Senator GIBBS (7:58 PM) —The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 Bill typifies this government's total lack of understanding and ineptitude with regard to industrial relations in Australia in 1999. It also represents just another aspect of their sustained attack on young Australians. The bill seeks to exempt junior rates in awards and certified agreements from the age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. The present statutory exemption is due to expire on 22 June 2000. The most worrying aspect of this bill is contained in item 5, which will require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to ensure that in making any award it must give consideration to inserting junior wage rates. This provision will mean that many young people who have gained jobs on the basis of their skills, ability and performance will subsequently have their wages cut because of their age. The AIRC will be compelled to insert into every industrial award and agreement a junior rates of pay clause, even where such clauses have never before been required or sought.

It is important to understand that a junior differs from apprentices and trainees in that he or she is expected to be working full-time receiving no training. A junior's pay is usually based on their age, starting at 45 per cent of an adult's pay for a 16-year-old and increasing in steps on each birthday until age 21 is reached and he or she is considered to be an adult. At the moment many industrial awards and agreements do not incorporate junior rate clauses. Young people employed under these arrangements have competed for their jobs on an equal footing with everyone else in the labour market and have been employed entirely on the basis of merit.

These young people are now to be penalised for their achievements. In many industries these penalties will be highly significant, creating a huge disincentive for young people to continue their employment. At present, under the metal engineering and associated industries award, there are no junior rates of pay. As my colleague Arch Bevis stated in the other chamber, an 18-year-old would now be earning $434.60 per week. With the enforcement of junior rates of pay, the same person would be paid $296.83 per week. This is a pay cut of $137 each week. Arising out of this statement, the question has to be asked: if this legislation is passed, will those people who are working at the current rate of pay suddenly find their pay packet lighter on the next pay day? Obviously it will be so. This, of course, would mean that there would be a very large number of very peeved people out there in voter land—rather stupid politics, to my way of thinking.

This government has to realise that it will not just be a few young people who will find themselves taking crippling pay cuts. While 56 per cent of all people in the work force aged under 21 are currently employed on a junior rate of pay, some 44 per cent are not. Therefore, 44 per cent of under-21-year-old workers are now faced with the prospect of being forced to accept less pay for the same work. This approach seems particularly contradictory, given the government's supposed commitment to performance based industrial relations arrangements.

The competency based or skills acquired system is supposed to determine wages according to performance. The only people the minister thinks should not be paid according to their skill are people under 21. Under his system, you could be 18 and get paid 20 or 30 per cent less than someone who is 21 performing exactly the same job with the same responsibilities. Where is the incentive for young people to work hard and get ahead when they will be denied a fair day's pay for a fair day's work? It will be interesting to see whether the coalition intends to inflict a junior rate of pay on Tasmanian Liberal member for Franklin, Matthew Smith. After all, Mr Smith is only 20 years old and would hence be subject to these new arrangements. I wonder if he thinks this proposal is fair.

The unnecessarily contradictory nature of this bill is further illustrated by the Queensland government's submission to the AIRC inquiry into junior pay rates. The Queensland submission proposes a competency based system by progression. This would bring legislation in line with the arrangements that prevail for the rest of the work force. The submission endorses the gradual introduction of competency based wages for those under 21 on an industry by industry basis. These would initially be based on current junior rates of pay. Until such arrangements are established, the existing system in each industry would remain.

There is no need to implement a hurried and inequitable policy like the one proposed in this bill. It would be far more appropriate to progressively work through each industry and agreement in order to establish a non-discriminatory basis for paying young people what they are due according to their work contribution. However, given the minister's disregard for the AIRC inquiry and its findings, I doubt whether he would have contemplated any sensible transitional arrangements put forward by the Queensland government. Instead, Minister Reith has set about undermining the AIRC and its inquiry into junior rates of pay. Section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 established that the full bench of the AIRC would conduct an inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. The fact that the AIRC was directed to examine non-discriminatory alternatives clearly indicates that it would not be preferable to discriminate against young people.

When he instigated the inquiry, Mr Reith said it would ensure `a fair deal in the end'. Non-discriminatory alternatives, like those put forward by the Queensland government, have been uncovered during the process of the inquiry, but now Mr Reith wants to institutionalise junior rates of pay before the inquiry has made its report. How can the inquiry ensure the fair deal for young people that Mr Reith promised when its findings will not even be taken into consideration? Junior rates of pay will be a fait accompli before 22 June, when the inquiry is due to present its findings to the minister.

This incredible turn of events begs a couple of questions. Why is Mr Reith trying to rush this bill through parliament when the inquiry pertaining to it has not been completed? The date of 22 June was chosen for the presentation of the inquiry's findings because this will still be a full year before the current provisions are due to expire. There is no need to hurry the process along at this stage unless Mr Reith is feeling frightened that the inquiry will scuttle his plans to enforce junior rates of pay. At this stage, it looks like there might be a number of preferable options that do not involve unnecessary discrimination against young Australians. Why is Mr Reith so set on enforcing discriminatory industrial relations arrangements on young people? He seems to be hell-bent on persecuting the young, even if it is proven to be entirely unnecessary and avoidable.

Many Australians will also be wondering why their tax dollars are being spend on an inquiry when the minister has already disregarded its findings. It seems that no-one is receiving the fair deal the minister promised from this inquiry. Minister Reith's actions indicate a complete disregard and disrespect for proper parliamentary processes and accountability. He has initiated an AIRC inquiry to which he is completely unaccountable. It does not matter what the inquiry concludes, he has already gone ahead and done exactly as he pleased. All the expert witnesses and submissions made to the inquiry obviously cannot surpass the overarching wisdom of the minister for industrial relations! This inquiry has been a farce and those who have taken part in it have the right to be thoroughly insulted by the arrogance of this minister who brings the entire parliamentary process into disrepute by his actions.

Mr Reith's recently leaked cabinet-in-confidence plans to restore full employment revealed an underlying desire to do away with the AIRC altogether. This seems totally logical in the context of the junior rates issue. Why would the purveyor of all wisdom need such a body? He is already making all the decisions himself.

The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association is one of the largest unions in Australia and represents an extraordinarily large proportion of young people in the work force in this country. They have presented an excellent submission to the federal commission outlining an effective case to show that Mr Reith's proposal to maintain junior rates of pay is a discriminatory practice. They acknowledge that in some cases there may be a need for junior rates of pay, but stress this is not across industry in general. Their argument is that, if people in the workplace are doing exactly the same job on an equal level, why should the person who is 18 receive less pay than his or her work mates who are 10 or 20 years older? The principle here—and it is a very important principle—is that work of equal value demands equal pay. This is the crux of the matter. That is the real issue of this debate.

In justifying the Work for the Dole program, the coalition's rhetoric leaned heavily on the concept of mutual obligation. I would therefore like to revisit this notion of mutual obligation in the context of the current debate. Work for the Dole was touted as a way for young unemployed people to contribute something to the community in return for government support. This government now seeks to shirk its obligations to support young people who are already willingly contributing to Australia's community and economy. It seeks to institute a set of disincentives so severe that many young people will be reconsidering whether it is worthwhile looking for work at all. How does this government dare to speak of mutual obligation when it is trying to remove the very provisions set in place to ensure that young people are not discriminated against in the workplace? It is trying to prevent young people from getting an honest day's pay for an honest day's work when no other group in the community has been singled out for such treatment. Why don't the concepts of fairness and equity extend to young people as well?

This government has been hypocritical in promoting mutual obligation while shirking its own responsibility to support younger Australians in the work force. This bill is intrinsically discriminatory towards young people, and it is not just a matter of denying them an honest day's pay either. This bill has significant social implications for the way young people are perceived within our community. It also has implications with regard to how young people perceive themselves and their own social responsibilities within Australian society.

Since 1973, 18-year-olds have had the right to vote. This means that young Australians play an equal role with all other adults in deciding who governs their country. At 18, people are held criminally liable for their actions and are sentenced in court as adults. At 18, young people can join the military and go overseas to fight and even die for their country. An 18-year-old also consumes alcohol and for all intents and purposes is considered to take on the responsibilities of an adult before the community and the law. Becoming an adult involves all of these responsibilities, but it should also involve some rights as well.

If this bill becomes law, 18-year-olds will still have all of these responsibilities, but the right to be paid an honest day's pay for a hard day's work will be removed. This government cannot have it both ways. As a community we expect young people to assume responsibility for themselves and their actions. How can we in good conscience ask them to fulfil the responsibilities of adult life without giving them the rights we take for granted as adults in a democratic society?

This bill portrays people under 21 as second-class citizens who do not deserve the rights bestowed on other adults. How are young people ever to feel a sense of belonging in an atmosphere that denigrates them and singles them out for contempt? The duplicity of this government's concept of mutual obligation can be more fully appreciated if we consider the social upheavals being faced by this generation. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Richard Eckersley highlighted some of the major social problems facing young Australians. Surely, if this government takes its commitments to mutual obligation seriously, it must have a responsibility to address some of these long-term problems that continue to plague our youth in the 1990s.

Mr Eckersley cited increases in family breakdown, youth unemployment, child poverty, education pressures and media influence as some of the main pressures on young Australians. The youth unemployment rate was 20.3 per cent in 1997-98, up from 3.3 per cent in 1967 and 14.9 per cent in 1989-90. Opiate overdose deaths, excluding suicide, among Australians aged 15 to 44 increased almost sevenfold between 1979 and 1997. The suicide rate for males aged to 20 to 24 rose from 29 per 100,000 in 1986 to 42 per 100,000 in 1997.

Recent surveys of youth attitudes have shown they are regarding social institutions, especially government, with growing cynicism and mistrust. Many are no longer willing to serve or believe in the system, and who could blame them? A lot of young people are feeling alienated and detached from mainstream society. Governments have failed to adequately address the very real problems facing our youth every day. Now this government is jamming the concept of mutual obligation down their throats as though they have something to be thankful for.

While this government has failed to solve the problem of youth unemployment, it continues to begrudge young people unemployment benefits. This has already been demonstrated by its dogged commitment to the Work for the Dole program under the banner of mutual obligation. Now apparently young people are mutually obliged to forgo an honest day's pay in return for the wonderful opportunities this government has provided for them. What an insult! No wonder young people are increasingly feeling alienated from the mainstream. No wonder they are expressing a growing contempt for government institutions and authority.

Young Australians are continually being used as scapegoats for the problems in society this government has failed to address. `What is wrong with the youth of today' seems a very popular catchcry in the 1990s. Maybe what is wrong with the youth of today is they are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated by government rhetoric and inaction on the issues that are most important to them.

If this bill goes ahead, they will not even be able to be properly paid for the daily contributions they make to our economy and society. No wonder our youth often seem disrespectful and irreverent. This bill is a nonsense. It is designed to exploit the young people of this country so they can be used as nothing more than cheap labour, and it deserves to be defeated and thrown in the rubbish bin.