Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (14:25): Minister, I take your answer to mean that these businesses could be compelled to bargain together. I ask: under Labor's extreme IR policies, could a local winery employing 20 staff on the Bellarine Peninsula be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a local pub in Port Arlington, Victoria, due to being in the same industry and geographical location? Senator Watt: Point of order: I remember there is a standing order that prevents hypothetical questions. Both of these questions have been hypothetical questions—as in, 'would this' or 'would that' are hypothetical in nature. I know the wage cutters over there don't like being held to standing orders but— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, on the same point of order? Senator Birmingham: Same point of order: Australian businesses only wish that Labor's policies were hypothetical! The sad reality is that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. On a point of order, Senator Gallagher? Senator Gallaghe r: Same point of order: if you look at standing order 73(1)(g) around rules for questions, it's very clear that questions that contain hypothetical matter are not in order. The PRESIDENT: Standing order 73(1)(g) does go to hypotheticals, but the question that Senator Henderson asked was around policy, and I'm going to allow the question. Senator Henderson, I am not sure if you finished your question. I think you were midway through when you were sat down. Can you ask the question again? I'm going to reset the clock. Senator HENDERSON: As I was saying, Minister, I take your answer to mean that these businesses could be compelled to bargain together. I ask: under Labor's extreme IR policies, could a local winery employing 20 staff on the Bellarine Peninsula, where I live, be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a local pub in Port Arlington, Victoria, due to being in the same industry and geographical location?