Senator LUDWIG (4:54 PM) —Before the government speak on these amendments, it is worth while letting them know our position in relation to them so that they can form their view accordingly. Labor will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Murray. We can perhaps go so far as to say that we gave them very careful and serious consideration. There are matters that Senator Murray is keen about; however, when you examine the amendments in the light of the comments we have made in relation to the principal bill, they really fall under the same heading—that is, there is no necessity for the amendments to be put and there is no necessity, in truth, for the bill to be put.

The government understand that and are aware of our position. I would add that particularly marked in this debate is that no proof has been put about the actual mischief that this legislation is supposed to address. There is a lot of rhetoric from the government in relation to this issue. In fact, the government seem to be clearly of the view that the concept of how industrial relations works at a practical level is that union bosses—to use their phrase—call strike action and the like. Far be it from me to remind the government that industrial relations has worked quite distinctly differently from that for many years. As long as I have been involved in industrial relations, the process primarily followed in all of these debates in the workplace has been about what action to take, how to respond, how to deal with the employer and how to address workplace issues. The union movement has for a long time been pushing for consultative committees and for mechanisms to allow consultation to take place at the workplace because, through consultation, views can be shared and a solution can be found. That is always, and has been since I have been involved in industrial relations, the most practical way of progressing a debate. In fact, we have found in many instances that it is both the employer's obstinacy and the employee's difficulty in not wanting to consult the employer in finding pathways to avoid consultation that have been the sticking point.

The way around that in more recent times has been to involve the commission in these debates at the workplace to assist both the employer and the consultative committees to overcome some of the issues that have confronted them. It is, I am sure the coalition would agree, a far better way to resolve your differences by ensuring that there is a frank, open and fair sharing of information and being able to arrive at an end point.

The idea that union bosses can have the sway that Senator Ian Campbell suggests, that they can walk into a place and call out workers at will, really defies logic. In fact, from my experience in workplaces over some 11 years—and I am not sure what Senator Ian Campbell can go on—the opposite tends to be the truth. You have instances where a 1,000-strong work force might wish to take industrial action but it is not the appropriate time or place to take it and a better strategy should be adopted. On many occasions I have argued for consultation rather than for taking industrial action to resolve differences, because by its very nature industrial action harms not only the employer's business but also the employees and the goodwill that has been generated between the parties. Therefore, it is action that can separate parties rather than bring them together.

So it is fanciful for Senator Ian Campbell to suggest that unions have the types of mechanisms to call on people and take them out in industrial action and for him to think that that is how modern industrial relations is practised. In fact, most of the time we argue about how we ensure that the employer will sit down and negotiate. That is the hardest part: ensuring that the employer will sit down, take enterprise bargaining seriously, negotiate a certified agreement for the workers and ensure that the workers' rights are respected by the employer. Those are the arguments that are at the heart of the debate and they are the arguments that have been put, and in many instances the employer has failed to respond in a reasonable way.

When parties respond unreasonably then of course actions tend to speak louder than words on some occasions and people do decide to take industrial action. But it should not be without going through the processes, because those processes are there to protect those individuals from the consequences of their actions. They also act as a mechanism to explain what the action is about and to explain the process if you are going to take industrial action, whatever type it may be— because it does not always mean going out the gate; it can be in the form of overtime bans, work restrictions or a whole plethora of actions.

Senator Ian Campbell would characterise the debate as one of removing workers from the workplace. It is far from that. It is usually, if it is to be resorted to at all, one of the last resort actions when you are faced with an employer who is simply not listening. I think Senator Ian Campbell is perhaps not listening to the debate either in relation to this. He needs to clearly understand that the arguments that he has put up in support of this legislation are weak; they are anecdotal—perhaps not even anecdotal from Senator Ian Campbell. I am not sure of his experience in dealing with industrial relations at the workplace. They are perhaps from some of the 1950s novels he has read—maybe out of an American movie. The reality is far from that, and this legislation is simply unnecessary. It is complex and it is not required. There are protections in place and Senator Ian Campbell knows that. It is an ideological drive by them. There is really nothing else you could argue from the government's perspective and it is about time they simply admitted to it.