Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:51): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you. The government have been consistent in our approach to the Fair Work Australia investigations into the Health Services Union. It is our position that all registered organisations, whether trade unions or employer associations, should not misuse the money of their members for any reason—full stop. We consistently stated our view that the Fair Work Australia investigations must be allowed to conclude without political interference, that Fair Work Australia is an institution independent—I stress 'independent'—of the executive and we did not resile from the fact that the reports into the Health Services Union Victoria No.1 Branch and the national office contained serious and disturbing material, which we have said should be tested in the courts. Those opposite have tied themselves in knots and repeatedly contradicted themselves in an unedifying spectacle of amateurish politicking. They accused us of political interference but then called for us to intervene. Senator Cormann: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The minister's statement is not consistent with the standing order requirement as far as brief statements is concerned. I refer to previous rulings in relation to this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I draw the minister's attention to the Procedure Committee report that indicated that statements should be just by way of explanation rather than by way of debate. You are moving very close to the way of debate, Senator Collins. I draw your attention to what is left on the clock and the statement I have just made. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am seeking to explain some of the context and the facts in this matter. The opposition accused Fair Work Australia of being part of a political conspiracy but then praised the reports that were released as thorough, respected and methodical. But they misrepresented the content, as explained by the amendment that occurred in this motion. They have fallen over themselves raising pseudolegal arguments to criticise the actions of the general manager, but then refused to acknowledge the basic principle at stake here—and that is that allegations like these must be tested and determined in the courts.