Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) (10:34 AM) —The government opposes this raft of amendments. The first lot covers one area and then amendment (56) covers another. But we are having a cognate debate, which will allow me to deal with the first issues. The proposed amendment would remove the provision which allows regulations to be made to identify state industrial laws that are excluded by the legislation. The provision is intended to allow the government to address any doubt about whether a particular state law falls within the excluded laws described in the main parts of the provision. This amendment would remove the ability of the government to respond to any new state laws that attempt to regulate industrial relations. If the states were to make such laws, it could create confusion for employees and employers in the federal system about whether the laws applied to their employment relationship. Confusion about such laws would undermine a single unified system of workplace relations.

I now turn to amendment (56) and the reasons why we oppose it. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 provides for a new power for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to quickly end protected industrial action by terminating a bargaining period where that action is having a significant adverse impact on the public interest. This power will be exercised according to the terms of the legislation—that is, where the industrial action is affecting or would adversely affect the employees or the employer negotiating party and threatens to endanger the life, the personal safety, health or welfare of the Australian population, or part of it, or to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.

The legislation is framed so that this power cannot be exercised for a trivial reason. This power will enable the minister to act swiftly in the public interest. The commission will be able to make a workplace determination for the parties to settle their differences. The directions that the minister can make following the termination reinforce that his powers are to be directed to dealing only with the immediate threat. The minister will only be able to make directions that are reasonably directed to removing or reducing the threat. The power is similar to powers available to state governments under their essential services legislation. It is instructive to know that state Labor governments are happy to live with such power, but those opposite would not give it to the federal government. Of course, the only reason for that is that it is of a different political colour.

I do not accept that as being Senator Murray’s rationale, which is consistent about this across the board, but it is very difficult for Labor senators to make this assertion as a matter of great principle when their state governments provide themselves with similar powers. Their robust argument is that if Liberal and National parties can do it it is bad, but if state Labor does it it is okay. That is not a consistent, robust or logical argument. This power is very tightly focused on the result of the industrial action rather than being available depending on the nature of the industry. It is an appropriate power which fairly balances the needs of the Australian population with a right for a particular employer or employees to take industrial action in support of enterprise bargaining.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crossin)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Murray be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is that division 7 stand as printed.