Senator NEAL (10:32 AM) —This Democrat amendment tries to some extent to limit the negative issues that arise from schedule 2, items 3 and 5 of the government's bill. I talked at some length in the second reading stage about the concern that the opposition had about this bill, which is essentially about country of origin, having slipped into it in a fairly underhand manner these provisions which allow the ACCC using taxpayers' money to pursue unions in industrial disputes in what is a private dispute between representatives of workers and their employers about their terms and conditions.

It has been a matter of some discussion between me and some members of the community who see some great benefits coming from this bill. They are obviously concerned that a disagreement over matters that are entirely industrial relations are going to delay the progress of this bill. Yesterday I was contacted by Mr Bonanno from the sugar board. He was very concerned to see that this bill was being delayed, particularly in relation to an amendment that is being proposed that he believes is necessary to ensure that the sugar board does not collapse overnight.

Because he is an expert in the field, I accepted his view of it and informed him that, that being the case, the opposition would like to cooperate as best we could to ensure that this did not occur in relation to the sugar board. But we had difficulty with this industrial relations matter that had been introduced in a fairly underhanded way by the government. Certainly we would do our best to get the bill through as quickly as possible, but this issue could not be resolved. We told him that he might want to talk to other people in the government about this issue. I understand that he had some discussions with Senator Boswell, who I understand is the Leader of the National Party in the Senate. Despite my having had some discussions with Senator Boswell, there seems to have been some misunderstanding between us. I thought that, by saying that items 3 and 5 of schedule 2 would be withdrawn, it meant that they would be withdrawn. Apparently that was subject to an unspoken rider about getting the agreement of the Liberal members of the coalition.

Senator Mackay —Like Telstra.

Senator NEAL —Yes. I understand that, even though the National Party's vote is declining at the moment, the senior partners in the coalition are not so concerned about their views on these sorts of matters. I understand that Peter Reith's dispute with the MUA and his commitment to pursuing the MUA and other unions to the death overrides any concern they have for the National Party. It certainly overrides any concern that the sugar board and those people in rural areas who rely on the sugar industry might have.

I am disappointed that this is holding up the bill; that it is holding up some important provisions for manufacturing in relation to the country of origin labelling. It is also holding up a very important provision in relation to preserving the sugar board. Despite my best efforts and it seems the best efforts of Senator Boswell to try to speed up this process, the Liberal Party, the senior partner in the coalition, is not listening. They are quite prepared to sacrifice the sugar board in terms of their ideological commitment to union busting. I find that very disappointing. I understand that Senator Boswell also finds that very disap pointing. I know that he has a real commitment to the rural community, but it seems that that commitment that he has personally is perhaps not reflected in this government.

I suppose I cannot give the National Party advice about how they operate within the coalition, but if I were a member of a coalition that acted in that way I would be extraordinarily concerned, particularly in light of the situation at the moment where there are many people who have traditionally supported the National Party who feel that they have not really been given the due consideration that they should be in light of their fairly traditional support.

There is every indication at the moment that the traditional National Party base is transferring to the new One Nation Party. To some extent it arises from the National Party not being given proper regard within the coalition and not being allowed to pursue policies that protect the people that it tends to represent.

We are proceeding with items 3 and 5 of schedule 2. I find that disappointing. This government put before us a bill that is titled the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . When I was having a flick through the standing orders—something I try not to do too much—I noticed that there is some suggestion that amendments should not be moved that actually are not in accordance with the name of the bill. I could not find anything that said that all sections of the bill proposed by the government should have some relationship to the name of the bill. It does not appear me to be in breach of standing orders.

I would have thought that, in the general spirit of the way in which legislation is presented, there should be some relationship between the content of the bill and the name of the bill which gives the general public and the chamber some indication about what is contained in it. Certainly, this section of the bill—the section that the Democrats' amendment and also our later amendment relate to—has absolutely nothing to do with country of origin representations, although it does relate to the Trade Practices Act.

My concern about this aspect of the bill is that, even though it ostensibly uses the Trade Practices Act as a vehicle for introducing this mechanism, it substantially changes the intention and spirit of the Trade Practices Act as it has always existed, in that it relates to industrial relations disputes. Senator Murray has already alluded to the fact that the ACCC since its creation has always seen fit—and I think quite properly—to steer away from industrial disputes and use the Trade Practices Act for what it is properly there for, and that is to deal with disputes between competitors and commercial parties.

It is a matter of great concern that Professor Fels has seen fit to branch out in this way. Some people might say unfairly that Professor Fels should not have acted in this manner and I agree with that. I do not believe it is appropriate for the ACCC to venture into industrial relations. This body is essentially meant to be a fair arbiter and referee and it is suddenly weighing in as an enforcer, strongarm man or bouncer for employers in an industrial relations dispute. When a body that is meant to be an independent referee ventures in in this way not only is it improper in terms of the powers of the ACCC within the Trade Practices Act but also it erodes some of the areas that the ACCC is traditionally and properly involved in. It reduces the esteem which the community holds for the ACCC as that independent body.

I suggest that Professor Fels should be cautious in extending the use of his powers into industrial disputes. Also I indicate to the government that, if we want to preserve the good things done by the ACCC and its role as an independent referee, perhaps they should not use the ACCC in this fashion.