Senator BOLKUS (11:39 AM) —I move:

(30) Clause 72, page 79 (lines 24 to 26), omit paragraph (c).

(32) Schedule 1, page 84 (table item 14), omit the table item.

(33) Schedule 1, page 85 (table item 15), at the end of the item, add "with the exception of instruments made under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 ".

All these amendments relate to a particularly insidious part of this legislation. The government is trying to double dip in the legislative process here. The issue before the parliament is whether Public Service terms and conditions can continue to be disallowable.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Bolkus, you are talking about amendments 30, 32 and 33. Amendment 31 needs to be put separately because it is a clause to be opposed. We are dealing with amendments 30, 32 and 33.

Senator BOLKUS —I will deal with amendment 31 later. The government, as part of its proposals for public sector reform, is also seeking to exclude various legislative instruments relating to public sector terms and conditions from amongst those instruments which are disallowable. Those instruments are currently disallowable. The government knows that its reforms are not acceptable to the Senate. They know that because the Senate has twice rejected the Public Service Bill 1997. They know that they are not acceptable to the Senate because those Public Service reforms, euphemistically known as structural changes in the workplace, mean nothing other than reduction of terms and conditions for the Australian public sector.

I will digress for a moment. In the wash up after the budget this week, we had both domestic and international commentators talking about the need for structural reforms in the workplace. I say to them, whether they are domestic or representatives of Zurich Insurance—and David Hale finds himself on Australian television often these days—`Why don't you just come clean and tell the people what you are talking about? When you talk about structural reforms in the workplace you are talking about reduction in wages and conditions. You are talking about, at the least, reduction of protection in terms and conditions of employment. That is what you are talking about. That is what this government is on about.

If the government wants a workplace like they have in the United States where people have to rely on tips, by way of charity, to ensure that they have accommodation and food to sustain themselves and their families, why isn't it brave enough and honest enough to say so? Sitting in Zegna suits on international television telling Australian workers that they do not need protection against avaricious employers and business is a bit rich for me. This is what this part of the legislation is about. It is about ensuring that government can remove terms and conditions of employment, and remove them in a non-accountable way.

If you want to make this legislation a trigger for a double dissolution, then the focus of that trigger will not be the legislative instruments proposals and all the technical details we have spent canvassing this morning and yesterday; it will be the public sector. Our message to the public sector will be: this legislation takes away reviewability and the Senate's capacity to protect you against governments removing your terms and conditions. That is the message from this legislation. If you are going to be foolhardy enough in your ideological zealotry to go out there and use this as a trigger for a double dissolution, we will make sure that the public sector knows that this bill, together with the Public Service Bill 1997, is geared towards removing their protection against government unlawful and unfair interference with well and long fought for terms and conditions of employment.

We say to the government: if you want to reform the public sector, if you want to reform the public sector terms and conditions of employment, do it honestly and do it through the Public Service Bill. We will not let you do it through this particular piece of legislation. We will not let you change legislation to an extent that the Senate's role is removed from the process. Until such time as the Public Service Act is changed, then arrangements relating to disallowance of instruments arising under it should not be changed either. That is the basic position here.

As I said, it is incredible that the government is pursuing a non-negotiation approach in this legislation and pursuing it to the extent that it may be used as a trigger for a double dissolution. But in the circumstances that it may—maybe the government does want a double dissolution—I point out to other government senators who may be listening from their offices that some of them should enjoy those offices for the moment because a good half a dozen at least will not be back here. If the government does embark upon a double dissolution, then the likelihood, in fact the probability, is that six or seven of government backbenchers and maybe the odd frontbencher will not see themselves back in this place.

With the Prime Minister's hell-bent intention of using Wik and other legislation as a trigger for a double dissolution, you have to ask yourselves: what is the rationale? What is the prospect of a conservative government, for instance, with a reduction of numbers in the Senate being able to get through legislation that it wants to not only during the next three years if it is successful but also at a joint sitting? That is the other point that needs to be taken into account by governments that want to pursue a double dissolution at the moment. The way the polls are, what is most likely is a very close result. To actually get a majority in a joint sitting, this government would need to get a majority of at least seven or eight, if not 10, in the House of Representatives. The likelihood of that happening, according to the polls at the moment, is not all that strong.

I say to anyone who might be listening, and I hope this message does get through to Senator Vanstone at least: this legislation should not be used as a trigger for a double dissolution. The government should be showing some flexibility here. We are on this side. We are not pursuing quite a number of our amendments, but an amendment we will pursue is one that protects the wages and conditions of the public sector.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is that opposition amendments 30, 32 and 33 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —We now move to clause 52 and Democrats' amendment No. 6.