Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of the practical application of the government's efforts to provide for the continuation of junior wage rates?

Mr REITH (Workplace Relations and Small Business) —I thank the member for his question. The practical implications are that we will see the preservation of existing jobs and also the prospect of more jobs being created for young people—and that ought to be welcomed by everybody in the House. This is a very high priority of the government.I thought it was very well summed up by a young lady,

Tamarin Herich, who is quoted in the Advertiser this morning. Talking about the decision on junior rates, she said:

I think they should leave the system as it is. It's an incentive for employers to hire young people.

She is on a junior wage and sees the benefit of that system in her own circumstances. I think she speaks on behalf of a lot of young people who take the same sensible attitude. Timothy Piper from the Australian retailers said:

It's a recognition that the retail industry is helping young people get started. We employ 48 per cent of people aged between 15 and 19. Those figures wouldn't have been maintained unless this arrangement had gone through.

That decision, that policy direction and that leadership of this government have protected literally hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have corrected a mistake made by the Labor Party six years ago, and it is a fantastic win for young people. The Australian Financial Review said as the heading of its editorial, `A sensible deal on junior pay'. It remarked in passing:

The world is moving on. Only the unions are left behind looking ridiculous and irrelevant.

Clearly, the unions are not happy. Doug Cameron said that it was a `reprehensible decision'. One of the things that I think annoyed Joe de Bruyn, who is a well respected leader of the largest union in the country, was that the Labor Party was simply not prepared to sit down and have a fair discussion with the ALP affiliates. They did not tell them; they did a deal with us before they even talked to their own mates in the trade union movement. Don Farrell, the national president of the shoppies, said that he was `shocked and appalled' at this decision of the Labor Party.

We welcome the decision. Clearly, one of the practical consequences is that it has set off a few ramifications within the Labor Party. I was interested to note this morning that we had the full range of emotions within the Labor Party backbench. First of all, there was confusion. As one Labor backbencher has been reported as saying, `I had people screaming at me down the phone.' We know that was coming from Swanston Street and the ACTU.

Mr McClelland —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. How can this possibly be relevant to the subject matter of the question?

Mr SPEAKER —The minister is responding to what is a newspaper reaction to the announcement made yesterday. The question was entirely about the announcement yesterday.

Mr McClelland —Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. How is newspaper reaction relevant to the subject matter of this minister's portfolio?

Mr SPEAKER —I have ruled on the point of order and it is very difficult, clearly, for any reference to an announcement made yesterday and contained in today's newspapers to be deemed out of order.

Mr REITH —On one hand, confusion; on the other, reality. One backbencher, one senior Labor Party figure, has said, `We're not a union bosses party,'—well, that is news to us—`we're a party for workers and their families and they want junior wage rates.'

Mr Horne —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have ruled that the minister is being relevant. But the question that was asked was not on a newspaper response but on the practical implications of the continuation of junior wage rates. We are all capable of reading the papers.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Paterson will resume his seat.

Mr Neville —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: I asked the minister about the practical applications, and that is precisely what he is answering.

Mr SPEAKER —As all members of the House know, rulings on relevance are always difficult. But it would create a precedent for the Speaker to determine that the newspaper articles so directly related to the question asked were not relevant in the context of the answer.

Mr REITH —Mr Speaker, I will happily keep the pain to a limited level: confusion on the one hand, reality on the other and seriously, because it does go to the policy issue, opposition within their own ranks. As one who was not prepared to be named said anonymously, `We're supposed to be on the same side'—referring to the trade unions. There is a pressure on the Labor Party to reverse this position. It seems that the Labor Party has stuck to the agreement that we have got. In fact, so keen is the Labor Party on the agreement that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday said that the words in the amendment were his words. I am happy to accept that; it is not actually true, but if he thinks the words that we have drafted are so good that he is prepared to personally endorse them as his own that is excellent. Now the trick for him is to stick to it.