Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11592] 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. For too long young workers in this country have been underpaid and devalued. When I started work on this bill just after the 2005 election I was motivated by anger at the unfairness of the way in which 16 and 17-year-old workers were paid less for doing the same job simply because of their age and also by a broader concern at the way in which so many older people in this country disrespect the young. It is a disrespect that the pay differential simply serves to magnify. 
The bill we are passing today goes some way towards remedying both these problems and I am grateful for the support the Green Party found from enough parties in this House to see the bill through. I know that it has been a tough call for MPs in some parties to see their way clear to supporting the elimination of age-based employment discrimination but at least we have got there almost. I am hopeful that in a few years’ time equal pay for equal work on the basis of age will not be seen as the radical notion some people seem to see it as today. 
I am of course sorry that the clarity of my original purpose—to completely remove youth rates for 16 and 17-year-olds—has been watered down but the compromise we have ended up with still marks a huge improvement on the status quo. From 1 April 2008 16 and 17-year-old workers will have to be paid the minimum adult wage once they have completed 3 months or 200 hours of work with any employer whichever period is the shorter. If they are supervising or training other workers then they will have to be paid the adult wage full stop. 
The new entrants wage for the first 3 months or 200 hours will still be paid at 80 percent of the adult rate. Personally I think this is superfluous. By the age of 16 many young people in our country have already been in the paid workforce for some time—for months if not for years. Even if they have not every person who is new on the job needs time to learn the ropes and to be oriented to the new workplace whether they are 16 25 or 60. 
However although the Greens do not support the new entrants wage concept we do accept the realities of political compromise and I am grateful to the Labour Party New Zealand First United Future Jim Anderton and Taito Phillip Field for helping to get the bill this far. I would also particularly acknowledge Maori Party members who are opposing the bill in its amended form but who are in fact its fiercest supporters. I am grateful for the Maori Party’s unflinching and uncompromising support for the bill as originally conceived rather than in its watered-down version and I hope that one day their party and ours and others will join in going the whole way in abolishing youth rates altogether. 
This bill even as it was originally drafted was a compromise all along. Right from the start I was criticised in some quarters—and rightfully so—for putting up a bill that did not do away with age discrimination altogether but maintained it for workers under 16. There were two main reasons why I did not take the bill down that path. The first was pragmatic. I did not think a bill that did that would have had any chance of succeeding in this Parliament and I think that events have proved that to be so. 
The second reason was that although I do not support wage discrimination on the basis of age for under-16-year-olds I do think we need some serious thinking and discussion in this country around the issues of children and young people in paid work. At what age should our children enter the paid workforce? Do we think that some jobs are OK at certain ages and some are not? On what basis do we make that decision? Why are some jobs seen to be worth less than others? Where do we draw which line? How do we stop some children being exploited in basically slave labour conditions? That is something that still happens here to which we as a society remain almost completely blind. 
I hope that the debate around this bill will help trigger serious consideration of these issues by the Government other political parties trade unions employers churches and non-governmental organisations. In the end I hope we will have a society that recognises that if someone is doing an adult job on an adult job description then that person should get adult wages. We must also protect our children from having to go out to work too young or from working in conditions or for wages that are untenable by anyone’s standards. 
I sometimes cringe when I hear human rights groups and people of goodwill rightfully rail against slave child labour in other countries while not acknowledging the increasing use of child labour as defined by the International Labour Organization that is occurring here. Addressing this issue will take more than a member’s bill and I hope that the Minister of Labour takes up this issue and includes it as part of the Government’s employment relations work programme. I can assure her that she will have the support of the Green Party if she does. 
Now I will make a particular acknowledgment of some of the organisations that did so much to help ensure that this bill got through. Above all I would like to pay my respects to two particular trade unions the National Distribution Union and my own union Unite! which both put a huge effort in people power and resources into mobilising against discriminatory youth rates. Right from the start both the National Distribution Union and Unite! organised on the job on the streets in the union movement and with MPs to demand an end to unequal pay for young workers. Along with other groups like students associations the Council of Trade Unions youth union movement and Radical Youth they organised some of the loudest and most colourful rallies and demonstrations we have seen on the streets of Auckland and Wellington for some years. 
Young workers told their own stories of exploitation naming and shaming youth rates employers as well as placing this struggle well and truly within the broader struggle for youth and worker rights. They not only took to the streets they also came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and made far more perceptive and intelligent submissions than did some of those people who opposed the bill. 
Young workers and their unions also included the issue in their bargaining claims. With some employers such as Postie Plus and BP they have succeeded in abolishing youth rates altogether. With others such as Progressive Enterprises and Restaurant Brands they have started the process to eliminate youth rates which I am sure will soon be a total elimination further assisted by this bill. Beyond this core of support the Council of Trade Unions and the rest of the union movement pitched in alongside groups like youth organisations community law centres church agencies the Office of the Children’s Commissioner the Human Rights Commission and many others. 
