, and that is the way in which she is using this tactically. She should answer the policy point if she doesn't wish to talk about the individual. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann: Mr President, it was a very broadly introduced question, with a range of matters canvassed. The minister was clearly being directly relevant to the question asked and, as presidents of both political persuasions have ruled during the time that I have been in this chamber, the President is not in a position to tell a minister how to answer a question. The President can only require direct relevance, and the minister was being directly relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, there are several points. Firstly, I will reiterate, without restating, what I said earlier. Secondly, Senator Wong, the minister had been speaking for only 16 seconds, so I am not in a position to rule on the entirety of her approach. I have said before—and I will state it again—that when very specific questions are asked requiring facts of ministers the term 'directly relevant' will be strictly applied, as I have done. However, I have also said before that to be directly relevant a minister can directly refer to or address, including challenging, material or assertions contained in any question or preamble. The minister was being directly relevant by addressing that part of the question in the 16 seconds for which she had been speaking. Finally, there is time after question time when the merits of answers can be freely debated. Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much, Mr President. First of all, I would reject the premise that if you are referring to an individual and then you move to talk about a particular action that I should think otherwise than that you are actually referring to that individual and their experience. You were talking about people getting access to mentors and you were referring to Stephanie. I don't know whether the person you were referring to or other people have had access to these particular mentors. I assume they have. I am more than happy to find out for you, Senator Watt, as to the merit or otherwise of the accusation that you are making—that because the person that you are referring to hadn't had access to a mentor it meant that everybody didn't have access to a mentor. What I would say is that this government takes very seriously— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?