Senator STOTT DESPOJA —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In an earlier response to a question, I believe that the minister said that junior rates could apply to awards `where appropriate'. I am wondering if the minister considers it appropriate that, under certain federal awards, people up to the age of 22 years of age are paid a fraction of the wage of their older co-workers for work of equal value merely because of their age. Shouldn't these workers be paid according to their skill and competency, not age?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —I am not aware of the precise cut-off point in terms of age. But I think the important principle that Senator Stott Despoja seems to want to completely and consistently misunderstand is that—as all the editorial writers and commentators have pointed out today—to invoke age discrimination, despite the fact that there would be significant job losses for young Australians, is certainly not in their best interests. If you really want to re-establish yourself as a serious policy player, the sooner you face up to the economic consequences of your actions the better.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission's junior rates inquiry found that removing junior rates would have significant disemploying effects for young people. I presume Senator Stott Despoja either does not want to acknowledge that or somehow thinks there is a more important overriding principle. The report notes that this finding was not seriously challenged by the participants in the inquiry. The report indicates that, when given the opportunity to respond to this finding, the ACTU did not seek to address directly the finding or the substantial weight of economic opinion on which it is based. Furthermore, the ACTU proposal to pay adult wages to those 18 and over would still be age discriminatory and would still require an exemption from the antidiscrimination provisions of the act.

So Senator Stott Despoja is really saying that she disagrees with the Labor Party and she supports the ACTU. That is not a very comfortable position to be in, given their highly advanced state of economic illiteracy. The sooner Senator Stott Despoja acknowledges that simply having arbitrary cut-off points used to justify significant increases in wages may result in people being very likely indeed to lose their jobs, the sooner we will have a sensible discussion of the issue.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Obviously the minister deems it is appropriate for people up to the age of 22 to be discriminated against. So I am wondering also whether the minister considers it just—as his party did in 1992 with its Jobsback policy—that young people, such as those on the graphic arts interim award, are paid as little as $3.06 an hour. I note the minister's comments in relation to job losses, and I wonder if he is prepared to acknowledge that the 200,000 figure to which his earlier questioner referred is actually based on a flawed survey. Are you referring, Minister, to the survey by the IRA, which was not only optional—

Government senators — The IRA?

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —In this case, the Retailers Association. Not only was it an optional survey; it also claimed that junior rates would be abolished but did not actually acknowledge that they would be replaced by a system of competency based wages. Is that not an invalid survey? Is that the figure to which you are referring?

Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —Perhaps, Madam President, I should defer to the leader of the delegation and allow him to answer this question.

Senator Cook interjecting—

Senator ALSTON —We believe in sweated labour, do we? You certainly didn't raise a sweat in the gym last night.

Senator Cook —You didn't have the guts to front up.

Senator ALSTON —No-one has ever accused you of—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Alston and Senator Cook will stop shouting at each other across the chamber.

Senator Cook interjecting—

Senator ALSTON —We couldn't have a decent fight anyway, because we're in different divisions. You're one of the few genuine lightweights in this parliament.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Alston, I call you to order.

Senator ALSTON —Senator Stott Despoja seems intent on maintaining that any wage differential is discriminatory, and that is the fundamental proposition that we do not accept. I think that is really where the debate starts and finishes.

Senator Woodley —Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to standing order 73(4), which says:

In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.

I would suggest to you that there is no answer there but that Senator Alston has in fact been debating the answer right through.

The PRESIDENT —Certainly the minister must not debate in answering a question. Senator Alston, do you have anything further to add to the answer?

Senator ALSTON —Nothing that would satisfy Senator Woodley, of course, Madam President. I was simply trying to be helpful in pointing out that the essence of this debate is whether or not you are more interested in ensuring that young people, who Senator Stott Despoja is happy to associate herself with on every—

Senator Woodley —Madam President, I raise my point of order again, because Senator Alston just betrayed the fact when he said `of this debate'. It is not a debate; it is a question and answer session.

Senator Abetz —Madam President, on the point of order: if Senator Woodley had read all of standing order 73, he would have read the rule that questions should not contain arguments. That is exactly what Senator Stott Despoja's question did; it contained an argument. If Senator Woodley is so upset about the minister allegedly arguing the point, why didn't he raise it in relation to Senator Stott Despoja? It is because he seeks from you, Madam President, a double standard: one to apply to the Democrats as opposed to another to apply to others in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT —In any event, it is not appropriate to be debating in an answer. I draw that to Senator Alston's attention.