Senator IAN CAMPBELL (8:54 PM) —I thank honourable senators for contributing to this debate. As the penultimate speaker, Senator Bob Brown, said, this is an important debate. He was referring to comments by my colleague Senator David MacGibbon about references that Senator MacGibbon made to the comments he had picked up in leading economies in South-East Asia. If Senator Brown were accurate, he would have noted that Senator MacGibbon was careful not to infer or imply that we are looking for a labour market system that is comparable to that in developing countries in the region. He quite clearly said developed nations with living standards higher than Australia's.

Senator Brown —Which countries are they?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —He went on to name them—countries like Japan, for example.

Senator Brown —And where else?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —He picked on Japan and Hong Kong. They were the two that I remember. I think he named a couple of others. So he was very careful there. That is not the point that I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make in thanking honourable senators for their contributions is that this is a very important debate to have. That is where Senator Brown is correct. Senator Brown went on to talk about concepts of the working poor and what an absolute scandal it is in the United States to have people who are earning low rates of pay.

My personal opinion is that it is incredibly patronising to cast judgment upon some low income earner in another country who chooses to work and probably makes a decision that there is more dignity involved in working and still being relatively poor than in being a recipient of the dole or a recipient of welfare benefits. Some people would make the decision that they would rather be working poor. I do regard it as incredibly patronising and snobbish of senators opposite and other commentators in the labour market debate that there is something incredibly wrong—

Senator Quirke —Have you got any views on slavery as well?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Quirke lives in a nice house, he earns a nice wage and he is going to retire on a nice superannuation, but he along with his snobbish Labor mates—

Senator Jacinta Collins —Can you say anything about this bill?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I am talking about this very important debate. Senator Jacinta Collins lives in a nice house and will retire on a nice superannuation if she gets to stick here long enough. But there are some people out there who have blue collars in this country who do not mind working on a low income and who probably do not choose to be poor but who would rather be working and poor than not working at all. But people on the other side would rather keep the poor living on government handouts. A lot of people with blue collars do not want to be forced to do that.

There are a lot of young people who would like the chance to hang on to their jobs. Back in 1994 when Laurie Brereton was the minister and writing policies for the previous Keating government, they made a decision that they would ensure that there would be junior wage rates from 1994 to 1997. All of the Labor Party members opposite voted for the provisions in the then industrial relations law to ensure that junior wage rates would be available in this country for young people from 1994 to 1997.

What did the Australian Labor Party say back in 1994 to justify having age discrimination in the law then, Senator Brown? You talk about the hypocrisy coming from the senators who sit to your left, the lack of corporate memory from the Australian Democrats because they could not remember what someone said in the Flinders by-election. What about the hypocrisy of what the Australian Labor Party said back in 1994 when they put the exemption from the discrimination laws in the Industrial Relations Act? They said, `We will leave it in there till 1997.' Senator Murray will remember this because he has followed this debate. `We will leave it there until 1997 and we will hope that someone will come up with a solution to this discrimination problem.'

What has the Labor Party's incredible policy machine done since 1994—this brains trust, the third way? God help Australia if they ever find the third way. When the Labor Party talk about the third way, there is 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c). You have to listen to either Laurie on one day or Kim, if he ever comes up with an original idea, on another day, or Gareth Evans. He rewrote the entire policy. When I was preparing for this debate I asked what the Australian Labor Party had done to come up with an alternative to junior wage rates. What was your policy at the last election? They did not have one. You hear Senator Hogg opposite saying, `This is a historic chance to get rid of junior wage rates and just see what happens.' That is their policy.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Oh, rubbish!

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —That's their policy—`Let's not come up with an alternative.'

Senator Jacinta Collins —There was an alternative.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —`Let's have one of these sort of Labor policies.-

Senator Jacinta Collins —You don't know what you are talking about.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —They came up with a tax policy and then quickly backed off it. Their best policy was to tax four-wheel drives and caviar and then copy the rest of our policy and hope no-one noticed that they were a policy-free zone. Luckily, enough people understood it.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Can you address the bill?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —That is their policy. They do not have an alternative to junior wage rates.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Yes, we do.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Their alternative is to do nothing, to sit there and do what they always do here when they are in opposition and say no. They vote no to everything. They say no to everything. When someone like Mark Latham in the other place comes up with a policy, they say no to that too—`Don't be so bold. You can't come out and publish policies. We are in opposition.'

Senator Jacinta Collins —Can you address the bill?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —And do you know what Mr Beazley's opposition does, with all his sycophants sitting opposite here?

Senator Jacinta Collins —Tell us what this bill does.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Do you know what their policy is? Their policy is to have no policy.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Do you know what this bill does?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —The honourable senators asks, `Do you know what this bill does?' Mr Acting Deputy President, do you know what this bill does and what they are going to vote no to within a couple of minutes? They are going to say, `No, we don't want junior rates.'

