Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:15): I reject the premise of the question that Senator Wong just put to me. As I have said in this place, when I and the government became aware that income averaging as a method for determining debts was not a valid means by which to determine those debts we changed the program to ensure that we did not continue to determine debts via this invalid method. However, going back to the comments in relation to the AAT, as I've said in this place on a number of occasions this week, each and every case that goes before the AAT turns on the specific facts of that case. There were cases before the AAT that were upheld and there were also cases that went before the AAT that were overturned— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan on a point of order? Senator Canavan: On a point of order, Mr President—this has been happening all week. It's hard to hear the answer to this question with Senator O'Neill's constant interjections. I would like to be able to hear interjections equally! I can't hear Senator Keneally's interjections over Senator O'Neill's interjections! I think it would be only fair if they were given an equal opportunity to interject on these important issues! The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Canavan! Senator Wong, are you rising on this or another point of order? Senator Wong: On this point of order, Mr President. I would have hoped Senator Canavan might care a little more about the fact that this minister is entirely refusing to be accountable to the chamber. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, that's not a point of order. Interjections, I will restate, are always disorderly. I ask senators to allow their colleagues to hear the answers to questions so they may be debated after question time. Senator Ruston, have you concluded your answer? Senator Ruston: Yes.