Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:22): Thank you, Senator Siewert, for your question. I also acknowledge that you have announced your retirement at the end of this session, come the end of this parliament. I acknowledge the great work that you've done on behalf of the people you represent. In response to the principal part of your question, in relation to changes that are being made to both the JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments, but particularly the JobSeeker payment, at the end of September, you, Senator Siewert, as well as everybody else, were in this chamber back in March when we made the decision to put in place the coronavirus supplement for a period of six months. It was very clear at the time that we were voting for a temporary payment. In July, a decision was made by the government. We believed that the time for the removal of that temporary supplement was not the end of September, so we have sought, through an instrument in this place, to extend until December the elevated level of support to those people who find themselves unemployed past the end of September. At the same time, we have also put in place an increased income-free area, because we recognise that the job market is still very shallow, but it is starting to open up. We want to encourage people who find themselves unemployed as a result of coronavirus to actually take the steps to start re-engaging with the workforce so that we can, hopefully, get them re-employed as quickly as possible. The one thing that we do know— The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert on a point of order? Senator Siewert: I understand that I did a bit of a preamble, but we're now down to 30 seconds left in the time to answer the question. The minister has come nowhere near my question, which was: how many will be defaulting or in rental stress when the supplement is cut? The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, I'll say again: when questions contain a preamble, the minister can be directly relevant to part of a question. That was the second part of your question. The minister is being directly relevant to other parts of your question, in my view. A minister can be directly relevant to assertions and a preamble to a point made at the end of a longer question. That is within the standing orders. I can't direct a minister how to answer a question, nor which part of it to answer. Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much, Mr President. And as I said, Senator Siewert, past the end of September we are intending to continue to provide elevated levels of support to people who find themselves unemployed, whether they were unemployed before the coronavirus hit or unemployed as a result of the COVID pandemic. We on this side of the chamber understand that we have a responsibility to balance providing the level of elevated support people need with making sure we provide the incentive for them to re-engage with the workforce, because the best thing we can do is get them back into work. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?