What does the ACTU say? They have got an alternative. At least they have had to put a policy forward. The ACTU put forward a policy the other day. Back in February they put forward a submission to the junior rates inquiry, and what they have said is, `We will ensure everyone over 18 has an adult wage.' I presume that senators opposite back the ACTU submission. John Quirke—Senator Quirke—is at least behind it. So he wants to say to all of those 18-year-olds out there on junior rates that if this were accepted and this became policy in Australia all their wages would be put up.

Senator Jacinta Collins —You don't know what you are talking about.

Senator Quirke —That is Senator Quirke to you.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I did say Senator John Quirke. You were not listening, Senator Quirke. And that is what they would have done.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Who are `they'?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —The Australian Labor Party. Senator Hogg says, `Let it rip.' They say, `We will replace the junior rates environment with a nothing environment. We will replace it with a Labor policy blackout, a policy vacuum.' That is the Labor Party's policy. They have no policy. They just want to say no to everything. They will vote no to this. They will vote no to the Telstra sale. They will vote no to a new tax system. In fact, they will vote no to anything that has got a hope of improving the employment prospects of Australia. They want to see Australia stuck in the double-digit unemployment that was the mark of their 13 years in power. They like, for some reason, to have double-digit unemployment rates—

Senator Jacinta Collins —You are being childish now.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation rates. They tried for 13 years to implement some policies. The policies were an unmitigated disaster. They created the highest interest rates this country has seen since the 1930s over a sustained period.

Senator Jacinta Collins —They were higher when you were in government.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Order! Senator Collins.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —They flicked up for a short period under the Fraser government, but these guys were able to keep unemployment—

Senator Jacinta Collins —Oh! Just a short period.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Collins, you have persistently and repeatedly interjected during this debate. I take it that generally vigorous debate is appropriate for the chamber and an occasional interjection is tolerated, but a continual barrage of interjection I regard as unparliamentary.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator opposite who has just been called to order did make a long and rambling speech of nearly 20 minutes in duration. I sat here and listened very carefully to see if she could come up with an argument for tossing tens of thousands of young Australians onto the unemployment scrap heap by pricing them out of the labour market, and there was not an argument. So it is very hard to respond to whatever she had to contribute to the debate. But I do appreciate your calling her to order and asking her to allow the debate to be conducted in a sensible manner.

Senator Jacinta Collins —This is not a debate. You are not even addressing the bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Collins.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, if you had the policies of the Australian Labor Party and of the honourable senator opposite whom you have just called to order, you would not have had waterfront reform in this country. What they promote is a society where nothing changes—it is back to the 1950s. They want a waterfront where the ships would come in and hang around for days. You would get a crane to move every now and again. If you were lucky you would get a container in and out. We all remember those days. Mr Acting Deputy President, you must remember all the ships lined up off Adelaide in the Gulf of St Vincent—you would look out to sea and all you would see is ships at anchor out there, waiting to come in, waiting to get the containers moved.

And, of course, the Labor Party said, `That is the sort of Australia we like.' The Australian Labor Party are like that. Do you know why? Some people do wonder why the Australian Labor Party is the party of the status quo, the quaint naive party that says, `As long as the unions have got a stranglehold on the work force, we don't want any change in workplace relations.' The sad thing for the unemployed in Australia is that the unemployed do not have a strong union representing them, because they are the one part of the work force that misses out under Labor.

As Senator MacGibbon pointed out, here is a government that has said, `If you want to get the country going, if you want to expand the economic capability, if you want to see Australia be a success and see everyone who wants a job get a job, then you can't put up with a waterfront that is controlled by the Maritime Union and that ensures that the crane rates are half what they should be.' And Labor said, `We like that. We like having twice the number of people we should have on the waterfront moving the cranes, moving the containers, at half the rate they should move at'—twice the number of people and half the number of containers, and that is what Senator Jacinta Collins and Senator Quirke opposite want.

Senator McGauran —And running extortion rackets.

Senator Quirke —I think we will have that withdrawn, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Are you raising a point of order?

Senator Quirke —I am raising a point of order. I believe the honourable senator said that we in the Labor Party are into extortion. I believe that is a criminal offence in this country, and I ask that the senator withdraw that remark.

Senator McGauran —I made no such comment, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I will leave it up to your best judgment. What I said was—

Senator Jacinta Collins —You are a liar!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Collins, withdraw.

Senator Jacinta Collins —I will withdraw if in fact the Hansard record demonstrates that the senator did not make that remark. I believe that the record will show that he did.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, I was allowing Senator McGauran to give his response to the point of order, and it was not for you—

Senator Jacinta Collins —I said I will withdraw my remark if the record shows that the senator did not make the remark which he denies.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You will withdraw unqualifiedly, Senator Collins.

