Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:13): It's always good to get a question about workplace relations from the minister who was in charge of these portfolios when a police raid on union offices was leaked from a minister's office. It's always good to get a question about workplace relations— The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt! Senator WATT: Straight to the history, straight to the record. The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, order! Senator Watt, when I call you to order I expect you to sit. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr: President, personal reflection. I've previously taken exactly this point of order when Senator Watt has raised this matter. It is contrary to what the Federal Court found, and Senator Watt should withdraw, as he has previously. The PRESIDENT: Minister Gallagher? Senator Gallagher: On the point of order, I've listened to Senator Scarr, but I think that is an established fact that's been clear and on the public record. S enator Scarr interjecting— Senator Gallagher: I'm pretty sure it is. Senator Scarr interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, order! Senator Scarr, I heard your point of order. I advised Senator Watt not to be disorderly. I then invited Minister Gallagher, and there was disorder. That is inappropriate and it's disrespectful. I will seek some advice on your point of order. Senator Watt, I was going to call you to order, prior to Senator Scarr jumping to his point of order, to remind you to get to the question. I am not fully aware of the matters Senator Scarr has raised. I invite you to withdraw those comments and get to the point of your response. Senator WATT: I'm happy to withdraw, Madam President. The direct answer to the question from Senator Cash is that, as Minister Burke has made clear on many occasions, the government accepts that there are legitimate uses for labour hire in the workforce, particularly in areas such as surge, temporary replacement or specialised workforces. But, as I was saying the other day, when Senator Cash asked me a question about this, if an employer has an enterprise agreement and agrees to certain minimum rates of pay then that employer should not be able to use loopholes within our industrial relations laws to undercut the wages they have agreed to. That's what this is about. The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash: A point of order in relation to direct relevance: I quoted the minister and I asked Senator Watt, quite clearly: are there any circumstances under which service contractors could be subjected to a labour hire arrangement?' If the minister is telling the truth, the answer is— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash, there is no need to continue on. I will rule on your point and I will remind— Senator Pratt: If you know the answer, why ask it? The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I will remind the minister of your question. Senator WATT: Thanks, President. The next point I was going to make—until Senator Cash interrupted—was that if the arrangement is to provide a service other than labour then that would be completely different and the Fair Work Commission would be able to exclude them. So there will be circumstances where, because of specialised arrangements and specialised labour, the Fair Work Commission will have the ability to exclude those forms of— Senator Birmingham: So it's discretionary. Senator WATT: If you knew anything about industrial relations—I'll take the interjection from Senator Birmingham. If you knew the slightest thing about industrial relations law, you would know that the Fair Work Commission has discretion to decide many, many things— Senator Cash: We know a lot about Labor and lying. Senator WATT: and Senator Cash should know that, as a former industrial relations practitioner. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cash interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash, your leader is on his feet. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham: President, a point of order on direct relevance: Senator Cash asked a question seeking a specific response to a very specific quote from Minister Burke about whether service providers were completely, completely, deliberately excluded. In terms of the minister being directly relevant—and this was particularly relevant to the exchange just had between the minister and I across the chamber—it sounds like he is watering down the minister's statement that they are not completely, completely, deliberately excluded— The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, you have now moved on to a debating point. Senator Birmingham: and I would invite the minister to be crystal clear on that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham: before he gives condescending lectures across the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order across the chamber! As all senators in this place are aware, if there are interjections the minister may take those interjections. He took your interjection, Senator Birmingham— Senator Cash interjecting— The PRESIDENT: and he had started to be directly relevant to the question. Senator Cash, you were very close then to me asking you to withdraw. You used the word 'lies'. I'm just asking people to be mindful of their language. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I am asking all senators to be mindful of their language. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT: Thank you. So—to make it even more clear for Senator Birmingham and Senator Cash—the closing loopholes bill gives service contractors a clear pathway for demonstrating that their arrangements are not those the government aims to address with this measure. But let's be clear about what this is about. We have a coalition who cannot get over the fact that low wages are not the deliberate design feature of the economic policy of an Australian government. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator Ruston and Senator Cash! Senator Cash, a first supplementary question?