Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:00): I thank Mr Farrell—Senator Farrell—very much for his note. Sorry to demote you, Senator Farrell; I didn't mean to do that! I think it's important to note that, as a government, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Australians have the right skills for the workforce of today and, importantly, the workforce of the future. We know that it is necessary to ensure that our VET sector we can deliver those skills and is responsive to the needs of employers, of workers and of students. In the current financial year, we're investing over $3 billion in VET. That investment is broken up by $1½ billion— Senator Ayres: They're the wrong notes! Senator PAYNE: They're not the wrong notes, because if you had listened to the esteemed senator's question about the skills, then you would know that is exactly what he asked. So where are we investing? We're investing in the states and territories through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development's specific purpose payments. We're investing in the Skilling Australians Fund— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Payne! I have Senator Watt on a point of order. Senator Watt: On relevance—the minister has not addressed the question whatsoever, which is: how have they managed to oversee skills shortages and wage stagnation at the same time? That is quite an achievement, and we're very interested in the answer. Senator Cormann: On the point of order, I don't think that points of order are appropriately used if it's to mislead the Senate. If Senator Watt had listened yesterday, he would know that real wages growth is higher than it was under Labor, and it's higher than it has been over the last 20 years. The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator Cormann. That is not a point of order. I remind all senators that a point of order on direct relevance is not an opportunity to simply restate the question. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, can I finish what I've got to say, and then I'll call you. It is not simply an opportunity for that. Please, I ask that a point be made on why the answer is allegedly not directly relevant rather than simply restating the question. Senator Wong: We have taken note of your exhortation not to simply repeat the question, but for the purposes of articulating a direct relevance point it is necessary to reference the question. Senator Watt didn't simply reference the fact that the subject matter—that is, skill shortages and wage stagnation at the same time—was not a matter that the minister had gone to. The PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I'm listening carefully to the minister. I believe the material she is dealing with is directly related to the question. It may not be the answer in the form, the type or the substance of that sought by those asking it, but I think it is directly relevant. There are supplementary questions and a time to debate it after question time. Senator PAYNE: I am absolutely happy to concede that my error in commencing my answer was not to say that I reject the premise of the question from Senator Farrell, but it was very nice of Senator Watt to help Senator Farrell with his remarks. Most importantly, as I was indicating about our $3 billion investment in VET, it includes the national agreement, the Skilling Australians Fund and our own skills program—including employer incentives and support for Australian apprenticeships—and the list goes on. Most importantly, I don't intend to take a lecture on skills from those opposite, because we know that the decline in apprenticeship commencements began under the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We know that the greatest fall in apprentice numbers on record occurred in 2012-13, when the number of apprenticeship commencements fell by 85,000 in a single year. Why did that fall happen? I'll tell you in a moment. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?