Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11160] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The majority of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended that clause 1 the title clause of the original bill be changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. 
It is worth thinking about who new entrants are. Members of the select committee of whom I am one met many of them and it was a great privilege to hear from those young workers. I was certainly very very impressed with them. They are workers who work in hospitality retail and so on and they are the workers who will be affected by this new entrants provision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can we have some fairness in the Chamber? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The original title was about ending age discrimination I say to Mr Mapp. I said during the first reading debate that we had to think about that. It was an important issue that we needed to consider. I believe that in terms of the title of the bill the select committee has looked at the issue very seriously and approached it responsibly. I think members will find that we do consider that the basis of the argument is right in that paying workers on the basis of age is neither just nor sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to keep to the title. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: And the title I think reflects our consideration on that. 
Other submitters talked about paying young workers and new entrants. There was some argument—I heard it from the opposite side actually—that having a new entrants rate then led to a higher rate which would discourage young workers from staying at school. One quote is worth repeating. A young worker said that if payment of a few dollars more will make 16 and 17-year-olds quit school they will be quitting school anyway. I thought that was a very important point. I think the title takes into account the genuine concerns of many who felt that young workers in their very first jobs often lacked work socialisation skills and required more time and investment to adapt to working life and that is what the title of this bill is about. Although the committee agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be paid differently just because of their age we did accept the argument that the inexperience of first-time workers or new entrants deserves the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work. 
The new entrant concept is not a new one in the workplace. What it is effectively doing is paying workers for experience and that is common in many workplaces and in many agreements. Experience is often recognised through service pay so one could say that the provision is for a form of service pay. The new entrant provision means that people have to work a certain amount of time then they get paid more. I think what is really great about the bill though—and it is reflected in the title—is that thousands and thousands of workers will get a pay rise once they are no longer covered by the new entrant provision. It builds on the work Labour has done since we became the Government. I know this may be out of order Madam Chair but I do have to hold up this little chart. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is out of order and I just remind the member again about the title. Members have plenty of opportunity to debate the main clauses of the bill as we are doing it clause by clause. There are five questions. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will certainly come back to my chart. The debate around new entrants is a very interesting one and I can see my colleague over there having a laugh because “new entrants” is an interesting description of people coming into the workforce. It is quite a strange term particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time. 
Hone Harawira 
: Young slaves! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No they are not young slaves. The description is used for schoolchildren. We did debate a little bit about how we could better describe this phenomenon of new workers coming into the workplace such as “first-time workers” or “new workforce participants”. But on reflection I think the title does express the intention of the bill very clearly which is to pay an adult minimum wage to workers who have completed a very short period of work and have gained some experience. It recognises that when new workers come into the workforce they have some experience to gain. The period of work is a very short time and I am pleased that we have made really good progress on what that will mean in practice. It will mean of course that once new workers have completed the period of work for new entrants they will get a huge pay rise and is not that a wonderful thing? Who would deny 16 and 17-year-old workers a huge pay rise? In fact I do not know any workers who would say no to that level of pay rise and I really have to ask: what is wrong with that? 
I think the title of the bill does reflect what the bill is all about. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill Sue Bradford for bringing this issue to the House. I thank her for doing that because I think it is a very important thing for us to be discussing.