I will also make a brief comment on submissions that opposed the bill. I was surprised at the low level of opposition from the business sector. It was as if in most cases these submitters went through the motions of opposing the bill without their heart really being in it. In fact I had to rely on some of the business submissions to negotiate the final compromises to allow the bill to go through. Perhaps I should not have been so surprised by the lack of opposition from that quarter. I have been interested to read a couple of employer polls over the last 2 years that showed the majority of employers in some places do not in fact support the continuation of youth rates. Also some major newspaper editorials have come out in full support of the bill. 
These business and editorial comments have left the National Party completely exposed on this issue. Its opposition at the Committee stage was I believe purely token. The refrain seemed to be: “We do not believe in age-based wage discrimination but we do not want Parliament to do anything to reduce or eliminate it.” What a cop-out! It is time the National Party turned its back on the knee-jerk anti-worker attitudes that have infused that party for so long. Those members should instead support this and other progressive pro-worker legislation rather than pandering to the predilections of some of its more reactionary backers. 
Finally I want to comment on the hand grenade that the Ministry of Justice tossed into the select committee proceedings in the form of its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance report. This report stated that the way current regulations that provided for youth rates in the minimum wage could be considered ultra vires—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is just going over the top. I am sorry to interrupt the member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I made a ruling Mr Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And that was? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am on my feet I am making a ruling— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Oh look the member will not argue with me while I am on my feet. The member will leave the Chamber now. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Like a hand grenade that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance report seemed to stun the rest of the select committee which preferred not to deal with the issues raised in it regardless of my attempts to put those issues back on the table. I still have a niggle that the compromise reached in this bill may not meet the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance test. However the amended bill does take us a long way down the path to completely removing discrimination based on age in our Minimum Wage Act. 
I am pleased with what we have achieved today. I look forward to the time when youth wages discrimination will disappear completely not only from the Minimum Wage Act but also from the Human Rights Act and from every collective and individual employment agreement in this country. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to this third reading of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill we appreciate that the purpose is to provide for an adult minimum rate for new entrants who are defined as being workers who are 16 or 17 and who have completed 3 months or 200 hours of employment whichever is the shorter. We know that the bill originally started out to abolish youth rates for 16 and 17-year-olds and then it became amended to provide for this new entrant criteria to “recognise the experience that they have gained” in that “very short time.” That experience is translated simplistically into 3 months or 200 hours of employment but there is nothing stated about the position or about the training given and received. In fact there is no mention at all of the quality of the hours worked. 
There is a limitation that the employment be with more than one employer. I still think that it should read “one or more employers” because it simply does not make sense otherwise. If a young person happens to work for four different employers doing 100 hours with one 50 for one 25 with two the total is still 200 hours. That assumes that the skills and experience in all four of those jobs are transferable. Furthermore the 90-days condition is silent absolutely silent on how much that work may actually be. Is it 1 day a month for 3 months? Is it full time for 90 days or part time for 90 days? This is uncertain law and uncertain law is not good law. 
The bill may indeed be well-intentioned law though. In fact during the second reading debate Government speakers acknowledged that this legislation is for workers who are vulnerable. Nobody condones the exploitation of vulnerable workers whatever their age. I do not think there will be much disagreement that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. But what will this bill actually achieve? Will it prevent and outlaw exploitation of vulnerable workers or will it be a barrier to young persons getting a job? Will it be a perverse incentive for them to leave school and not complete their education? The Minister herself even acknowledged—and on this I have to agree—that “we do not want to send the message to young people that leaving school early with no qualifications is a good idea.” That is where our agreement ends. The Minister does not think this bill will drive that message. We have concerns that that is exactly what will happen. 
I have to say that our view is backed by the research paper recently of Dr Gail Pacheco and based on her thesis  
Minimum wages in New Zealand: An empirical inquiry 
 she says: “Policy-makers must consider the possible long-term harm of a rise in youth minimum wage. Given the option employers may switch to hiring people with more skills and education or older people with more experience. Older workers 20 or 25-plus will be hired because if you’re going to pay workers the same you might as well pay for skill and experience.” What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? This bill we fear will be that barrier. 
The  
Gisborne Herald 
—and I know the honourable member Sue Bradford mentioned some editorials—actually reinforces that view. I quote: “There are some aspects of the proposed move to increase youth wages to the same as adult rates that could be counterproductive. Instead of helping youngsters it could limit their job opportunities. What it boils down to is that the Government would be placing youngsters with little or no work experience in direct competition with people who have many years of work experience well developed work ethics and motivation. What employers don’t want is to be forced to pay a young person the same as an older person when they are not providing the same value. A business is only as good as its product. And productivity relies on the input of staff managers and owners. They are always on the lookout for people who want to work and bring their own special contribution to the workforce. They don’t need a bill.” 
