Mr BEAZLEY —My question is also directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, didn't you tell the Prime Minister in your leaked letter on your future intentions that `linking Senate reform to fixing unemployment may be a sensible agenda leading up to a third term'? Minister, isn't your determination to slither around your agreement and bring in legislation in advance of an inquiry, which you sought, part of the confected effort to produce the appearance of disagreement with the Senate?

Mr REITH (Workplace Relations and Small Business) —The government's policy on youth wages has been a matter of public record certainly since 1996. In 1996, we had a proposal to remove the ban which was to come into effect in respect of junior wage rates. We were unable to secure the removal of that time bomb which we inherited from the Labor Party. I was very concerned that, if we were unable to remove that time bomb ticking away, in June 1997 the operation of that act would come into play and the jobs of many young people would be lost.

Therefore, we implored the Democrats to reconsider their opposition to our proposal and, as a consequence of their reconsidering the position, they adopted a compromise agreement with the government. That compromise agreement was that we would have a review by the Industrial Relations Commission and the government would agree to the abandoning of the policy position that we had put in the legislation and, instead, agree to a deferral for three years. That was our position.

Mr Crean —No, it wasn't.

Mr REITH —It was exactly our position. The Leader of the Opposition read out parts of the agreement which specified the agreement. There is no more to that agreement. We had everything in that agreement. That is the most comprehensive agreement ever made between a government and a political party in the Senate. Every aspect of our agreement was contained within that agreement.

What the Labor Party now say is, `Oh, well, the government subordinated its policy position to the Industrial Relations Commission.' With great respect to the Industrial Relations Commission, from our perspective it would be an odd day that this government would ever subordinate its policy position to the Industrial Relations Commission. Furthermore, back in 1996 we did not know when the next election would be. But it was certainly always clear that our intentions were that, at the next election, we would campaign on this issue—and on this issue we did campaign in 1998. We had an absolute black-and-white policy. We put it to the Australian people.

We, unlike you, believe that when the government puts a policy to the Australian people and they vote for it the people are entitled to see the parliament fulfil the promises made by, on this occasion, the government. We have an absolutely clear position on this. We made a commitment to the Australian people. We are very determined to see that commitment fulfilled. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition he will rue the day that, for the weakness of his leadership, he failed to act in the interests of protecting young people and their jobs.