Wilkinson Kate: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11166] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This is the purpose clause of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill but it obviously also includes certain criteria and whilst not straying from talking about clause 3 that naturally means I will have to also talk about the criteria. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the principal Act which as we know is the Minimum Wage Act to expressly provide for a minimum rate of wages to be prescribed for new entrants being workers who are 16 or 17 years of age and who meet certain criteria. This is not a huge bill but the criteria I think are very important. 
The criteria include such items as the length of employment whether that employment has been with one or more employers and the position held by the worker. That basically says it all. Nothing about how many hours of work is mentioned in the bill’s criteria although the commentary on the bill suggests a figure of 200 hours of employment on or after an employee’s 16th birthday unless that 16 or 17-year-old is employed in a supervisory position. The minimum rate as I think has been mentioned is set at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I state from the outset in relation to this purpose—and I restate—that we believe that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. No worker should be exploited because of age or for any other reason. But we are concerned about the criteria—and we share the concern of some of the submitters—that this bill will only raise the cost of hiring young workers. It will not actually increase their productivity and as I tried to mention in my address in relation to the title it may have an adverse effect on the employment and training of young workers. It may be a barrier to them entering the workforce and it may indeed tempt or encourage them to leave school and forgo their education or trade skill training for a job that is paid at or above the adult minimum wage. 
I say in relation to the criteria that I see no reason at all why a 16-year-old would not be paid at the same or similar rate to a 19-year-old a 25-year-old or for that matter a 40-year-old if he or she does the same work and makes the same contribution. But as one submitter said: “Younger people tend to be paid at a lower rate than older workers because age is a proxy for experience and performance on the job just as the age of 15 is a proxy for the minimum capacity and maturity required to drive a car on our roads.” Legislation like this whatever its purpose cannot change overnight the amount of experience and performance capabilities of any worker whatever his or her age. 
To paraphrase a useful quote—and again it is in relation to the purpose—”What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job.” I think that sums up a lot of our worries and concerns about this bill and its purpose that it will indeed be a barrier and not help the employment of young people. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.