Senator CRANE (8.12 p.m.) —In effect, the government is giving a privilege in the form of immunity to a group of people who can go into the workplace, be involved in a picket line or take action through a boycott. That is what it means, and I have to say that I think it is a damned disgrace. Maybe I should withdraw that.

  Opposition senators—No.

Senator CRANE —All right. It is an absolute and total disgrace. Those opposite need to have a really hard look at themselves. They come in here and talk about discrimination and privilege. Senator Bell needs to have a very good look at himself too. If he can support this sort of rubbish—this nonsense—if he can give people immunity when they are involved in something which will damage somebody, what are we coming to? I ask honourable senators to address that question.

  As far as I am aware, this proposed section of the law will be the only one in this country that gives a privilege. Why select a member of a trade union? What about an ordinary person who has chosen not to join a union? It is another case of discrimination—of privilege. The next time I hear those opposite talking about us being involved in privilege, protection and elitism I will remind them that this is the worst example, to my knowledge, that has ever been brought before this parliament.

  Those opposite must really ask themselves some pretty serious questions about fairness, decency and equity. The government supported some amendments against discrimination from the Democrats that should not even be in the Industrial Relations Act, yet they come in here, in what is supposed to be the highest body in this country, and put this rubbish in an act of parliament. They really should have a hard look at themselves. I hope tonight when they go home and look in the mirror that they just think about what they have done.   There is probably no more I can say other than that I am proud that the opposition will not be part of this type of unfair, unjust and inconsistent treatment of decent human beings. We will not have a bar of it. Clause 162A(a) states:

obtaining information from, or communicating information to, people wishing to enter or leave the premises or place . . .

Clause 162A(b) deals with the obstruction, molestation or intimidation of any of those people. My first question is: when does information become offensive? Secondly, when does obstruction, molestation or intimidation become persecution? I think the parliamentary secretary needs to answer those questions because the way this clause is framed is totally and absolutely unsatisfactory.