Senator CAMPBELL (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer9.32 p.m.) —I will respond to two points. Firstly, Senator Brown, you said you have had no response. I was asked two quite specific and direct questions by Senator Margetts, which I answered absolutely directly. That, of course, provoked you to speak, because you disagree with the bill and with this amendment. You say you have had no response, but you actually had quite specific, direct and accurate responses.

Secondly, Senator Margetts made a point earlier in relation to the incorporation of speeches. In conversations I have had with Senator Sherry in recent days to enable the bill to come to a vote on the third reading as early as possible after close to 30 hours of committee stage debate, Senator Sherry indicated that he intended seeking leave to incorporate speeches. Senator Murray has done the same thing. He did not suggest he was going to do that. But it is open to any senator—not that I encourage it—who has fears about something in a document to refuse leave for it to be incorporated.

As a matter of course and through the courtesy shown to me, particularly by Senator Sherry, I have checked all the documents that he has sought leave to incorporate. That remains open to any senator. Certainly, if Senator Sherry had made any remarks in those incorporated documents that I wanted to respond to, I would have done so. That remains open to any senator to do. So I think it is not a fear that you need to have, because you can refuse leave or you can do what I am doing—that is, check any documents prior to that.

In relation to the substantive issues, the government opposes amendments 77 and 78 that apply to item 9. The amendments appear to be based on what we see as a misunderstanding of the relevant provisions of the bill. It is not clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. They apply to item 9 of the schedule, which seeks to insert new provisions prohibiting the payment or acceptance of strike pay, that is, payments for periods when the employees concerned were engaged in industrial action.

You have asked me on a couple of occasions what our definitions of industrial action are. On the face of it, your amendments would have the result that the prohibition would not apply to industrial action falling short of a complete stoppage of work but it would apply to action which is excluded from the statutory definition of industrial action. It would apply to action which was authorised or agreed to by the employer and to action which was based on a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to health and safety.

If the amendments are intended to ensure that the prohibition on strike pay does not apply to action which is excluded from the definition of industrial action, they are therefore unnecessary. That is already the effect of this bill. To the extent that the amendments seek to exclude from the prohibition on strike pay industrial action which falls short of a full stoppage of work, the government does not accept them. Bans and limitations on work leading right up to a definition of industrial action can be just as costly and disruptive.

To summarise the point that I have just read into Hansard, there are already exclusions in relation to those matters. If they are your concern, then you need have no concern.