Senator ABETZ (4:41 PM) —I commence my comments by agreeing with Senator Crossin on only one aspect, that is, the comments she made about Major General Cosgrove and the troops we have in East Timor. I believe Major General Cosgrove has shown superb and inspirational leadership. Our troops have done us proud. They have showcased Australia's defence forces to the world. To try to play politics with this issue is not in the best interests of those that are risking life and limb over there on behalf of this government's policy. I do not believe it is necessarily the best course of action to take. Having said that, I agree with Senator Crossin as to the fantastic way our troops are performing in very difficult circumstances.

However, there is another rationale and reason for this piece of legislation coming before the Senate today. Those of us who know about the treachery that goes on in the Australian Labor Party know what the hidden agenda is. Indeed, some of the treachery within the Labor Party seems to be limitless. Former Labor defence minister Robert Ray once boasted about the Labor Party, `We hunt and kill our own', or words to that effect. That is what he told the Senate, and he was very proud of that statement. I suggest to the Senate today that that is exactly what is going on now.

In putting forward this Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 , the Labor Party tacticians knew that we in the government would, of necessity, be referring to one of the most bumbling and incompetent media conferences ever undertaken in this country. Of course, that was the media interview undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. If I recall correctly, that interview was undertaken some three days ago.

We understand that the opposition have got the knives out for Mr Beazley—that his support within the Labor Party is evaporating even quicker than it is within the community at large. We in the government would prefer to see Simon Crean in the role of Leader of the Opposition because the Australian people would have a very difficult choice to make between Senator Faulkner and Simon Crean as to which person that leads the Labor Party in these chambers of the parliament they would dislike the most. Let me simply turn to this interview, in which Mr Beazley, allegedly a former defence minister—

Senator Jacinta Collins —You are being so offensive to our reservists!

Senator ABETZ —Senator Collins asserts that I am being offensive to reservists. I do not think I have made any comment in any shape or form that denigrates reservists—that is, unless Senator Collins is suggesting that Mr Beazley is there only in reserve as leader at the moment.

Senator Jacinta Collins —I rise on a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles) —Your standing order number?

Senator Jacinta Collins —The point of order relates to the standing order that relates to relevance.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Your standing order number?

Senator Jacinta Collins —Since when have I been required to refer to the standing order number on an occasion such as this?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is your standing order number?

Senator Jacinta Collins —Would you like me to stand here and find it for you? Relevance is the point of order. You know there is a point of order, with a number attached, to relevance, and that is the point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is the standing order number?

Senator Jacinta Collins —I ask you to rule.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator ABETZ —It is amazing that the Labor Party raised the point of order just as I turned up the extract of a radio interview on 6PR between Mr Beazley and an interviewer. The most offensive thing that you can do to the reserves in this country is to not know the circumstances and conditions under which they serve and then seek to pontificate about the system and condemn the government for the current system. Indeed, I would suggest to Senator Collins and those on the other side that, if they are so concerned about reservists, they invite their leader to acquaint himself with the circumstances under which reservists serve in this country, before trying to come up with a policy.

I do confess that I think it might be the first policy that the Labor Party has come up with since losing government. This is the basis of the policy, and I invite people to consider this interview. The interview goes for three pages. Within those three pages we have Mr Beazley saying the following about reserves, how they are paid and their circumstances of employment, the subject matter of this particular bill. If Senator Collins does want to raise relevance again, that was the topic of the interview that Mr Beazley was engaged in, although in fairness I could understand if Senator Collins could not understand that that was what Mr Beazley was talking about. Within the three-page interview, very widely spaced, this is Mr Beazley at his best:

Yes, well, that's right. Sorry. Look, mate, I might have misled you there. It would be paid leave, in a sense, like your annual leave, that sort of thing.

Over the page:

Oh sorry, mate, I have misinformed you again. It is unpaid.

A bit further down:

I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place—

it must be like a semaphore system of policy making for the Labor Party. Mr Beazley said:

I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place and said that that was paid, so in fact as I originally thought, it is unpaid.

Later on in the interview:

I thought I must have made a mistake when I initially mentioned it to you—the arm waving—but I hadn't made a mistake, it was unpaid.

Good Heavens above! This is the alternative Prime Minister allegedly showing concern for the reservists of this nation. He had no idea and the only thing he was concerned about was trying to make a cheap political point in circumstances where we have people overseas.

Quite frankly, if the opposition want to bring up an issue such as reserves and the conditions under which they serve, I would invite them to fully brief their leader so he does not make these embarrassing gaffes one after the other.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Would you address the bill, Senator?

Senator ABETZ —Senator Collins interjects again and asks me to address the bill. The Labor Party are very touchy when you refer them to their leader's interview on this very issue. The interview starts off:

Interviewer: Would it work like this—

talking about reserve pay—

that if you need, say, two weeks off, you get paid leave from your employer? Is that how it works?

Kim Beazley: You'd get leave from your employer.

Interviewer: You don't get paid leave?

Kim Beazley: That would be paid by—the Army would give you pay while you're in there and so you've just got the right to leave there.

Interviewer: OK. So it's unpaid leave, in other words?

Kim Beazley: Yes.

Interviewer: It's paid because the Army pays you.

Kim Beazley: Yes, that's right.

Interviewer: But from the employer's point of view you're saying to your employer, "I need two weeks unpaid leave because I'm going on exercises"?

Kim Beazley: Yes, that's right.

Interviewer: Nonetheless, I suppose you'll have those in industry saying well, it's all very well and good but I've got to get somebody else to replace that person while they're away and that's going to cost me dough.

Kim Beazley: Yes, well that's right. Sorry. Look, mate, I might have misled you there. It would be paid leave, in a sense, like your annual leave, that sort of thing.

