Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:11): I thank Senator Sheldon for his question. Given the information that has just been provided to the chamber by Senator Birmingham, I think we should all be delighting in the fact that we are seeing more Australians back in work than before the pandemic. And we should all be celebrating the fact that we have an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent today. Who would have thought, when we went into the pandemic, that the economic recovery in this country was going to be so strong as to see 5.1 per cent unemployment in Australia? In the home state of Senator Cash, who's sitting next to me, it's down to 4.4 per cent, which is getting very, very close to full employment. Making sure that we provide a balance, and ensuring that Australians who wish to get into the workforce are able to take that opportunity, is a very important platform of the Morrison-McCormack government's economic policy. We want to see every single Australian who is able to work, in work. That's why we have put in place so many programs, particularly in recent times as we come out of the COVID pandemic. Through JobMaker we've got skilling and retraining programs to make sure that Australians who find themselves without work have a pathway back into the workforce. But we also hear—on the other side of the equation—that there are businesses that are struggling to get employees, and we need to make sure that we provide them with a pool of resources so that they can get workers. That in no way denies that our absolute fundamental policy position of this government is to make sure that Australians who are unemployed— The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, on a point of order? Senator Keneally: The question of relevance—the question was quite specific from Senator Sheldon. The British government has said that Aussie firms will no longer have to prioritise hiring Australian nationals first. The minister hasn't addressed the question: why is the government giving away Australian jobs? The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, the latter part of your point of order there means that while the minister is talking about the matters that she is, it is quite a wide-ranging part of the question at the end of what Senator Sheldon asked. I think while the minister is talking about—Senator Wong? Senator Wong: Could you clarify, Mr President, which is the wide-ranging bit? The PRESIDENT: Why is the— Senator Wong: Why is the Morrison government taking jobs away from Australians and giving them to UK citizens? It is clearly about one issue. The PRESIDENT: The minister is talking about prioritising jobs for Australians. I'll just finish my explanation and people can take issue with it. I view that question as giving the minister some latitude to answer and to challenge it, and to explain why they are doing the opposite. As long as it's not a general commentary on the unemployment or employment market—if the minister is talking about why they disagree with that question, or talking about prioritising in government policy, I think that's relevant. Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much, Mr President. The Australian government will always prioritise jobs for Australians. We will always prioritise jobs for Australians. We want to make sure that every Australian who wishes to have a job is able— The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally: I seek leave to table the Ten key benefits of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement where it clearly says, 'Aussie firms will no longer have to prioritise hiring Australians first'— The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, you are on your feet. Senator Birmingham: Mr President, I was just going to respond. Senator Keneally well knows the protocols and etiquettes in relation to tabling documents in this place. If she wishes to follow those protocols then the government will look at it in accordance with those protocols rather than seeking— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM: You have sought leave; you haven't shared the document with the government to my knowledge. You're waving a document around that the government has not seen. You know the protocols. If we you were doing the same, you would deny leave. The PRESIDENT: The clerk has advised me that one can't interrupt a speaker to seek leave to table. I was not aware of that particular procedure. Senator Wong, to your point, I can only deal with— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Oh, please do. Sorry, I thought I was dealing with— Senator Wong: I hadn't actually stood to make a point again. My point is, if you read it that broadly, Mr President, with all due respect, the minister can do precisely what she is doing, which is to engage in motherhood statements. 'We all will prioritise Australian jobs.' It's unsurprising that you are then going to get a response from the opposition seeking to table documents. Direct relevance means dealing with the issue at hand. Just because something says 'jobs', it doesn't mean a minister can stand up and answer a question by saying, 'We all love jobs.' Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm happy to rule. I've taken submissions. I'm not complaining about the opposition objecting to the nature of a question, Senator Wong. I've allowed the opposition to restate and to emphasise the part of the question and to take points of order. I was just pointing out to Senator Keneally that I was corrected by the clerk. I wasn't aware that you couldn't interrupt to seek leave. That was something I learnt. When it comes to the point of order, I can only deal with questions the way that they are asked. I submit, Senator Wong, that you are asking me to go to the content of a minister's answer and how they might answer a question rather than whether they are directly relevant. When a question is 'why is the government'—if I read it correctly—'taking away jobs from Australians in favour of someone else' the minister is entitled to say otherwise, as long as it's not a general commentary on unemployment or employment. I think when the minister was talking about that bit, when the point of order was raised, that constitutes direct relevance. There is an opportunity to debate the content and answers after question time and whether or not the chamber thinks the content of those answers is sufficient or satisfactory. Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much. To be directly relevant to Senator Sheldon's question, the Australian government will always prioritise Australian jobs— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Your point of order—you are seeking leave? Senator Keneally: I seek leave to table the document from the United Kingdom government that I have just cited here in the chamber that says, 'Aussie firms will no longer have to prioritise hiring Aussie nationals first.' Leave granted. The PRESIDENT: Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question?