Senator SCHACHT (10:25 AM) —by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 17), after the definition of month , insert:

payment in connection with this Act means a payment:

(a) upon termination of employment, to a person employed in the stevedoring industry, equivalent to the payment that person would normally expect to receive upon termination of his or her employment on the ground of redundancy, including:

(i) redundancy pay; and

(ii) payments in lieu of notice; and

(iii) payments for accrued leave entitlements; and

(b) funded, directly or indirectly, from amounts raised by the levy imposed by the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act 1998 .

(3) Clause 18, page 12 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The Minister may authorise payments for the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry provided that such payments are for the purpose of:

(a) payments in connection with this Act; or

(b) the reasonable costs of administering the scheme.

(4) Clause 18, page 12 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Minister must not authorise payments for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a) except in relation to persons employed by stevedoring companies that were employers of stevedoring labour on 30 June 1997.

These amendments are specifically designed to ensure that the payments are not made to the Patrick companies but go to where we want the money to go—that is, to the workers. Again, this is about honesty and ensuring that this government does not slip out of its obligations. As I have said before, the opposition on this matter does not take the word of the government because we believe there is now a demonstrably proven history that this government will say one thing in parliament and do another thing privately as part of their obsession to attack the workers in the Maritime Union. These recommendations are open and transparent, to make sure that the appropriation—the money being provided by the levy—goes to the workers in accordance with the agreements reached in negotiation. These amendments are consistent with the recommendation of the minority report from the Labor members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

We understand the government has indicated broad support for this approach but has yet to give us a form of words despite a number of meetings. I do not know whether that is still the case or whether they have given us further indication of what the form of words are and whether they will accept this amend ment. It seems to us it is just good public policy to accept this amendment. If this form of words is not appropriate and you have a better form of words, being a cooperative and constructive opposition, we will be willing to have a look at it. But we believe, as a minimum, our amendments should stand because they will ensure, in an open and transparent way, that what the parliament desires to happen will happen and there is no backsliding from the government.