Interviewer: So it's paid leave?

Kim Beazley: Paid leave, yes.

Interviewer: But that's double-dipping, isn't it?

Kim Beazley: Not particularly. They don't get paid huge amounts by the Defence Department.

Interviewer: But they're still being paid by their employer, plus they're going to get money from the Defence Department.

Kim Beazley: That is correct that that's what the case has always been—

according to Mr Beazley. The interview continues:

Interviewer: Well, I get back to the question then: Can you understand why employers even more so then would be upset because they say, "Well, all right, I'm losing employee X for two weeks and I've got to replace that person and pay someone accordingly"?

Kim Beazley: Oh yes. And that's why it's important that it be incorporated in an award. You take a thing like that out of awards and it's very unlikely that people are actually going to be supportive of it.

Interviewer: All right. Well, what chances do you . . .

Mr Beazley interrupts:

Oh sorry, mate, I have misinformed you again. It is unpaid.

Interviewer: Oh, OK.

Mr Beazley: I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place and said that that was paid, so in fact as I originally thought, it is unpaid.

Interviewer: Right, OK. I think it would have been . . .

Mr Beazley interrupts again:

I thought I must have made a mistake when I initially mentioned it to you—the arm waving—but I hadn't made a mistake, it was unpaid.

Somewhere along the way clearly he did make a mistake. Having an alternative Prime Minister perform in such a manner on an issue which the Labor Party are asserting is so important is unacceptable to the Australian community. In that interview Mr Beazley seemed to have more turns on policy than former Senator Kernot. As it happens, the interests of the government in this case and those of the Labor Party seem to coincide in giving us the opportunity to highlight the absolute incompetence of the would-be Prime Minister of this country.

To highlight that incompetence, Labor have introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 . This bill will not have the desired outcome. Indeed, it may well have the reverse impact. Let us look at the history of and rationale for this legislation. The trade unions, in a desperate bid to breathe new life into the award system through this mechanism, have in a political and cynical way jumped onto the issue of the reserves.

I invite Senator Crossin to reflect carefully on the terminology she used about the changes she says that the workplace relations legislation has occasioned. She talked about arrogance, about bad policy and about the legislation being for ideological reasons alone. What she failed to inform the Australian people about in this debate was that none other than the shadow spokesman on industrial relations, Cheryl Kernot, supported and championed that legislation through the Senate. Senator Crossin's industrial relations spokesman voted for this legislation which Senator Crossin has been bagging out.

The Labor Party have to make up their minds, or is this just another flip-flop by Ms Kernot? Ms Kernot said at one stage, `This is good for the country', but then all of a sudden said, `Now that I want to progress in the Labor Party it is bad for the country and I will go into the House of Representatives now and condemn it.' The Labor Party have to come clean in relation to Ms Kernot and tell us whether her mark 1 version on industrial relations was the truth and what she honestly believed or whether her reincarnation in the Labor Party is what she truly holds dear to her heart. Chances are that she does not hold much dear to her heart when she is able to make the monumental change from the Australian Democrats to the Labor Party. I think most people in Australia would know that although there isn't much more, there is a little bit more freedom within the Australian Democrats to hold a particular policy view than there is in the Australian Labor Party. So the legislation that Senator Crossin spent all her time condemning was legislation that her shadow industrial relations spokesperson helped guide through the Senate. That is important for the Australian people to remember.

Let us look at what would happen if we went back to the award system, as is being suggested by the Australian Labor Party. Under Labor, only some 152 out of about 3,000 federal awards referred to leave for reservists. So where were these champions of the reservists in the trade union movement in getting these into awards during the 13 years of Labor and before? They had never shown any real concern, as witnessed by these figures: only 152 awards out of 3,000. Out of those 152 awards, 50 per cent of them were in the public sector. So much for their talk about private enterprise.

In contrast—and this is important—the workplace relations regime is working. We happen to believe in flexibility. We happen to believe that employees and employers ought to be allowed to negotiate and come up with an agreement which is adapted to the needs of both sides and which is not determined by the industrial relations club of big trade unions with big employer groups doing sweetheart deals in the Industrial Relations Commission.

Under the workplace relations regime—which, just in case the Labor Party missed, the former Senator Kernot, now Ms Kernot, the member for Dickson, voted for and supported—Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the Northern Territory government, Wesfarmers Dalgety and Serco Gardner Merchant are just some examples of employ ers with flexible reserve leave. So reservists are not being forgotten under this new regime; they are being considered. Where appropriate, the employers and employees together work it out.

We as a government also work things out when employers do not give leave, in breach of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965. That act prevents employers from penalising or prejudicing employees because of their service. Senator Crossin bemoaned the fact that there had never been a prosecution under the legislation. I simply say that often the best test for legislation is that you do not need to penalise anybody under it because they understand that it is there and they understand the consequences if they offend against it. The defence department seeks to work out any difficulties with an employer and an employee to organise an outcome which suits both sides and not shoehorn employers and employees into award agreements which do not necessarily suit their particular enterprise. We have had successful arrangements with Telstra, and also with the Victorian police where originally there were hiccups but after discussions and negotiations those hiccups have now been sorted out.

We are confident that the current arrangements are working well. The trade union backers of the opposition have told them `You've got to do something in the area of industrial relations. You've got to try and breathe new life into the award system', and in a very cynical way they have unfortunately sought to bring the reserves into this industrial relations debate at a time that I would have thought was most inopportune and most unstatesmanlike. I believe that was why Mr Beazley stuttered and stalled through that interview that I read into the Hansard. I reckon his heart was not in this stunt, either.