Roche Denise: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8650. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I just want to direct my attention to Part 2 of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. I guess what I would like to concentrate on is the fact that the transitional arrangements—I agree with Mr Twyford—are probably the only sensible bits in the bill. The transitional arrangements are about protecting those workers who are aged 16 and 17 who are already on the training rate for a period of 6 months. I would like to note and I would like to have it noted that this training rate was the price that was paid to get rid of youth rates which a previous National Government had brought into legislation in the 1990s. It was Sue Bradford a former Green MP who actually brought the bill to the House to get rid of youth rates in their entirety. In order to get agreement across the House that it could apply as a training rate this is what happened: 16 and 17-year-olds were able to be employed if they were being trained for a period of 200 hours or 3 months at that lower rate of 80 percent of the minimum adult wage. 
We are not suggesting that this should continue throughout our employment and industrial relations arena and we certainly do not think that it should be applying to 18 and 19-year-olds. I agree with Supplementary Order Paper 192 from Darien Fenton that to implement this bill and to allow the reduction in the hourly rate for 18 and 19-year-olds is a huge step backwards back to the 1990s. I thought we had moved on from then and that we were treating our younger people—or starting to treat them anyway—with a bit more respect as they enter the workforce. 
I do think in answer to Mr Sabin’s questions about our seeming to think that employers want cheap labour that yes they do. If you look at the unemployment statistics with 160000 people unemployed at the moment and more being forced off benefits and being turned into job seekers and you add to that mix 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds who will be forced off benefits as well and into the workforce at cheaper rates then you are looking at a glut—a glut—of available low-paid workers and that will force wages down. It will not add anything to the economy—it will not. When you keep wages low you actually keep spending low and my colleague Sue Moroney across the Chamber has already mentioned this. You keep wages low you keep spending low and therefore you keep jobs and wages low and you keep jobs scarce. It adds no creative thinking towards creating jobs. 
This Government seems to think that young people are worth nothing. We have heard from previous speakers that this is about doing them a favour in getting them into work. Well they will get into work if we invest in them by giving them training by giving them education and also by creating jobs. The only kinds of economic strategies that we hear from this Government around creating jobs is the usual “Drill it mine it and sell it.”—the usual sort of short-term thinking. 
But I come back to Part 2 of this bill. I have already touched on the transitional arrangements which is the only sensible part of the bill. I do respectfully say to the Minister of Immigration that the equation of 80 percent of 80 percent is correct. Any person who has an injury at work gets 80 percent of what their weekly earnings are. If you are already earning 80 percent then that means a young worker will be paid 80 percent of 80 percent.