Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to take a call in Part 2 clauses 6 and 7 of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start with a comment really that has bemused me during this debate which is how come increasing pay motivates bosses and chief executive officers but cutting it is supposed to motivate young workers? How come? I would really like the Minister in the chair the Hon Michael Woodhouse to attempt to answer that if he would or at least a speaker from the other side because I do not get it and nor do the thousands of young workers who are affected by this bill—who see day in and day out huge salaries being paid to chief executive officers huge amounts of compensation given to various people like Solid Energy’s Don Elder with $1.3 million to sit on his couch at home doing nothing—yet they are supposed to be feeling grateful because this Government is cutting their pay. 
They are supposed to be buying into the narrative that we hear again and again from this Government that work is somehow a charitable act and that employers are offering a charity. I found it astonishing that Mike Sabin could assert that employers would create a job for someone because they could pay them $11 an hour. If there is no work to be done and there is no job they are not going to do it out of charity. But what we hear from the National Government is that workers and young workers should be grateful. They should be grateful for the opportunity even though they are going to be paid less for doing exactly the same work and they can be sacked within 90 days with no reason given. 
 Why should young people be grateful? 
Mike Sabin 
: The good old socialist mantra—that all employers are evil. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No it is not actually. It is about treating young people— 
Mike Sabin 
: The good old socialist mantra. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am looking forward to Mike Sabin getting on his feet and answering my first question about why it is OK to pay lots and lots of people and some people’s chief executive officers large amounts of money. That is supposed to motivate them and that is the justification we hear that young people are supposed to be motivated by this bill. 
I have a couple of things I want to say about Part 2. In the first part clause 6 I just want to check with the Minister in the chair that I am right about this but the way I read it is that it amends the Accident Compensation Act so that young workers will get 80 percent of 80 percent—is that right? So that instead of getting 80 percent of the adult minimum wage as they do under the current Act unless they are on the 300 hours or 200 hours they will get 80 percent of $10.80. I want the Minister to look at that. Otherwise I do not see the point of that amendment. So what it seems to be saying is that people young workers who go on accident compensation are going to have their pay cut even further. 
We have already heard today and we have already talked about how young workers are going to be forced off the invalids benefit and the sickness benefit otherwise they will be sanctioned. They will be stood down from their benefit for 13 weeks. They will be punished if they refuse to accept the job that Work and Income deems to be acceptable. What happens if they get injured on the job? Remember these are young workers going into often dangerous situations; it can be very dangerous in some of these jobs. They are worried about raising issues because they can be sacked in 90 days. They could have an accident and then they find themselves on $10.80 an hour. So what this Part 2 does is reduce the pay for young workers even more if they are injured on the job. That is so unfair and I would appreciate the Minister addressing that and explaining why the Government thinks that that is fair and that young people should be forced to take another pay cut should they be injured on the job and have to go on accident compensation. 
I want also to address clause 7 which is the transitional and savings provision in relation to the minimum new entrant rate. Again I want to remind the Committee what the new entrant rate was. It is in fact what exists now but it will go out of existence on 1 May. What that meant was a young worker in their very first job a 16 or 17-year-old in their very first job could be paid 80 percent of the adult minimum wage for 3 months or 200 hours on a one-off basis. So that was on the basis that they would learn the job within 3 months or 200 hours and from then on they would be paid the adult rate. 
Of course what this bill does is remove that. It says that 16 and 17-year-olds have to learn the job and it takes them 6 months to learn the job so they are on $11 an hour and then they go to another job and they have to learn it all over again so they go back to $11 an hour. They never get ahead while they are 16 and 17. That is so unfair. As we have heard in this debate 16 and 17-year-olds are often doing the work the same job as other workers. It is not about their output or their abilities. If it were the Government would not be changing the existing provisions that allow for a training period for a worker in their very very first job. 
What this bill does is punish 16 and 17-year-olds. It is not 6 months. It is 6 months again and again and again. If they happen to lose that job when they are 18 and go on to a social security benefit then if they get a job they can be punished again. So not only can they have youth rates all the time during the period they are 16 and 17 but it carries on until they are 18 and 19. 
What I do not get about all of this is the lack of understanding from the Government about how discriminatory this is and how unfair it is that people doing the same job can be paid less because of their age. We have not had that kind of discrimination on the basis of gender on the basis of race and on the basis of a whole range of other issues over the years for many many years. That would be intolerable. We would not say to an older worker who is say over 65: “Well you’re not as productive as that worker so you’re going to get paid 80 percent.” That would be unacceptable because there are rules about discriminating against older people and people on the basis of age. But somehow because these are younger people because they are working and contributing they can be picked on by this Government. They can be picked off by this Government. 
I go back to what I said at the beginning. For some reason the National Government thinks these workers are going to be grateful for this. Well I can tell that National Government that they are not. I have had many contacts. I do not know about Mike Sabin about who he talks to in his area. I was interested in Tracey Martin’s contribution because she lives in the same area so I was very interested in what she had to say about it. I talk to a lot of young people. I am in touch with the Same Work Same Pay movement which was out the front only a couple of months ago protesting about the fact that this bill discriminates against young people who are trying to get ahead and who are doing the same job. 
It is unfair and it is discriminatory. But worst of all this is not going to make a damn bit of difference to youth unemployment. It is not going to help young people get a job. If there is no work there is no job and employers are not going to perform charitable acts by giving young people a chance because they can pay them less. That is so dopey. That is such a dopey notion. Yet we have heard it again and again. 
We all know there is a crisis in youth unemployment and some of my colleagues have talked about Labour’s solutions and Labour’s ideas on that. I cannot fail to come to the conclusion that this bill demonstrates the absolute dearth of ideas from the National Party when it comes to dealing with our young people. Unfortunately our young people are going to keep going on the plane to Australia to better jobs to a place where they get treated with respect. 
David Bennett 
: The almighty Labour Party owns the young people; that’s right. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: David Bennett should probably just not say too much given the speeches he made 3 years ago saying he did not support youth rates. David Bennett probably should keep quiet. 
David Bennett 
: Come on; let’s have it again. 
Mike Sabin 
: Has he explained yet? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am looking forward to the member taking a call and explaining why he thinks he got it wrong why he got it right and why he is wrong now. That would be very very interesting. 
I was also quite fascinated too that John Banks gave one of his very rare speeches in the House. The ACT Party seems to get very excited when it comes to cutting young workers’ pay. I remember Roger Douglas did it. I remember Roger Douglas did it and I remember saying: “Is this why you came to Parliament Mr Douglas?”. It seems with Mr Banks that that may be the case too. I hope that one day all of those members in the Government can stand up and explain to young people why they think this bill is a good idea.