Ryall Tony: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5137] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to make it very clear that the National Party in Opposition is opposing this bill. The reason we are opposing it is that it will cost jobs it will cost the taxpayers through increased benefits and it will cost business through additional compliance costs. Do members know how I know that? I know because in this piece of paper known as the bill the Government has told Parliament that that will happen. That is why the National Party is moving an amendment stating that the title of the bill should reflect what the bill does. 
Our amendment states that the bill should be referred to as the “Repeal of the Training Exemption Bill”. That is a fairer description of what this bill does. It could also be called “The Bill That is Going to Cost Young People Training Opportunities Bill”. That is exactly what it will do and I can justify that on the basis of the Government’s own report to this House. In the explanatory note to the bill under the heading “Statement of net benefit of this proposal” the Government says there will be an impact on the Government’s finances from increased benefit payments. That means the dole. That means that kids who at the moment are getting the training exemption—and the words “training exemption” should be in the title of the bill—are going to lose their jobs. The Government says so on page 3 of the explanatory note. 
On page 4 of the explanatory note our left-wing minority Labour Government says there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. The bill states there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. That is what this bill will do as a result of removing the minimum wage exemption for young people in training and what is more the Government’s own document says there will be additional costs on business. 
Members need to know what this bill does. Right now it says that young people who are learning skills the equivalent of 60 credits on the national framework will not be covered by the minimum wage. The reason they do that is that many of the job opportunities the on-the-job training opportunities for young people have an element of training that costs the employer and part of the deal is that there is a lower compensation for those workers because they are getting the added benefit of on-the-job training—and do we not need as much on-the-job training as possible? The Government’s own document says that all the money being spent on training schemes up and down the country is wasted because it is not contributing to people getting into work. 
The National Party is opposed to anything that will add increased costs to business cause inflexibility to the labour market and cost young people jobs. That is why we want to change the title of the bill. This bill is not about the minimum wage; it is about removing the exemption and that will affect a whole lot of young people—26000 young people the select committee was advised. The Government’s own documentation—the report that the Government has tabled in this Parliament—states there will be an adverse impact on the Government’s finances from increased benefit payments. That means that some of those 26000 young people will lose their training jobs and go on the dole. That is what the Government is telling Parliament. Is that the reason United Future members want to support this bill? Do they want to support it so that 26000 young people can lose their jobs? I will be shocked if United Future members support this bill. I ask them not to so that young people can have training opportunities. I ask New Zealand First members to give those 26000 young people an opportunity. I say to them: “Don’t don’t don’t support this bill.” because the Government itself says that young people will lose their jobs. This bill will add to the inflexibility and the rigidities in the labour market.