Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:24): The words are exactly the same. The words 'would not be contrary to the public interest', which is the singular purposeful test and safeguard, are precisely the same. That provision, section 189, which members opposite inserted into the Fair Work Act, which, in emergency situations, allows— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I'm not going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business yet, because the minister is not even 30 seconds into this answer. But I'm listening to the minister very carefully. The minister has the call. Mr PORTER: The point of the members opposite seems to be that, in the Fair Work Act, there is an existing section, section 189. It is headed: 'The Fair Work Commission may approve an enterprise agreement that does not pass the BOOT'. It's to be used in emergency circumstances. It was put in the Fair Work Act by members opposite. Their killer point is that, in our bill, we're maintaining it and maintaining the protection for the purposes of an emergency, such as COVID, and that no agreement could be approved by the Fair Work Commission if it were contrary to the public interest. The Fair Work Commission has to make a decision that any change is in the public interest. If the change is contrary to the public interest, it would never be approved. That's the test that you put in; that's the test that we support. In the circumstances of COVID, we think that's a sensible test.