Quadspeed

That is where you are sadly wrong they do NOT receive a LOWER wage they receive exactly the SAME wage, they just do not receive EXPAT BENEFITS.

Unfortunately they were employed WITHOUT this "depth of experience" and only GAINED it after their employment / training with CX, so there is NO discrimination.

quadspeed
You fail to understand the clock starts at the point of offer and acceptance, not when they arrive in Hong Kong. The point of offer for employment is after interview with a condition of passing their training in Adelaide.
Expats and locals actually receive the same wage. Cadets don't receive all the expat allowances. Cadets also may have been born with a right of residency else ware but gained it because their parents moved here for work.Let’s look at what Section 8 “Meaning of “race”, “on the ground of race”, “racial group” and comparison of cases of persons or different racial groups” paragraph 1a says:
For this section to be applicable to the original cadets, one has to ascertain if these cadets were employed on any of these grounds. Were they employed by CX because of their:

a. RACE: No
b. COLOUR: No
c. DESCENT OR NATIONAL OR ETHNIC ORIGIN: No
d. RIGHT OF ABODE IN HONG KONG: Yes

Race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin had no basis for the employment of these cadets. They were employed solely on their right to live in Hong Kong. Just because a large proportion of them are of a particular race is a consequence of requiring a right of abode in Hong Kong.
Flight ops management aren’t the ones pulling the strings here. This is a corporate directive from board level. I have no doubt that some management in FOP’s are concerned the direction the company is taking. Unfortunately none of them are prepared to take their concerns to the board. To do that unfortunately would be a career ender because it would involve punching above most of their pay grade, treading on toes along the way and probably telling them something that they don’t want to hear anyway.

By now, it should be clear to all, that since the mid-nineties, we have been sliding down the proverbial slippery slope. A cockpit crewed by experienced and seasoned pilots is no longer a priority.....in fact, in some circles it is seen as a financial burden. Rather than seek the best, most seasoned, most capable crews, the industry, as a whole, is experimenting......how low an experience level can they tolerate paying for? If you can risk your head exploding, google multi-crew licence for an example of the insanity that is allowed to pervade our industry these days.

It's sad really. No senior pilot seems able or willing to explain the cost/risk analysis of inexperienced pilots to the cost conscious members of any airline board......

Yes, we were all inexperienced at one time. And yes, we all had 300 hours at one time. But the industry standard then was to pair us with more experienced pilots, or limited us to flying smaller planes, or planes with ejection seats, until we gathered enough experience to cope with the challenge of more risk/responsibility...and then we moved up. Each and every other industry/profession on the planet follows this time tested principle.

The following article states the case better than I can:

Cockpit crisis - World - Macleans.ca