Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (10:08 AM) —I rise to speak in what I regard as an important debate. It goes to how we as a community create a framework which is aimed at maximising not only the employment opportunities of our young people but, perhaps more importantly, our training and skilling opportunities. Before going to the context of that debate I want to raise a few issues in response to the member for Bradfield. In his comments today he raised the issue of the accord and made passing reference to the social wage. The member for Bradfield should understand that, contrary to what he said, the developments of the social wage under the accord were actually based on responsibility and accountability. When he talks about the Australian community understanding the issue of responsibility and accountability, I would refer, for example, to what occurred with respect to the social wage during the accord period: the most comprehensive review of the social security system in Australia was undertaken.

When the Labor Party won government in March 1993, there was, to some extent, a lack of proper accountability with respect to the payment of some of those benefits. The member for Bradfield talks about people expecting that they have a right to just live on the public purse. In March 1983, family payments were paid to all Australian families irrespective of one's wealth. It is also interesting to note that in March 1983, the unemployment benefits system of payment in Australia had not been reviewed since it had been introduced in the post-war period of 1945.

The truth of the matter is that the accord period, for the union movement, was about a lot of hard decisions. It was about accountability, it was about responsibility; it certainly was not about handouts. It was about the union movement working in a partnership not just with the Labor Party in government but also with the broader community and many in the business community. We had to embrace that approach to ensure that we repositioned Australia after many decades of neglect. Australia was largely living off the sheep's back. When the price of wool fell, we were adopting the view that the simple solution was to dig minerals out of the ground and protect manufacturing industry in Australia. So we embraced many hard decisions.

In response to the member for Bradfield I raise the issue of the accord period in that context because I think it is that approach that reflects the Labor Party's position with respect to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2], which is before the House this morning. It reflects the fact that the Labor Party has done what it believes is right for the Australian community—right for mums and dads and the expectations that they have for their young people, right for young people with regard to maximising their employability through training and skills opportunity, and right for employers.

It is for that very reason that I welcome the proposed amendments. They truly reflect the Labor Party's policy position. If those who are listening to this debate have got any doubts about that, I would simply refer them to Hansard of 4 June this year, the day on which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission brought down its report on the junior rates inquiry. It was on that day that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business challenged the Labor Party to a debate about the Industrial Relations Commission's report and the issue of junior rates.

It is interesting to go back and read that debate in Hansard, because the problem for the minister on that day was that he did not think the Labor Party would take the debate. What he had failed to do was actually listen to what the Labor Party had said over many months in the lead-up to the report by the Industrial Relations Commission. The Labor Party had said that it would consider the Industrial Relations Commission's report on its merits. On the basis of that consideration, we detailed to the House of Representatives that afternoon the Labor Party's response to the Industrial Relations Commission report. People should understand that it is not a decision, it is a report of the Industrial Relations Commission which reflects its response to a range of attitudes and positions that were submitted to the commission for consideration. Having said that we would await the report, we then detailed our position, our response to the Industrial Relations Commission—that independent arbitrator, that independent reporter—for the purposes of taking the debate on junior rates forward.

Our position today, as outlined in the amendments before the House this morning, reflects the position adopted by the four Labor Party spokespersons on the afternoon of 4 June in its entirety. I do not claim the amendments today as a victory for the Australian Labor Party; I claim them as a victory for the Industrial Relations Commission and a victory for commonsense. It is also a timely reminder of the value of an independent arbitrator, an independent umpire.

When you look at the youth wages issue and its relationship with youth employment and fairness, we have been honest about the evidence that was thrown up before the Industrial Relations Commission. If there is a message for all of us today, which we have repeated in the two months since the commission's report, it is that we must all seriously challenge ourselves as to whether we are doing the best we can for our young people. That is why we are taking the politics out of the debate this morning. That is why I said that I am not here today claiming a major victory for the Australian Labor Party.

Let the commentators write what they want. They can write, for example, that the Labor Party has compromised and that the government has compromised. More importantly, though, the Industrial Relations Commission has won. The Industrial Relations Commission, which this very government wants to decimate, has won. Its report has, in essence, been adopted in the amendments before the House today. That is a commonsense approach to taking the debate on junior rates into the future and ensuring that a framework exists for any changes to the basis for the employment of junior rates in Australia in the years to come to be considered on a case by case approach and on merit. I think that is what ordinary Australians want. The Industrial Relations Commission did recommend, appropriately, based on the material before the commission, the retention of junior rates where they presently exist. But that is not what they had to say from a start and finish point of view. They had more to say.

It is for that very reason that Labor has consistently argued that there is in actual fact more to the labour market than wages. I therefore refer this morning to the importance of skills. They are critical to the labour market; they are critical to young people. We inserted words—and they are reflected in the amendments today—requiring the Industrial Relations Commission to consider the all-important issue of skills development. I have a view that young people are prepared to make sacrifices with respect to the acceptance of pay rates lower than those of adults, on the basis of an employer accepting his or her responsibility to also invest in that young person's skills development. Young people know that their future is going to be very much related to their employability, which in turn is related to their training and skills development.

Any bill that is eventually passed by this parliament that considers the future of junior rates determination in Australia must reflect the importance of skills development—as stated by the commission—as a statement to young people, mums, dads and employers that they have an onus and a responsibility to embrace the issue of skills development so as to maximise the employability of our young people. That is why we demanded that any settlement with the government required the insertion of a requirement for the commission, in the context of fairness, to consider—and it is all about fairness when it comes to the rates of pay of young people—a proper focus on the issue of skills development and the issue of community standards.

