Senator COONEY (5:42 PM) —We are now debating the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . It talks about the competitive position of young people. Schedule 1, item 1, in the bill talks about the competitive position of young people. Item 2 again refers to the competitive position of young people, and so does item 3. There is no mention in this bill of fairness to young people or fairness to employees, or of what is a fair and reasonable amount to pay to people who might be working, whether they are children, young people or otherwise.

The sort of language in this legislation is quite distinct from the sort of language that was used in the classic case decided in 1907 by Mr Justice Higgins in the H.V. McKay case. The sort of language he used there is in contrast with the sort of language this bill uses. His Honour's speech says:

I may add that the view which I have stated of my duty under the Act seems to be supported by a critical verbal examination of the words "fair and reasonable" used in collocation. Under an English Act, an agreement between a solicitor and client as to costs can be set aside, unless the solicitor show that it is "fair and reasonable"; and it has been held by the Court of Appeal that "fair" refers to the mode in which the agreement has been obtained, and "reasonable" means that the amount payable must not be out of proportion of the work done—

and he quotes a case—

Applying the reasoning to the present case, I cannot think that an employer and a workman contract on an equal footing, or make a "fair" agreement as to wages, when the workman submits to work for a low wage to avoid starvation or pauperism (or something like it) for himself and his family; or that the agreement is "reasonable" if it does not carry a wage sufficient to insure the workman food, shelter, clothing, frugal comfort, provision for evil days, &c., as well as reward for the special skill of an artisan if he is one.

We have gone back a long way from there over the intervening years, the intervening decades.

There is another passage that His Honour stated which I think is worth considering. In this context he is talking about the people bringing the case—the objectors, as they were called in those days—wanting to look at the books of the company that manufactured the machinery. He said, `No, it is not a matter of how much money the company earns. Your wages are set not on the basis of what can be afforded by the company, but on the basis of what is fair and reasonable to you as an employee.' So, if the company earned great profits, that made no difference to the sort of wage that should be paid because the wage had to be appropriate to the work done. If on the other hand the company did not make great profits—indeed, made a loss—that should not make any difference either to the wage because the wage had to be measured in terms of what was fair to the person who was working.

It is in that context that I think of a statement by Charles Dickens in, I think, Hard Times, where he said that the big business people in those days—19th century capitalism at its worst—did not think that the Good Samaritan was a good economist. To use that expression here now, I do not think this particular legislation thinks that fairness to young people, or indeed to any particular worker, is necessarily good economic policy either.

I say that because of certain matters set out in the second reading speech which talks in terms of the competitive advantage of young people. They say this bill is all about competition, and the only way youth can do any good in the labour market is to take less than others. That is quite a horrible sort of attitude to have to people.

Senator McGauran —Horrible?

Senator COONEY —Yes, Senator McGauran, because it shows an attitude to people which is merely based on an economic principle. Senator McGauran is, unfortunately, perhaps not the sort of person who can see beyond economics. He is the sort of person who would condemn the Good Samaritan because he was not a good economist. We on this side of the chamber see people differently. We see them as people who not only want to work but also want to work in a place where they are properly rewarded, where they have dignity and where they learn.

The one thing this bill is not interested in is having youth educated. Why do I say that? I say that because item 3 in schedule 1 of the bill says:

After paragraph 88B(3)(b)

Insert:

(ba) the need to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market, to promote youth employment, and to assist in reducing youth unemployment, through appropriate junior wage provisions.

How does section 88B(3)(b) read? It says:

In performing its functions under this Part, the Commission must have regard to the following:

. . . . . . . . .

(b) the need to support training arrangements through appropriate trainee wage provisions;

That is the provision that deals with the education of young people. That is the provision that deals with the empowerment of youth by giving them skills. That is the section that deals with that.

