Senator ABETZ (9:07 PM) —There never seems to be that sort of regret by Senator Siewert when she opposes coalition amendments. I just wonder why. I am a sensitive character so I pick up on some of these things from time to time. Can I say to Senator Xenophon, with the greatest respect, what we are dealing with are the National Employment Standards. Under what we were suggesting, no worker could be worse off. They would have been in the same position, but we would have outlawed double dipping. We believe our initial amendments were better and more far reaching.

Just keep in mind that, as we debate this matter, there are employers right around the country—and let us not forget the reason they are called employers is that they actually employ people—and one of the considerations they have to take into account is the cost of employment. If in the circumstances I outlined where somebody has, with union approval, traded off public holidays for an extra two weeks annual leave then we believe that that should be allowed to continue only to the extent—and this is a very important point—that it deals with the retrospective interaction with the transition legislation. We are not talking about what will happen in the future. What we were suggesting would not have had application to any new or future instruments that may be made. It was merely to deal with the NES interaction with existing settled arrangements.

As this legislation gets passed and this particular aspect gets considered, the cost of employment increases. And we know what happens. You do not need a coalition senator to tell you this; it was a former Treasurer of this country, Mr Frank Crean, who said, ‘One man’s wage rise is another man’s job.’ It is possibly a bit of an extreme statement but it is still a Labor Treasurer who, at the time, had a grasp of the fundamental economic drivers. If you make the employment conditions worse, as in allowing somebody to not only get the benefit of six weeks annual leave but also no longer having to work public holidays and so double dip, then it will increase the cost of employment and it will mean fewer jobs.

As I said when we were discussing the Fair Work legislation, there were three criteria that we would judge the legislation and the amendments on: impact on small business, impact on jobs and impact on trade union power. In relation to this matter that we moved and that was defeated—and I accept the numbers in the Senate—Senator Xenophon’s inferior amendment and Labor Party and Greens opposition will mean that there will be flow-through consequences for small business and for job seekers in this country at a time when unemployment is, unfortunately, heading north at an ever-accelerating rate. It is heading north not only because of the global financial situation but also because of the changes that this Labor government is now implementing in the industrial relations regime in this country.

I thought that Senator Xenophon might, from time to time, be able to recognise quality when it was put in front of him but, unfortunately, he did not see the quality of the opposition coalition amendments that were, unfortunately, defeated. However, I can tell Senator Xenophon that we recognise second-best when we see it and his amendment is second-best. It is between the status quo of the government’s legislation and what we are recommending. Therefore, I can indicate reluctant support for Senator Xenophon’s position.