Mr BROUGH (5:21 PM) —It seems that the attack on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is coming from the point of view that somebody is going to be worse off. The shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, went to some lengths to outline how the Prime Minister had stated back in 1996 that no-one would be worse off under a Liberal coalition government, as far as wages and conditions were concerned. They have laboured this point for the last several hours, so I want to make it quite clear that nobody, either currently in work or who is going to enter the work force, will have a reduction in their wages as a result of this bill.

The member for Brisbane used some figures about a retail distribution centre employee. He quoted that that person, who today might be 18 years of age and earning $412.60 per week, would under this legislation have his wages cut to $288.80. That would not be satisfactory and certainly would not satisfy the Prime Minister's undertaking, but the fact is that it simply is not the case. The shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, has got it totally wrong.

The legislation requires that the AIRC look at introducing age based wages where appropriate. It is not mandatory, which is the point the shadow minister continually laboured, stating that so many of these people who are currently working under an adult based wage would suddenly find themselves on these age based wages and hence have a lower income.

There is also a precedent for how the AIRC can handle this. I am sure he has heard of the term `grandfathering'. In this particular incident, the most recent of cases before the commission was the transition from paid rate wages to minimum rate wages. They ordered that there be a transition so that no-one was worse off. Does the opposition really believe that the AIRC is going to allow the situation to arise where an 18-year-old—the one quoted on $412.60 per week—is going to have his or her wages cut by $123.80? I think not.

But of course that is part of the rhetoric that has supported the Labor case here today. All the way through, they have tried to talk down young people's opportunities to earn, when it simply is untrue. If an employer tried to sack a young employee who was paid the adult wage—which is really the lead-in to the rest of their argument—and replaced them with someone on a junior wage rate following the extension of these junior rates, then that action would be unlawful under section 298K and 298L of the Workplace Relations Act. That is not getting rid of unfair dismissal; that is an unlawful act and they could be prosecuted for doing so. So the protections are in place. Once again the member for Brisbane has got it wrong. Many employees aged under 21 and currently paid at adult rates will not be affected by these changes. Some young people may currently be paid at adult rates because their employers choose to do that. They may believe that their work performance or their productivity warrants their being paid more. Our legislation will not affect the ability of employers to pay—and the employees to receive—such overaward payments. No-one will receive a reduction in their wages.

Why should junior rates be extended to awards that do not presently include them? This is another point laboured quite heavily by the member for Brisbane. Under our current legislation, the commission will be required to support youth employment by ensuring, wherever appropriate, awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people include junior rates of pay. Awards for a number of industries do not provide for junior rates of pay, and these include the building and construction industry. A prominent example is Queensland, where there is just no way in for a young person or an unskilled worker. Therefore they are basically excluded from this industry, which is obviously booming in Queensland due to the tourism industry and booming in New South Wales because of the Olympic Games.

It has been estimated that there would be some 6,000 new jobs created for young people if the extension of junior rates were introduced into the building and construction industry alone—6,000 new jobs in an industry which needs young blood desperately but which this Labor opposition is opposed to. The Master Builders Association argues in a submission:

It is the MBA's belief that the absence of junior rates of pay has led to underemployment of juniors in the building and construction industry.

A lot of people on the opposite side have represented the ACTU, the MUA and other unions. Perhaps they should be listening to the evidence that the Master Builders Association has given so they recognise that there are jobs going to waste.

I will turn my attention once again to the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, and his reference to the Queensland government and its submission. He pointed out that the Queensland government believed there should be a move to age based wages in their submission. As it stands, every state and territory government in this nation has the power to legislate to end the use of junior rates, but none have done so. No Labor government has done so. They have all enacted anti-discrimination legislation, but all have also exempted junior rates from the requirement of that legislation. So why is it that they stand here and tell us that this is such a heinous crime, when their brethren in the states have had the power to do so and have not done so? You must ask yourself that question.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Ask Bob Carr!

Mr BROUGH —Ask Bob Carr said the minister at the table. Or ask Premier Beattie! The Queensland government supports no move away from junior rates until a replacement competency based system is available. They note that any changes would recognise the fragility of the youth employment market. Well, bully for them! The Queensland legislation contains provisions which have the effect of permanently exempting junior rates of pay, so if they are so opposed to this, why haven't they moved away from it in their term in government. They have been in government since June last year, and they have not made one attempt to do anything about removing what they consider to be such a heinous attack on young people's rights. They did not do it under the Goss government, and I would suggest that they will not do it in the years to come.

Section 129/8 of the Queensland Workplace Relations Act 1997 states:

In making an award that fixes the award rates, the commission must consider the age and experience of persons aged under 21.

Section 33 of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 states:

A person may remunerate a worker who is aged under 21 years of age according to the worker's age.

If they are so adamant about this, why have they not removed these particular pieces of legislation as a matter of urgency? I would say that every speaker from the opposition today has told us that these are provisions that should be removed, yet their colleagues at state level, having had the power to do so for many years, in many cases have refused to.

Queensland submitted to the junior rates inquiry that the AIRC should take a lead role in introducing a system to replace junior rates by recommending a set of principles consistent with those previously agreed by the ministers of the Labour Advisory Council and the guidelines developed for the implementation of the Australian vocational training systems. The principles they state should be based on the following: introduction to the competency based progression system, based around traineeship and apprenticeship systems; no move away from junior rates until the replacement of the competency based system is available; development of a progression arrangement involving industry participation; and development of appropriate traineeship and apprenticeship schemes for full-time and part-time employees.

The Queensland position involves revisiting an approach that has already failed to develop a workable alternative to junior rates of pay. That is why they refused to do it—because they knew it was unworkable. This was agreed to in 1990 and has been abandoned since.

I take up another point of the member for Brisbane. In referring to some of the figures, he simply got it wrong. He states that 56 per cent of young people employed in Australia in May 1996 were employed under junior wage rates. He is correct on that part. So he drew the conclusion that 44 per cent were therefore not under age based rates. That is in fact incorrect—13 per cent were employed as trainees or apprentices, which left only 31 per cent employed under adult wage rates. I invite the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister, not to misrepresent the figures in what has been an appalling case of misrepresentation in his address to this House today.

So what do young people say about this? Not us as politicians, not the opposition. What do the young people, who are the ones who will be most impacted upon, have to say about the issue of junior wage rates? Of the young employees aged 15 to 20 years surveyed by the department in 1995, 55 per cent thought they were paid fairly. Only 20 per cent thought they were not paid fairly. Let us look at that in context of the overall workplace. That compares with 47 per cent of all employees who agreed that they were paid fairly. So more young people currently agree that they are paid fairly than do the average in the population.

Let us now look at some specifics. I was part of the employment, education and training inquiry into factors influencing the employment of young people in 1996. We took evidence in my home town of Caboolture. I would like to give you the responses of three students from years 11 and 12 from the local schools to that inquiry. Mr Bell said:

If you get older while you are working there they do not sack you, but if you are looking for a new job as a casual and you are nearly 18, it is a lot harder.

That flies in the face of the evidence given by the honourable member who spoke before me in relation to McDonald's. Ms Robinson stated:

So I think it is really important that we do have a different wage because it sort of enables us to just get our nose into the work force by being young.

And Mr Bywater stated:

I believe the age system is a lot better than the skill related thing, mainly because we have got a secure environment there.

He went on to say:

Whereas with the age based things, I think a lot of young people out here start part-time employment at about 15. They usually stay in that job for about two or three years and they are gaining experience and as they are gaining that experience it is pretty much related to their age. So, as they get older, their pay increases with their age and thus it fairly well reflects the amount of skill they have developed as well.

So that is just a sampling of what young people say. And what do the employers say, the people who create these jobs? Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that yesterday I pointed out to this House that governments do not create jobs; small business and the business sector in general do. The Australian Retailers Association estimates that the abolition of junior rates would lead to a loss of 220,000 youth jobs in their industry. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition, who knows all about losing jobs—he increased the long-term unemployed by 95,000 people during his term as employment minister—could wear having another 220,000 youth jobs on his head. This government cannot and will not do so.

Employer groups have consistently told the junior rates inquiry that junior rates must be preserved if the jobs of young people are to be protected. I will give a few quotes. The ACCI's submission states:

The deletion of age based junior rates clauses and replacement with adult rates or increased rates would be an act of gross recklessness.

The Timber Trade Industrial Association submission states:

The consequences in the timber industry for youth employment given the abolition of junior rates of pay would be horrendous.

This is very strong language. The Housing Industry Association submitted:

There is no workable alternative system to the present award age based junior rates, and these should be retained.

Coles Myer has similar sentiments, as do the restaurant and catering industry and the Australian Retailers Association. But what about the third player in this? What about the unions? Mr Deputy Speaker, most of those that have spoken across the other side have either had an affiliation with or been directly employed by the unions over the years, so you would think they would be representative of union views. The ACTU's main alternative wage arrangements uses the national training wage progression framework. That almost exactly duplicates the use of age.

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association submission to the junior rates inquiry recommends the application of an age based wage structure for those under 18 years of age. The Labor Council of New South Wales similarly supports the retention of an age based structure for the same age group, albeit an alternative wage structure can be developed. Unions are continuing to enter into certified agreements that do contain junior rates. So they are prepared to negotiate with their members and with their employers. Unions and employers are jointly agreeing under certified agreements that junior rates of pay should be included, and beyond the deadline of 2000, which is when the current exemptions will lapse.

The department recently surveyed a sample of 181 certified agreements covering workplaces which employ one or more juniors. In only seven of these arrangements were the junior rates provisions removed; 96 per cent continued junior rates. So what does the ACTU say? In their submission to the ACTU Council 1998 Resolution on Youth Wages they basically said that the government should be condemned, that Minister Reith should be condemned and that we should get rid of age based rates as being discriminatory. But the fact is, if you look back over their history, they have now tried for some 10 years to develop a system fairer than the age based system and on each occasion they have failed to do so.

The ACTU says that the only feasible alternative produced has been the development of a framework based on years of schooling, but that almost exactly, of course, duplicates age base. The national training wage progression framework is, indirectly, age discriminatory, and it is age use by any other name. To devise a system that would not undermine the youth labour market, the ACTU basically had to mimic the use of age but, of course, it does not suit their case to come in here today as now members of parliament and deride what they have attempted to do over 10 years.

Let us turn to the economic evidence. Is there any economic evidence other than that that we hear in the streets from employers, from the unions—as I have outlined—and from employees? Well, yes, there is. In October last year, the Productivity Commission published a major study entitled `Youth Wages and Employment'. They found that one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of two per cent in the retail industry, five per cent in the accommodation industry and 2.5 per cent in the cultural and recreational service industry. This is consistent with the overwhelming body of Australian evidence which shows that real wage increases which are not backed by the productivity growth have an adverse impact on employment.

Junior rates are about positive discrimination. They are about giving young people a chance. My first job was, in fact, pumping petrol at the local service station. I know for a fact that there is only one reason I got that job. It was because I was cheap—very, very cheap, and I mean cheap in the nicest possible way. But the fact is that I was not a good employee. I had come straight out of school and I had a senior education but I really did not know what work was about. The only work I had done was at home in the family shop. Whilst that was hard and arduous and all the rest of it, it did not have the discipline that was required of working for someone else. I am sure that if that gentleman, who was good enough to try me at that time, had had his way, he would have more than readily taken on a senior person who had a more mature outlook on life. That, unfortunately, is the reality. Young people have not changed that dramatically since I was 17—it is only a few short years ago. It is about giving young people a start.

Finally, I would just like to make a comment in relation to the contribution by the member for Brisbane where he referred to the fact that junior wage rates were not considered in many industries. Only 14 per cent of the construction industry has junior wage rates where 86 per cent of the industry does not. On the other hand, in the retail trade, 90 per cent have junior wage rates and 10 per cent do not. If you want to have a little look at those two industries and if you were able to get the statistics, I am absolutely convinced that you would see that there would be an overwhelming increase in the number of young people employed in the retail sector because they can get a start in life; whereas, in the construction industry, a young person on a work site is almost non-existent.

It is not going to be mandatory for the commission to ensure that junior wage rates are in every award. We are simply advocating that they should look and see what opportunities are there. We should not just, as a matter of course, discount opportunities for young people because there are no junior wage rates available. I reiterate: this is not going to cut one person's wage. The young people who currently enjoy adult wages will continue to do so. The evidence is before us in the decisions that the commission has already taken.

The member for Brisbane, as the shadow minister, has got it badly wrong. Those New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments and other state Labor governments, who have had a chance over many years to rectify what they see as this heinous crime, have failed to do so. The fact is that there is no better system, and it is beholden upon this government to uphold its democratic duty of fulfilling the election promise at the last election to ensure that age based rates are legislated and we give the young people of Australia a real chance in life. (Time expired)