Mr McMULLAN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in your previous answer you referred to the circumstances of workers facing off-the-job training. Isn't it the case that training wages also apply to on-the-job training? Could this mean that a young person might attend work for five days but be paid for only one, two or three days? Could this same young person face reduced hourly rates under your junior rates proposal? Isn't this a double whammy for young workers—discounted rates paid for reduced hours?

Mr HOWARD —Let me just say very clearly in very simple language that what we are proposing in no way represents a policy to cut the wages of young people. Let me say that again: we are not cutting the wages of young people. What we are doing is preserving the jobs of young people.

What you want to do is destroy about 200,000 jobs for young people. You want to preserve a system that is going to force the rate of youth unemployment in this country even higher. No amount of misrepresentation by the member for Canberra or by any other member opposite can alter the fact that we are interested in expanding, firstly, the job opportunities for young people and, secondly, the training opportunities for young people.

We are committed to a more flexible training system. It will not result in a $3 or $3.05 an hour youth wage. It will not result in cutting the wages of young people, but it will result, much to your chagrin, in an increase in the job opportunities of young Australians. And we will have plenty of opportunity over the next three years to drive that home day after day—to your great political discomfort.