Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11172] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk to clause 4 of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Kate Wilkinson referred to the Supplementary Order Paper and I will not attempt to unravel the lawyer-speak that the member presented to us in that last speech. I think that is unnecessary actually because I think it is far simpler than she is saying. 
The fundamental thing about this bill that perhaps some people have not understood is that we are talking about the minimum wage here. We are talking about a minimum wage. Maybe members opposite do not understand what the minimum wage is for. A minimum wage sets a floor below which no employer can pay. It is about having a socially acceptable minimum wage. 
I heard the member Paula Bennett calling out to ask what unions are doing. Well I think we have seen what unions can do with the Progressive Enterprises settlement—and the Spotless settlement has in fact set a whole new benchmark of $14.25 an hour. That is what unions are able to do. This legislation is for workers who are vulnerable and who rely on this but it was never intended to be the primary wage-fixing instrument. So let us just remember that too. 
I think the other thing we should remember is that we have come a long way but boy did we have a long way to come! When Labour became the Government in 1999 16 and 17-year-olds—and indeed 18 19 and 20-year-olds—were being paid $4.20 an hour. That is shameful absolutely shameful! The first thing Labour did was to lift the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. What is wrong with that? Now their pay is nearly three times what it was in 1999. The minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds has increased by more than 100 percent during the same period. What is wrong with that? That is fantastic. 
We have provided legislation for other workers to have a minimum wage—for example workers with disabilities. In a few weeks the House will be debating my member’s bill about dependent contractors being entitled to a minimum wage. What is wrong with that? What we are talking about is people getting paid socially acceptable minimum wages. 
What is wonderful about this bill and about clause 4 is that thousands and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will get a pay increase after they have done 200 hours of work or have worked for 3 months whichever is the lesser period. Again I acknowledge Sue Bradford. She has done a wonderful job in bringing this issue to the House and the parties who vote in support of this clause tonight will be making history. As I have said in a previous debate it is world leading. 
I say to the members of the Maori Party that I am a bit puzzled about why they would choose to make no progress at all and to leave the current injustice in place so that 16 and 17-year-olds continue to get the youth minimum wage for 2 years rather than to make progress. One of the things that I have understood for many years as a union negotiator is that if one asks for 10 percent and gets 8 percent one does not say to the boss: “Sorry that is not good enough. We will have nothing.” It is better to make progress and that is what I think this bill does. A whole lot of workers out there are saying that this is a whole lot better than nothing and that they are looking forward to getting a pay increase. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 which was moved by the Minister Ruth Dyson locks in the adult wage for 16 and 17-year-olds. This means that a future Government under the Minimum Wage Act cannot go back to having a youth minimum wage apart from the new entrant period. This is fantastic—unless of course a future Government changes the law; let us not let that happen. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 also locks in the provision that if a worker is supervising other workers then the new entrant provision does not apply and the worker goes straight on to the adult minimum wage. That is fantastic. What is wrong with that? 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes sure that where the new entrant provision applies the worker gets 80 percent. At the moment there is no guarantee of that happening; the worker gets whatever the boss chooses to pay. So that locks it in too. 
As I have already mentioned the new entrant provision applies for only 200 hours which is 5 weeks for a full-time worker or 3 months. It might be only an hour a week but hey we have made a judgment on that and we think that is fair given the nature of the industries that are covered by the minimum wage or the youth minimum wage—the retail industry the hospitality industry and so on. 
Once again for the benefit of the Maori Party this bill has nothing to do with probationary periods. This bill is amending a totally different Act of Parliament. It has nothing to do with Wayne Mapp’s bill even though he keeps trying to bring it up—he has not really got over it. Thank you.