Senator JACINTA COLLINS (3:16 PM) —I start my contribution by expressing my disappointment that Senator Coonan didn't comment on policy, but rather said that she believes Labor lacks it. The only policy point Senator Coonan made was that she thought the GST should be introduced. Mr Reith's statement highlights the cynicism the Australian public feels with respect to the GST. That cynicism is highlighted by Mr Reith's references to New Zealand. He talks about the 500,000 jobs we would have had, had we gone down the same path as New Zealand. We know what happened in New Zealand—the GST was introduced there and welfare was cut. So why do you think we are cynical when we see a document such as this that refers to every other possible avenue Minister Reith can think of to cut, cut, cut? That is not policy.

Let me highlight one area which reinforces that point. Minister Reith refers to the OECD 10 points and tries to redefine himself to fit in with them. That redefinition is very interesting when you look at OECD point 7, which says that countries `should emphasise an active labour market policy or policies'. How does Mr Reith describe that? Mr Reith describes that as `reform of labour market programs' because reform to Mr Reith is nothing but cut, cut, cut—cut rights to unfair dismissal, cut junior rates, et cetera.

I go back to Senator Hill's comments, since he has remained with us today, in response to Senator Harradine's question. Senator Harradine was concerned about the report in this morning's Australian which said that the Prime Minister had redefined his election commitment as only relating to existing employees. Senator Harradine sought clarification on that point. He got no clarification from Senator Hill. All Senator Harradine got was a re-reading of the election policy platform. Senator Hill, can you reassure us that the Prime Minister has not come out and said that it will only apply to existing employees? That was Senator Harradine's concern. That was the issue Senator Hill did not answer. We got no guarantee from Senator Hill that the Prime Minister was not referring only to existing employees. Senator Hill did not reassure us on that point at all.

Senator Newman was the only other minister here today who actually made some comment on the policy issues. She tried valiantly to demonstrate that she had actually been consulted. Unfortunately, she failed dismally. The one ounce of reassurance we had were her comments in question time today that unemployment figures will not be redefined to rule out people on Work for the Dole. What a bodgie, rorting system this government is looking at if they are looking at forcing all unemployed onto Work for the Dole and then redefining them as employed.

I want to conclude on a point that highlights exactly what Minister Reith is talking about. On page 12 of his statement he says that what he envisages as the employer-employee relationship would be established and employers would have the right to expect work of an acceptable standard. `The scheme would thereby be easier to administer with non-compliance resulting in termination of payment.' So we will now have employers determining whether workers on Work for the Dole payments have their payments terminat ed if they are not working hard enough. That is sheer slavery. Mr Reith is talking about sheer slavery. That is what he is describing in this program—nothing more, nothing less. It is dismal that members of the government here today can make no contribution to this policy debate except for Senator Newman's reassurance that they will not be cut off the unemployment figures. That is the only reassurance we have had on policy issues in this debate today.