Senator Jacinta Collins —I will withdraw unqualifiedly, but I would like to refer to the record on this matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may refer to the record, Senator Collins, that is your privilege. Senator McGauran, you were speaking to the point of order.

Senator McGauran —Mr Acting Deputy President, my comment was directed towards the Maritime Union—not those opposite in the chamber but towards the union—that they were running extortion rackets.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I accept the veracity of your explanation, Senator McGauran. There is therefore no point of order.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I was actually accusing members opposite—and I would be very happy for them to take a point of order on this—of supporting the status quo on the waterfront. They, for some perverse—

Senator Quirke —Mr Acting Deputy President, we will take him up on that offer. There is a point of order here. We are debat ing—even though I think it has escaped the present debater—the bill before us. It has nothing to do with waterfront reform, the MUA or all the rest of it that has gone on for the last four or five minutes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator, there is no point of order.

Senator Jacinta Collins —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask that you call the senator to order on the matter of imputing to me a position that I do not support waterfront reform. I would challenge him to find any factual basis for that allegation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, that is not a point of order; that is a point of debate.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senators opposite in the Labor Party were opposed to the reforms that Peter Reith, the minister for industrial relations, put in place on the Australian waterfront during 1998. I think the minister and this government will be judged very positively for those reforms. We have seen the biggest jump in productivity in the history of the Australian waterfront and a reduction in the work force needed to increase the crane rate at which Australia's produce and goods are transported across the waterfront. Of course, we are an island nation that requires an efficient waterfront. It was one of the most significant reforms in the industrial relations area in the history of Australia. The press, the television cameras, the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party put all sorts of floss and gloss on it. I am sure that Minister Reith and the leadership at Corrigans would have preferred that the public relations surrounding the exercise had been more conducive to our point of view. But the cold reality of course—

Senator Quirke —Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Are you telling me that this is relevant to this bill? Because if it is, I reckon you could get away with anything in here.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. This is workplace relations legislation. The parliamentary secretary is addressing issues that are relevant to jobs and employment, so I believe his comments have relevance. But I remind the parliamentary secretary that it is important to remain relevant to the matter under debate.

Senator Quirke —Thank you.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will remain strictly relevant to a workplace relations debate as it relates to employment in Australia. We are talking about a vote that is about to take place in this Senate. The Labor Party have informed me they will be voting against it. The Democrats have proposed an amendment which will seek to have this legislation halted within a couple of minutes in this chamber. We are talking about the prospects of employment for tens of thousands of young Australians.

I led this debate, I thought, in a very succinct way. I am not arguing the point of order here—I am saying why this is so relevant. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that you understand the relevance of this but I can understand that senators opposite do not see it as relevant. At times I think they question the control that the union movement has over their organisation. I know that some in the Australian Labor Party are doing that, that some are saying, like Tony Blair said a couple of years ago, that you cannot have faceless men or women having control of a political party and getting away with it.

Senator Jacinta Collins —This is a new one. Who are the faceless women?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —There are lots of very successful women trade unionists and that is a great thing for Australia—a fantastic thing. But, Mr Acting Deputy President, this debate is all about jobs in Australia. If you stick with the Labor Party's policy on the waterfront which is to say, `Let's stay in the 1950s on the waterfront,' then you will cost younger people and older people jobs. We now have a more efficient waterfront and it could be argued—and I will do so—that there are probably thousands more people in employment as a direct result of Mr Reith's and this government's reforms on the waterfront in 1998 than there would have been if those reforms had not been put in place.

Mr Acting Deputy President, the Labor Party's position is that they are about to vote this down. They are making a decision to protect the unionised workers who elect them against the interests of unemployed young people. This legislation will give young people a chance. The Labor Party are standing up, as they do so often in the Senate, with a lollipop stick that has a great big stop sign on it. It is the same one that they have at the gates of the construction sites around Australia saying `Stop'. They are saying, `Stop. We don't want any change in this place. We want to be stuck in the 1950s and the 1960s. We do not want to give young Australians a chance.'

The Democrats are not as bad as that. Their attitude is to hang on, to wait and see. They use the other side of the sign. They have turned it around and it says `Go Slow'. Senator Murray, you have got the lollipop stick saying `Let's just go a bit slow'. Senator Quirke, Senator Collins, good old Senator Peter Cook with his trade union background and good old Kim Beazley are standing up there in front of the Australian people saying, `Hang on. Let's not change a thing. No reform legislation will get through the Senate. Just stop right there.' Mr Acting Deputy President, that is what they are saying and that is what the Australian people are sick of. It is time for some change. It is time for some reform. But for the old Labor Party, this is not the Third Way—this is just no way.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.