Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that on this government's watch the number of apprentices and trainees in Tasmania has fallen by 1,190, a drop of more than 12 per cent?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really did thank Senator Chandler yesterday for what was an outstanding question on policy—policy that is, in fact, important to the economy. Senator Polley, you may not be aware, but I think that this was articulated exceptionally well by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On this side of the chamber, let me assure you, we will not take lectures from Labor when it comes to skills—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, on a point of order?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, Mr President. The minister has not been relevant to the question that was asked of her.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening carefully to the minister's answer. She has 91 seconds remaining. I believe at this point she is being relevant to part of the question asked, but I'm listening carefully. She has 91 seconds to complete her answer.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, the Minister for Education and Training, issued a press release in June of this year saying that Tasmania has outperformed the nation in apprenticeships and traineeship commencements under the Hodgman Liberal government. On this side of the chamber we will not take lectures from those who were last in government—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, on a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, Mr President. The minister's answer has not addressed the drop in apprenticeships and traineeships whatsoever. That was the point of the question; not anything else. The drop in apprenticeships and traineeships was the subject of the question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Minister Cash was directly relevant. The question started off by referencing a question by Senator Chandler yesterday, and that self-evidently makes the response of the minister entirely directly relevant.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point also, Senator Watt—and if I'm in error I will correct myself in the future—I did just hear the minister refer to some numbers in Tasmania. Again, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. If the minister is answering the question asked, and that answer includes references to numbers in Tasmania quoted from a different source, I believe that is directly relevant.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to Senator Watt for that interjection, because colleagues would know that it is because of Senator Watt visiting seats in Tasmania—sorry, Queensland—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is direct relevance. The question goes to the 12 per cent drop in Tasmanian apprenticeships. Why did she not advise Senator Chandler of that, given she asked the question about Tasmanian traineeships?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While interrupted mid-sentence there—I didn't get to hear her conclusion—I believe the minister is being directly relevant at the moment.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Referring to Senator Watt's great interjection, I was thanking Senator Watt for all the work he did in Queensland in ensuring they only delivered one senator to the Australian Senate and also comprehensively lost the election. Perhaps it was because you were talking about skills!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, do I even need to take a point of order? You can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. She deliberately ignored the previous point of order and went on a rant that has nothing to do with the question. Could you please—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it was directly responding to the interjection.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please don't yell at me on this point. Please don't! With due respect, Mr President, my submission is you should remind the minister of the question. It is a farce to have her going off on a rant when she's asked a question about Tasmanian apprenticeships. We care about those on this side.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, on the point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that contribution by Senator Wong just now, where she refers to ignorance of a point of order, she failed to acknowledge that you ruled that there was no point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On direct relevance, I ask you to rule.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I do insist that point of order are raised. I do not consider it my role to be policing the answers of ministers on a rolling brief from the chair. Senator Wong, I do ask that point of orders be raised. On the point of order there, I would remind the minister of the question. I would also remind all others in the chamber that, while interjections are always disorderly—and I say that commonly at this time of the day—if people interject, they can respect the retort from the minister answering the question as well. So I'm not going to rule the minister is out of order, because the minister was responding to an interjection—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twice.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Multiple interjections, Senator Wong, I think. Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, that was her justification in the previous point of order. She then went on after you ruled, where there was no further interjection on the same point. It is a farce.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I am incorrect, in that I thought I heard further interjections—I will review the video—I apologise, but I thought I heard further interjections. Senator Cormann.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that point of order, the reality is that Senator Cash was entirely directly relevant to the question asked except that she was constantly interrupted by frivolous points of order, which weren't points of order, and persistent interjections.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to interpret that the minister's comment on a state other than that raised in the question was actually in response to an interjection on multiple occasions. That is my memory of it. If I'm incorrect, I will apologise tomorrow after I watch the video, because I doubt Hansard would have caught it all. Other than that, I actually think the minister was being directly relevant. If people don't want ministers to go off on a tangent—I think the minister was being directly relevant. I ruled so when she was talking about apprentice numbers from a different source, being the state government, than the one quoted in the question from Senator Polley. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is your ruling that you remind the minister of the question, or is your ruling that she was directly relevant? If it is the latter, there is an issue with that. The minister cannot possibly, in my submission—and I'd invite you to take advice—be directly relevant to a question in her portfolio when talking about the election and Queensland seats.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And my point I made is I don't consider that material to be directly relevant. I do consider it to be a response to multiple interjections. And, while they're always disorderly, I am not going to say ministers cannot respond to them when people do not respond to my call for order in the chamber. I have reminded the minister of the question, but I have also ruled her substantive answer, for which a point of order was raised, was directly relevant because she was quoting from a different source about the exact same issue, which was, I believe, the number of apprentices in Tasmania, which was contained in Senator Polley's question. So I will call the minister to continue her answer, ask for no interjections and ask for the discussion to not range north of Bass Strait for a little while. Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, if those on the other side actually care about apprentices, they may wish to ask themselves about how, when we introduced the apprentice wage subsidy, it was actually opposed by those on the other side. If you actually care about getting more people into apprenticeships, you would actually back the government's skills agenda, a commitment in excess of half a billion dollars to ensure that Australians are trained for the jobs of today and for the jobs of tomorrow.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, a supplementary question?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In her answer yesterday, why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that under this government there have been more people dropping off or out of apprenticeships and traineeships than finishing them?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to Senator Chandler yesterday, one of the issues I did point out to her was why we have had to rebuild the TAFE system, the skills system et cetera—the apprentice system—in Australia. And, again, it is a direct result of the failures by those opposite when they were last in government.

As Senator Payne articulated to the chamber, those on the other side left a legacy that comprehensively ripped the guts out of vocational education and training in Australia. In fact, I believe Senator Wong actually sat around the cabinet table when decisions were made to gut over $1.2 billion from employer incentives over just two years. We are committed to vocational education and training in Australia, and—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash. Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While Tasmania is suffering with the second-highest unemployment in the nation and the lowest mean household income in the nation, this government has slashed $3 billion from TAFE and training. Why did the minister fail to advise Senator Chandler that under her government Australia has 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I was explaining to Senator Chandler why yet again we have had to step in as a government and clean up the legacy that those opposite left. You ripped $1.2 billion of employer incentives out of the system. Do you know what actually happened? Do you know what happened? As Senator Payne clearly stated, the greatest fall in apprenticeship numbers on record occurred in 2012-13 when the number of apprenticeship commencements fell by 85,000 in one single year. Senator Polley, perhaps your question is better directed to Senator Wong because Senator Wong was actually sitting around the cabinet table at the time, making decisions to rip out of the system $1.2 billion in employer incentives. We are committed to this system and we will do everything that—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash.