Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:46): Again, I am absolutely gobsmacked. Senator Sterle comes in here to defend the actions of the MUA, who were themselves in breach of— The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Sterle: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My question clearly had two parts. I asked very clearly: was the minister or her office aware that guards would be present? Then I asked: does the minister support the use of security guards to forcibly remove Australian workers? She has gone nowhere near that question. She is avoiding it. The PRESIDENT: I remind the minister of the question. Senator CASH: I will remind Senator Sterle and those on the other side that the context of the MV Portland setting sail was that there were three orders of the independent umpire that were being ignored. The decision to remove the employees from the ship was made by the company. The company made that decision after its ship had been held hostage by the MUA for a number of months. The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. I refer you to the statement that you made at the commencement of this session's sittings where you made some comments about ministers' relevance to the question. Today you have done as you said you would in that statement, and that is to remind the minister of the question. There was only one question. It was on whether or not the minister or her office were aware that guards would be present and whether she supports the use of security guards to forcibly remove Australian workers. So a rant about the MUA, with respect, cannot be directly relevant. The PRESIDENT: I will remind the minister of the question. Senator CASH: I say to Senator Sterle that the context around the people going on the ship to take the MUA members off and the MV Portland setting sail was that there were three orders of the independent umpire being ignored. Senator Sterle: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I cannot say it any clearer. There were two parts to my question. The minister only has to answer my question with a yes or no. I am not asking for a rant against any union. It is either a yes or a no, Mr President. With the greatest of respect, she is not being relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT: As previous presidents have often said—and I did indicate this in my statement at the beginning of this session—I cannot direct a minister how to answer, but I can inform the minister whether he or she is being directly relevant. In this case, I will remind the minister again of the question that has been asked. Senator CASH: Again, I will not stand here and defend the unlawful actions of the MUA— Senator Sterle: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. That is twice now that you have asked the minister to answer the question and she has refused to do it. I would like to ask the question again in case there is some confusion. The PRESIDENT: You have a final supplementary question available, Senator Sterle. It is your right to ask it if you wish. Senator Sterle: I wish to ask my first supplementary question again because it was not answered. The PRESIDENT: It still fits within the definition of a supplementary question, so you can ask that again if you wish to.