Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

These two amendments moved, by leave, together—items (1) and (2) on 4928 revised—indeed have merit. They are principles which were recommended and implanted in the Dawson bill. The problem is that they replicate, for a specific industry, principles which are established at law generally. The difficulty I have is that the Senate has in fact already passed these amendments to the Trade Practices Act; it passed them with the Dawson bill. What happened was that schedule 1 was excised as a result of a combination of non-government senators and a brave and lonely coalition senator, and the Dawson bill then passed through the Senate. Those collective bargaining initiatives in the Dawson bill now await their passage through the House of Representatives. All the House of Representatives has to do is accept the Senate amendment excising schedule 1—if the Treasurer is so attached to that schedule 1, he can reintroduce it in a different bill—and pass that Dawson bill. These collective bargaining arrangements, which would apply for the whole country, would then be in place.

The difficulty we have with these amendments to the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 is that these would only institute that principle for the petroleum industry. It would be odd if the government, through the House of Representatives, were to finally accept the amended Dawson bill, which is what it should be doing, only to then have another set of amendments pass dealing with the same issue. That is my concern. Of course these can only pass if there is a majority. It would be useful to see what the views of other participants in the debate are. For instance, if Senator Joyce were to support these amendments, it would make a difference. If the government were to support them, it would make a difference. If Labor were to support them, it would make a difference. I would like to hear the views of participants in the debate because, as I said, the intent has merit, but we have a conflict in law if both these amendments and the Dawson bill amendments were to pass.