This is a separate section. This is not a section that is directed towards giving young people skills. This is not a section devoted to the vocational education of children at all. This is simply a section that says that youth should be able to be exploited, that employers should be able to pick them up at whatever price they can and that the only thing that should motivate them is the issue of what is competitive.

It will no doubt be said that, if you look at section 88B in its entirety, you will see that it refers to other issues, such as minimum wages and conditions of employment. But this piece of legislation before us talks only in terms of the competitive position of young people and does not purport to go any further than that. It has been brought in at a time when there is an examination of the whole issue by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and that point has been made again and again.

The point has been made—and I think it ought to be made again and again—that this chamber ought to have great concern about a government that brings in legislation before a proper conclusion has been reached about it. What is a proper conclusion? It is that conclusion which the Industrial Relations Commission is going to bring forth, and the second reading speech bears that out quite clearly. The government has put in a submission to the Industrial Relations Commission, and the second reading speech says:

In that submission we demonstrate the critical role played by junior rates in maintaining the competitiveness of youth in the labour market and encouraging youth employment. We show that junior wages help young people by giving them a foot in the door into employment.

We also demonstrate that any move to abolish junior rates would lead to an increase in youth wages, and in turn have a detrimental effect on youth employment.

Why make a submission and then treat it as a conclusion? Why let the Industrial Relations Commission have this inquiry? Why not just simply bring in the legislation? As I understand it, the reason the Industrial Relations Commission is looking at it is to keep faith—if that is the right phrase to use—with undertakings which were made with other parties in the chamber. But it is hardly keeping faith to run an inquiry about matters which you have already come to a conclusion on and which you have stated in the second reading speech to be undeniable fact.

One point made prior to my speech—and, as I said, it is to be emphasised again—is that this is a very topsy-turvy way of going around an inquiry. The tragedy of it is that a conclusion has been reached and has been set out in legislation. That conclusion says that children—I keep using the word `children' and they are not much beyond children, but I mean the young people—are going to be thrown into the labour market without any adequate protection.

There are passages in this second reading speech which come close to being cynical. Again, I will demonstrate that by reading one such passage. It says:

Madam President, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are concerned with equality of opportunity just as much as with equality of treatment. In this context, junior wages are a special measure that operates beneficially to meet the particular needs of young people in the labour market, who are generally recognised as needing special assistance. Lower wage costs relative to adults assist young people to gain employment by compensating for the disadvantage that young people experience due to their relatively lower skills, experience and maturity compared with adults.

The only conclusion you can draw from that is that these children, these people just above being children, these youth, these young people, will replace adults. What else does that paragraph mean? It says that, if you were going to pay young people the same as adults, you would employ the adults, which means that, since you are going to pay them less than adults, they are going to replace adults. There is discrimination, and you cannot get out of the discrimination. You are either discriminating against youth or you are discriminating against mature aged workers. So the whole basis upon which this argument goes forward is quite flawed. The second reading speech goes on to say:

Madam President, the uncertainty surrounding the current interim arrangements does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure. This bill will create that certainty.

What this second reading speech is saying to young people reading it is this: if they take lower wages their jobs will be secure. It specifically says that not only will the jobs be secure but also they will know that their jobs will be secure. If that promise is made, will it be carried out or will it receive the same fate as promises made to other people? We have heard people complain about their experiences with promises made to them.

This is a bill the philosophy of which is flawed, the reason of which is flawed and the results of which will be flawed. A proper way out of this is for the inquiry that is presently taking place by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to proceed to its end. I finish by saying that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is a body which has served this country well. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, have had great experience before that body and know it well. I think you would, if I may say so with respect, agree with what I say.

It seems to me to be quite insulting to give that body a task to undertake and then to take steps which interdict the very decision that it is going to make. In other words, the government is saying to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, `What we're doing is sending you on an exercise which we don't think is a very serious exercise. We are sending you on the exercise of looking at this matter of youth wages but we really don't care what you say.' That body, which has that aura and that respect that we have come to know over the years, should not be treated in that cavalier way.