Senator BROWN (8:42 PM) —The Australian Greens oppose the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . We oppose it for all the reasons we gave two years ago when opposing the industrial relations bill and the way in which that worked against the interests of not only workers in general but also young people.

I begin by commenting on Senator MacGibbon's contribution. He first of all referred to the United States situation. He argued that low starting wages for youth have led to millions of young people being placed in jobs. The situation in the United States is that it is low starting wages for everybody across the board. The sort of Hewson $3 an hour basic wage formula that horrified Australians is in place in the United States. The working poor have become a major factor in social disillusionment and social disruption in that country.

In Senator MacGibbon's statement we see that this is the thin end of the wedge and it is going to be followed by further efforts by the government under new industrial relations legislation to minimise wages to people right across the age spectrum. We are seeing a move towards the American situation, which would be intolerable to most Australians and will become much more a debate in this country as new and more draconian industrial relations legislation is brought into this parliament, no doubt during this current period of the Howard government.

Senator MacGibbon also referred to Asia. He said that over there they cannot believe that we have unfair dismissal laws and that we want to get rid of junior wage rates. In response, I cannot believe the social condi tions levied by governments in many parts of Asia and elsewhere around the world either, and I do not think they should be tolerated.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Only South Korea is worse than us.

Senator BROWN —Yes, in this matter. But for Senator MacGibbon to say that employers in that part of the world are tut-tutting about workers' conditions in Australia is, again, to beg the question: do Senator MacGibbon and his government colleagues want Australia to follow the path towards those working conditions which are levied in so many countries to our north which, again, would horrify Australians?

That having been said, I would pause for a moment to speak of the situation that the Democrats have gotten themselves into. Had the Democrats two years ago voted with the Greens in support of Labor's amendments to end discrimination against young people in this country as concerned wages, this situation would not have arisen. But they did not.

From that point on, the argument put forward by those from the Democrats contributing to the debate ran thin. On the one hand, they said that they have had a policy going back years for non-discrimination, but that, on that particular occasion, to get legislation through which was draconian—but less draconian than the government was planning as far as workers in this country are concerned—they had to give up that policy. There is a lesson there to be learnt by some of the younger Democrat members, including Senator Stott Despoja, about real politics.

Senator Jacinta Collins —She was there.

Senator BROWN —About the minister, Senator Murray said this: his word, it seems, is not worth the paper it is written on. There was a lot of negotiation that went on with Mr Reith, you will remember. I can remember Senator Kernot leaving this chamber to go and talk with Senator Reith behind the partition—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Order! I do not think Mr Reith is a senator.

Senator BROWN —with Minister Reith—thank you, Chair—behind the partition when the going got a bit hot during that debate; on that occasion, it was in connection with the secondary boycott legislation. The assurance that came back into the chamber was that if it did not work, if it injured the interests of community groups—including conservation groups and indigenous groups—in this country, they would change the legislation later on. That told the Senate that unsatisfactory legislation, as far as the Democrats were concerned, could be changed in some way or another by future negotiations with the government. That is an obvious nonsense because the Democrats do not have any members in the House of Representatives; there is no way an amendment going through the Senate could alter that legislation, because it would simply die once it got to the House of Representatives.

Senator Stott Despoja, for whom I have great respect, argued strongly for the end of discrimination for young people but then said that the political reality was that, on that occasion, they had to go along with the amendments that had been negotiated between her party and the minister. Senator Stott Despoja said today, `I didn't think he had the audacity to break his word with young people.' Apparently, the Democrats have no corporate memory, and I want to refresh their recollection here and now.

Mr Reith, on the very first day he was elected to the parliament, broke his word with young people right across this country. It was during the occasion of the Flinders by-election in Victoria that Mr Reith was strong on saving the Franklin from being dammed—although the Fraser government was non-interventionist and, effectively, supported the dam. On that occasion, the Democrats had just got legislation through this chamber supporting world heritage status which would have saved the Franklin, although of course they could not get it through the House of Representatives.

In that Flinders by-election the Democrats ran strongly, with 40 per cent of the voters going out of their way to write `no dams' on their ballot papers. Mr Reith was elected by a whisker. When asked on the Sunday after the election what his position on the Franklin dam was, whether he was still in favour of there being no dams, Mr Reith effectively said, `That was 24 hours ago.' His position had changed overnight. There were young people right across this country who had been supporting the position he took during the campaign but did not take afterwards. Moreover, the Democrats, with their high profile in that election, took great umbrage with the Liberal's campaign, which effectively was to say, `After the Democrats, vote for us.' The Franklin dam was the big issue. The Liberals were saying, `After the Democrats, vote for Mr Reith.' But after the election, things changed dramatically.

The Democrats, a party which does not have a corporate memory on a fundamental issue like that, who repeatedly, and quite rightly, talks about its role in the Franklin campaign, will run into trouble repeatedly further down the line and be caught out. On this occasion, the Democrats have been caught out selling out the interests of young Australians. They ought to have taken this issue up to Mr Reith, the minister, two years ago and said, `We will not be letting this opportunity pass to end discrimination against young people in the Australian work force.'

The Democrats, of course, knew that the Greens or the Labor Party would move just such an amendment when the legislation came before the Senate. They were caught in the situation where it was up to any one of them—Senator Murray, Senator Woodley, Senator Stott Despoja—to come out and declare that they would vote against the Kernot-Reith pact by supporting Labor's amendment on that occasion. But they did not do so.

Tonight we are dealing with an amendment from the Democrats which, on the face of it, I would be supporting on behalf of the Greens. Its effect is to delay this legislation until the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has carried out the task which Minister Reith promised he would wait upon before making a decision like that incumbent in this legislation—that is, to see whether there are feasible alternatives to the current discriminatory legislation.

Let me say again to the Democrats that the Industrial Relations Commission are not being asked to adjudicate in their favour. They are being asked to come up with alternatives if they are feasible. There are a lot of ifs and buts in there. Again, I do not see that it is going to come up with a solution to their dilemma as to whether or not they should vote to end discrimination. Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Murray have both beautifully outlined the cases for ending this discrimination. The only thing to be done tonight is not to delay but to end that discrimination by opposing this legislation. It is a very important moment for the Senate to make up for the lost opportunity of 1997. It is an opportunity which we should take now to bring on track the policies of the Greens, the Labor Party, the Democrats and hopefully Independent Senator Harradine, and we should end this discrimination.

Finally, Senator MacGibbon said that junior wage rates were there at the start of the century; so was hanging and so was the horse and buggy. That is no reason why we should be seeing it through into the next century. I think this is the moment we should choose to make sure that we go into the next century without this discrimination against young Australians.