Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:15): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The tourism industry directly employed over 666,000 Australians in the June quarter of this year, many of them being small-business operators. Under Labor's extreme IR changes, could a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a large hotel in the Mornington Peninsula due to them being in the same industry and the same geographical location? Senator Wong: I just have a point of order. I have not intervened, given the political contest here— Senator Henderson interjecting— Senator Wong: It's a point of order. I'm making a point of order. The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, I've called Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: She's called me. The PRESIDENT: Resume your seat. Excuse me! Senator Henderson, I'm the President. I've called Senator Wong to her feet. She's making the point of order, and you're interjecting. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Thank you. The point of order goes to whether the question is in order given where the bill is. I have not intervened to date because I understand that the policy and politics of the issue is in the matter that the Senate has historically questioned and continues to question, even when legislation is before the Senate, notwithstanding the standing orders. I may have misheard Senator Henderson, but I thought she directly went to the legislation, in which case I would assert it is out of order in the current terms. But the way I would deal with it—because I understand the issue, Senator Birmingham—is that, if that is the case, I would invite her to rephrase. Senator Birmingham: President, just before you rule on the point of order, I do note that, on Tuesday of this week, the government themselves asked a question related to this legislation. I further note that you and previous Presidents have ruled broadly in relation to these questions about anticipation of Senate business, and I would encourage you to uphold your ruling and previous rulings about that breadth of questioning that is available to senators. The PRESIDENT: I'll take some advice, Senator Birmingham, because I thought the question was not confined to Senator Farrell's area, but I'll take advice. In relation to the point of order, I'm advised that, if the question went generally to policy issues, then it would be reasonable to ask Senator Farrell to answer it. But the question, in my view, did go to details, because it sought a comparison under an aspect of the proposed bill that related one type of business to another type of business. I can invite Senator Farrell to answer the broad policy nature of that question. Senator Henderson interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Henderson; I've got Senator Wong on her feet, and then I'll come to you. Senator Wong: I will simply say: we would give leave to rephrase, rather than going to Senator Farrell, if that is convenient to the opposition. The PRESIDENT: The advice from Senator Wong is that she is perfectly fine if you wish to rephrase the question rather than it going to Senator Farrell, because it does go to detail. Senator HENDERSON: Senator Farrell, how would these changes impact on a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff compared with a large hotel on the Mornington Peninsula, with respect to multi-employer bargaining, due to these two businesses being in the same industry and geographical location? I'm asking specifically in relation to the tourism industry. The PRESIDENT: I do believe, Senator Henderson, that that is the same question simply reframed. I have Senator Wong on her feet on a point of order. Senator Wong: I was going to say the same. The PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham: I would contest that, in terms of the way in which rulings on these matters have been held previously, it has been clear, and Odgers' states, that the rule concerning anticipation is not interpreted narrowly. If it were, it would block questions on a wide variety of subjects. Indeed, none other than former senator John Faulkner argued previously about the broad interpretation taken in relation to this. The senator's question relates to policies and reforms of the government. She's asking about those policies, reforms and changes. She has not referenced specific legislation either in her first go at the question or in her rewording of the question. Senator Wong: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that the difficulty here is that the senator repeated precisely the words, 'these changes', to which I responded. It's clearly the case that 'these changes' mean the legislation which is before the chamber. As such, I would submit that the question needs to be rephrased to be compliant with standing order 73. The PRESIDENT: I am going to rule. I will seek further advice after question time, Senator Birmingham— Senator Henderson interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, I'm speaking. Please resume your seat. I will come to you. As I said in my first answer, if the question is around the broad policy, it's at the invitation of Senator Farrell to answer. I remain with that response, but I am happy to take further advice after question time. Senator Henderson, did you have a point of order? Senator Henderson: I was going to ask if I could be given an opportunity to rephrase in line with your further clarification. The PRESIDENT: Yes, that's perfectly fine. Senator HENDERSON: Senator Farrell, in light of the government's extreme IR policies, could a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a large hotel in the Mornington Peninsula due to them being in the same industry and geographical location?