Aplan by the Government to exempt youth wages from anti-discrimination law appears doomed even before the legislation is introduced in Parliament. Independent Senator Brian Harradine and the Democrats feel that the Government’s action is a breach of a deal struck in 1996 to have this subjected to an inquiry by the Industrial Relations Commission which is not expected to be finalised until next June. The exemption for youth wages from the anti-discrimination law runs out a year later, in June 2000.
The Government’s ultimate position on youth wages may have a great deal of merit, but the way it is going about it seems unnecessarily provocative. The present regime of youth wages is set to continue for the next 20 months anyway. That regime allows various awards which set pay rates according to a person’s age, which would be an illegal discrimination on the ground of age unless there were an exemption. The Government wants the exemption to continue indefinitely beyond the present June, 2000, cut-off.
The Government makes a very pertinent argument in saying that if employers are forced to pay adult wages for all workers, they will simply not employ as many young workers. However, there would have been no harm in awaiting the commission’s inquiry. Even if the inquiry did not side with the Government it still could have gone ahead with legislation afterwards and been in no worse position.
It seems as if the Government and Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith wanted to prove some other point, to get some runs on the board early, or perhaps have some legislation ready to be used as a trigger for a double dissolution later on if the climate improves for the Government.
The unfortunate outcome here is that Mr Reith may have jeopardised his chance to keep the youth wage regime. And it will be an unfortunate outcome because Mr Reith is correct on the fundamental point: that if the youth wage regime goes, more young people will be in the unemployment queue. Moreover, it seems unlikely that the Democrats and Senator Harradine will see that point.
There is perhaps a paradox in this Government supporting a regulatory approach that sets percentages of the adult wage for young people, though perhaps the Government can argue that all it is doing is to support a legislative approach in order to overcome what it sees as the pernicious effects of other legislation, namely the discrimination laws.
There is some truth to that. Moreover there would be no need for a youth-wage exemption if adult wages were not so regulated in the first place.
It may well be that the Government is merely acting to support employers faced with larger wage bills, even so that does not detract from the fundamental point: in a system such as Australia’s which sets wage rates for adults in a range of industries and skill levels, it is inevitable that employers will avoid employing young people if they have to pay the same wages for them as adults and the irony will be that a law which is there to prevent discrimination on the basis of age will have exactly the opposite effect. Sure, on paper youth will be treated equally, but on the ground the effect will be they will not get a job at all.