Above all, we must be prepared to challenge ourselves. We must have an open mind. We therefore inserted the capacity for the Industrial Relations Commission to go forward on what it concluded in its report—that is, that any fair consideration of the issues in a given industry can be considered only on the basis of the merit of an argument presented to the Industrial Relations Commission on a case by case approach. I believe these amendments do not rule out anything. If there is anyone in the Australian community who wants to argue that a young person employed in any industry in Australia is entitled to junior rates from day one of employment or at 18 years of age, it is for that applicant to apply to the Industrial Relations Commission to vary a given award, an enterprise agreement or whatever and then proceed to argue the merit of the case so that it can be determined on the basis of merit by the Industrial Relations Commission.

That effectively means that there is a framework for people to proceed to consider these issues. More importantly, we now have a framework which is based on a sense of security and stability without the threat of political interference so that these matters can be determined for the immediate future. It is important that we put these issues to bed. It is important that the House understands that context. Anyone or any party has an opportunity to argue their case. That is the right of the parties and participants in the industrial relations arena. It is now clearly stated in a proper articulated way by the commission. Hopefully, with the support of the major political parties, the amendments will soon become the law of the land with respect to how we look after young people in employment in the years ahead.

I remind the House that it was Labor that defined that context through the concessions we forced on the government. We have defined the context in which the Industrial Relations Commission can proceed to handle these complex issues. Through the amendments that we have reached agreement on with the minister, we have established a framework for how the future of wage arrangements for young people must progress, and that is very important for any party, any young person, any employer, any union or any government. It does not rule out a government also seeking to argue before the commission what it believes is an appropriate framework in a given industry. That framework makes it clear that we will not look at wages independent of skills. It acknowledges that there are many different views in the community. So there ought to be; that is the nature of society. It says to those people with a variety of views, `Put up or shut up. If you have a view, go out and argue it on merit on a case by case approach.'

From the opposition's point of view, we are quite pleased with the amendments and the bill now before the House. They represent a fair outcome for all in the Australian community. The most important part of today's debate is that not only do we have a framework but also, as the minister has acknowledged, we have now provided certainty on the basis on which we can all proceed of ensuring that the best possible outcomes exist to maximise youth employment. In maximising youth employment, we ensure that young people—who might have to accept a lower rate of pay than adults for a given period—are given an opportunity to receive training. If they have any differences with respect to that framework, they now have an opportunity to demand that those who represent them go back and argue for an alternative position, and there is a framework on which that argument can proceed.

Thankfully, the government has also given its word that it will not be introducing legislation to give effect to its preferred position in the life of this parliament. That is exceptionally important. I have worked in the trade union movement for a long period. I do not mind the differences that currently exist between us and some in the union movement, because that is about hard politics. That means you have to be prepared to do what you think is right from time to time, you have to be willing to make decisions and, on some occasions, you have differences with people whom you have respect for in other spheres of life. In the world I was brought up in, it also means that when you give your word you honour your word. That is the nature of industrial relations. It is the nature of being a decent human being.

The minister has given his word that, in the life of this parliament, there will be no other legislation on the issue of junior rates. That is important for all in the community. It is important for the Industrial Relations Commission, it is important for employers, it is important for unions and it is important for workers. The framework has established where we go on the junior rates debate in the immediate future. We take the minister at his word, because it is about his honour and it is about whether we on this side can continue to deal with the minister in an honourable fashion based on the fact that, when you shake hands, your word is your bond.

It is fair to say that the issue of youth wages is a complex one. It often involves trade-offs, fairness for employers, workers, educational institutions—TAFE and university—and skills development organisations and group training companies. But, in the end, it is about making sure that we have a multifaceted approach to a complex problem. The youth labour market in recent times has been subjected to a number of major changes. In the last two decades, those changes have been constant. It has been very difficult for us in the community, irrespective of where we sit in the debate, to keep up with some of those changes and to be able to manage them in the best interests of all Australians. The changes in the labour market include the shift from full-time employment to part-time and casual employment. In some instances, that has had the effect of employers being unwilling to invest in training and skills development.

The debate today is not just about the framework but also about how we use the framework to try to overcome some of the problems that have hindered youth employment in the immediate past. This debate is about how we make some of those educational institutions more relevant to young people, how those institutions become more flexible with respect to the delivery of training and how we link more vocational education and training to the school system. It is also about how we develop part-time apprenticeships and traineeships. Part and parcel of that is a proper consideration and an acceptance of the fact that in some but not all industries there is a case, based on training opportunities, for a rate of pay lower than that which applies to adults in the same jobs in the same workplace in the same industry.

I touch on these issues because they go to the heart of what young people want. They go to the heart of the debate before the House this morning. I recently had an opportunity to meet with Coles Myer, an employer of substantial size which employs a lot of young people. I would compliment Coles Myer for a program that they have initiated which is called Project 38. It is about reducing the casualisation of their work force from 60 per cent in 1994 to a goal of 20 per cent by the end of the year 2000. It is also based on the introduction of 4,000 retail and management traineeships and managing through future growth the effective planning and training of those people.

The agreement between the government and the opposition today reflects what Coles Myer is seeking to do for young people—and also for older people—in the development of a greater commitment to more permanent part-time and full-time employment, which is about security and certainty in life. During that discussion, Coles Myer put the following points to me about our young people. What do our youth want? Firstly, they want a job for the future; secondly, an opportunity to improve; thirdly, training and development; fourthly, an opportunity to be involved in business; fifthly, a sympathetic employer; sixthly, fair pay and conditions; seventhly, recognition; and, finally, security and career paths. The amendments today deliver on the Coles Myer vision. The Coles Myer vision in Project 38 reflects what all of us, irrespective of our political positions, want from the debate and the bill before the House today. It is about security, training and career opportunities for our young people. (Time expired)