Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (14:38): I can inform Senator Ruston and the Senate that Medicare, Centrelink, welfare recipients, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, bankers and company directors, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, all— Senator Moore: I rise on a point of order. I am just checking whether this question and the answer is actually relevant to a bill that is currently on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT: I was just conferring with the Clerk on exactly the same matter. It is on the Notice Paper. Thank you, Senator Moore, for raising that. It is important that we clarify these matters. The rule is that the minister can address that matter providing he does not anticipate debate in relation to the bill that is on the Notice Paper. I will be listening to the minister's answer. At this stage he has not gone long enough for me to make that determination. Senator Moore: It terms of anticipating what could be in the debate, is it content or argument? I am not sure how that operates. You are saying that it cannot cover things that are part of the debate; I just want to see what can be discussed in this particular answer. The PRESIDENT: I will seek some further advice from the Clerk in a moment but if 'anticipating debate' related to the general content there would be no discussion. I will just confer with the Clerk. Just one moment, Senator Moore. 'Anticipating the debate' is about all clauses of the bill, but the issues surrounding the bill can be discussed and canvassed—the actual issues of the clauses. I will be listening. I think the minister has enough experience to be able to weave his way through this. Senator ABETZ: Thank you for your vote of confidence, Mr President. I was going through the examples. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission also have those compulsory powers. And their powers include less protection for witnesses than is proposed by the coalition for a re-established ABCC. Any assertion that is made that only— Senator Wong: I rise on a point of order with respect to anticipating debate. That is a direct reference to a clause in the bill. Exactly what he is referring to is a clause in the bill. The PRESIDENT: That is a direct reference to a clause in the bill. I invite the minister to continue his remarks, and be cautious of the provisions of the standing orders. Senator ABETZ: There has been general, broad community debate about these matters, and the assertion that only construction workers are subject to these powers in relation to the former commission and the existing Fair Work Building and Construction is false, because they apply to all managers, contractors and workers alike. The ACCC chair has said that it was only by using compulsory powers that it was able to continue its case against the CFMEU, and that was in enforcing consumer and competition laws. Even Labor's own review of the previous ABCC concluded that it would 'not be a responsible course to recommend removing compulsory powers'. In short, these powers are essential to confronting the blatant contempt for the rule of law displayed on construction sites. It is interesting to observe that the Labor Party believes that there should be harsher investigative powers for a potential welfare cheat under Centrelink legislation than those that would engage in corruption on construction sites.