Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11162] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will be taking a couple of calls on the bill. I appreciate that this debate is about the title and the substance of the bill is really contained in clause 4. My next speech will be focused around that. 
It is extraordinary is it not? We had the bill starting off as the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and it was a complete abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. The promoter of the bill Sue Bradford was very proud of that fact; that she was standing up for the rights of the oppressed youth throughout the nation. National opposed that abolition. We saw the age period 16 and 17 as quite a short period and in fact we think the bill provides some perverse incentives basically to encourage youngsters to leave school earlier than they might otherwise do. 
We now have a change to “New Entrants” which is actually misleading. I would have to agree with the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples that it is misleading. The whole point of the bill still if one reads clause 4 is about 16 and 17-year-olds whereas in fact it is a pretence that it is only new entrants. I also note the point that Dr Sharples was making about the 90-day legislation which he supported and in which I had made amendments to make it easier for the Maori Party to support in the long run. They know that. They were given plenty of notice on that. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are talking about the title not the 90-day legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes obviously the member wants his speech cut short. Keep to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was merely commenting on a previous speech which of course one is entitled to do provided one does not digress too much. 
Returning to the title issue it is actually now I think a misleading title to refer to it solely as “New Entrants”. The core of the bill is still about 16 and 17-year-olds and relates directly to the abolition of age discrimination which was the original title of the bill. So I have to ask the promoter of the bill why she agreed to this change. In fact she should have stuck to her kaupapa and said “this is actually about 16 and 17-year-olds only and it is about abolition of age discrimination.” That at least would meet the requirement of legislation which is to tell the public what it is about. The new title unfortunately fails that most basic of tests. 
How can we be sitting in this Parliament today purporting to pass legislation through the Committee stage with a title that is actually misleading? At the very minimum there should have been some reference to the fact of the age discrimination issues. Maybe it could have been called the “New Entrants Age Discrimination Removal Bill”—something like that would have at least connected the new idea with the 90-day period and the purpose of the bill: the abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
I should say that National is still fundamentally unconvinced that this measure is necessary; we do not believe it is. We believe as indeed is evident people are able to negotiate these kinds of arrangements and one such negotiation has already occurred. So employers have flexibility; they have different requirements and demands. While it is easier for large employers such as Progressive Enterprises it is not so easy for smaller employers. So we still remain unconvinced of the merits or the necessity of the bill. 
Clearly we recognise that it has been improved and I would have to put that on record. Clearly the bill has been improved and one of the issues that was raised through the select committee process was in fact the whole issue of new entrants—a training period if one will. The promoter of the bill will recall the discussion from the National side of the Committee on those very points and we do note that there has been some accommodation of that. But on the issue of the general principle we feel the bill is an excessive intrusion into the freedom of employment arrangements between people. We believe it will act still as a perverse incentive that will stop people furthering education and training but we understand the intent of the bill.