Wilkinson Kate: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11159] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for allowing me to take the first call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that we are debating the bill on a clause by clause basis and the first clause of course reflects that the name of the Act will be the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Act. The term “new entrants” was certainly debated during the select committee hearing as it was thought that it might not necessarily reflect that we are dealing with young workers in the workplace. However that is the terminology that has been accepted. 
I say from the outset that we do think this bill is well intentioned. We think it is an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member that we are talking about the title. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I was just talking about the new entrants and I thought as part of the title that perhaps I could— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I appreciate that we are talking about the title and the bill is about the new entrants. It is called the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. In describing new entrants what we are doing is describing young workers 16 to 17-year-olds who are presently paid the youth rate which is 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I say again that we think the bill is well intentioned. We are not necessarily convinced that the title is correct but we really must look at substance over form rather than form over substance. We do believe that the bill is an attempt to avoid exploitation of and discrimination against young workers but I have to say we do not believe that this is the right instrument to do that. Indeed we believe that the bill may do the very opposite and price the young workers—the new entrants—out of the labour market and we are concerned about that. 
We are also concerned that these new entrants in accordance with the title of the bill may be tempted or encouraged to leave school so that they can get employment. Again we think that young people especially 16 and 17-year-olds—whether they are called young people or new entrants—should be encouraged to stay in education for as long as possible in order to get a formal education skills training or whatever. We would rather they be encouraged to stay at school and not become a new entrant to the workforce because they have been lured by the adult minimum wage or by the provisional adult minimum wage for those 200 hours of work which I understand is to be increased to 90 days by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
When I listened to the second reading debate on this bill—which again included the title—I did note the fundamental point made by the honourable Sue Bradford. I do commend her for this bill but I noted her comment that the fundamental point of the original bill was to remove discrimination based on age from the minimum wage law. To use her terms and to accept the premise of age-based discrimination I say that this bill is still discriminatory because it now discriminates in its revised form against 14 and 15-year-olds. 
The bill as we know started as an attempt to abolish the youth rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is straying from the title. I am going to be strict because it is the title we are debating. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I do believe Madam Chairperson that the title has to be discussed in the context of the bill and I am trying to wrap the title around the context of the bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’re not doing it very well. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I am quite happy with what I am doing I say to the Minister. I go back to the title of the bill which originally was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill.