PhD students are already years past being "apprentices". You have to already done at least 4 years of study (3 year undergraduate + honours year at minimum) to start a PhD, and most will have done 5 or more (undergraduate + 2 year research masters)

The “but they’re working on curing children’s cancer!!!1!” is just an emotional hook to generate moral outrage. There are plenty of PhDs getting 18 an hour researching weapons systems, but they don’t make the news.

The first of those jobs is constructive and beneficial to both Australia and to humankind as a whole. The second is destructive and literally helps kill people. It's invalid to trivialise that difference down to "moral outrage" - in fact morality need not be involved at all - health research is a vital job I'd like to see rewarded better.

Working on curing childhood cancer is emotional because it's something that we as a society value collectively but clearly aren't compensating the work enough. Why should we pay a pittance to people who have 5+ years of training under their belt? Is it simply because they'll make more in the future? That sounds like a pretty exploitative system to me.