Senator ABETZ (8:11 PM) —The opposition opposes this amendment as well. This amendment will change the situation in relation to modern awards. The opposition says that there is no requirement for this provision as the draft modern awards already contain such a provision. But, importantly, it removes the qualification in the modern awards system that no employer is required to disclose confidential information if such disclosure would be contrary to the employer’s interests. This allows for the representation of those for the purposes of that consultation. Matters in relation to, let us say, a publicly listed company could potentially be divulged prior to the stock market and shareholders being advised, and we do not think that is a good course of action. This is another one of these amendments that have been rushed in at the end and that were not properly aired at the Senate committee.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Yes, it was.

Senator ABETZ —I said ‘properly’ aired, and—

Senator Jacinta Collins —Wasn’t it simple enough for you, Eric?

Senator ABETZ —I do not think Senator Collins is sitting in her usual seat. Undoubtedly she has had an enjoyable sojourn out of the chamber and is now back to make a contribution, which is always interesting. We say that the first aspect of the amendment is unnecessary and we are concerned about the consequences, especially when it says that an award must include a term that ‘requires an employer to whom the award applies to consult the employer’s employees to whom the award applies about major workplace changes that are likely to have a significant effect on the employees’. It makes sense that those sorts of changes may also have a significant effect on the share price, and there we have the conflict. That is why we as an opposition are opposed to this clause.