Dr Pacheco also found that where youth rates increase enrolments at secondary and tertiary education institutions decrease. This bill has the potential to be a perverse incentive encouraging young people out of the education system and to leave school early. We have already announced our significant trades training policy so that more of our young people can stay engaged in schools. We should be encouraging them to stay in education for as long as possible. 
In a further research paper—this one was in the UK and I know there is a tendency by this Government to try to model if not replicate some of the UK laws—in the September issue of the  
Industrial Relations Journal 
 in the UK Jason Heyes stated: “The Low Pay Commission … the body charged with making recommendations to the government on the level and extent of minimum wage protection took the view that ‘16-17-year-olds form a distinct segment of the labour market preparing for working life rather than being full participants in the workforce … and ideally all 16-17-year-olds should be receiving education or good quality training.’ The exemption of young workers from the NMW”—national minimum wage—“was presented as a way of ‘supporting the training base’ by safeguarding opportunities for young people to gain qualifications skills and experience and ensuring that young workers would not ‘find themselves locked into low-skilled low-paid jobs—or even worse the cycle of low-paid work and unemployment.’ ” 
This bill instead of providing safeguards for our young people is removing those opportunities. Training is more than just 3 months with no criteria as to how much work in that 3 months is required. It is more than 200 hours. It relates to experience training skills obtained and qualification. This bill does not address that. The Minister herself admitted that we need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have against the possible negative impact of an incentive for 16 and 17-year-olds to leave school earlier with fewer qualifications. We do not believe this bill achieves that balance. 
I can see no reason why a 16-year-old would not be paid the same or a similar rate to a 20-year-old a 30-year-old or even a 40-year-old provided they do the same work and make the same contribution. I mentioned earlier that one submitter said: “Younger people tend to be paid at a lower rate than older workers because age is a proxy for experience and performance on the job just as the age of 15 is a proxy for the minimum capacity and maturity required to drive a car on our roads.” Legislation like this—whatever its purpose; whatever its intention—cannot change overnight the amount of experience and performance capabilities of any worker whatever his or her age. 
We welcome a fair wage for fair work. We welcome the fact that many employers voluntarily pay above the adult minimum wage in any event because they value their staff. Staff are valuable. Businesses rely on them and productivity relies on them; they should be paid what they are worth. But this bill is not the right instrument. We do not want young people to be priced off the labour market. We do not want young people to leave education prematurely. I have asked before what good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? This bill we fear will be that barrier. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great satisfaction to support the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking Sue Bradford from the Green Party for her introduction of this bill. I recognise that the bill we are considering today differs markedly from the approach that Sue initially took to this issue. But I believe that the bill achieves a balanced way forward for the 16 and 17-year-old New Zealand workers. 
Balance is in fact the best way to describe the bill and the process that the bill has gone through. A balance was needed between those who wanted the abolition of youth rates and those who supported the status quo or—in the case of the National Party—something even worse. A balance was needed between the rights of young workers the perspective of the unions and the perspective of the employers. But perhaps most important a balance was needed in this Parliament to gain support for the bill. That is the reality of an MMP environment. 
Our Government is very proud of this achievement which is another step forward in the steady progress towards ensuring all workers—including young workers—have fair minimum wage protection. The bill provides a 3-month maximum time limit for new entrants in addition to the 200-hour maximum that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended. Those 16 and 17-year-olds who work full-time will now be able to reach the adult minimum wage in as little as 5 weeks while those who work part-time while pursuing their education will receive the adult minimum wage after 3 months or 200 hours. Labour recognises that often employees who are aged 16 or 17 do the same work as adults. But we also recognise that time is needed for those workers to gain the socialisation skills necessary for working. We believe that the time frames that the new entrants rate will apply allows that learning of soft skills while respecting the value of the work that young people do. 
Clarification has been included in the bill that the new entrants minimum wage will not apply to young people who work as supervisors. I think that is a great step forward for our youth and I am particularly pleased that the bill specifically provides for this as it fairly reflects the value of supervisory skills. I am also pleased that the bill allows all employment undertaken once the young person turns 16 to be taken into account even if it was undertaken before the commencement of this bill. That means that many thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will have already completed their qualifying time when this bill comes into effect and will move immediately to the adult minimum wage which our Government increased to $11.25 per hour on 1 April this year. That was an increase of a whole dollar an hour—the largest ever increase and something it took the previous National Government almost a decade to achieve. For 9 years the adult minimum wage stayed at nearly exactly the same rate under National except for a pathetic increase of $1 an hour over the entire years. At that same time young people were included at the youth minimum rate right up to the age of 20. 
The bill comes into effect on 1 April next year and replaces the youth minimum wage rate which is currently $9 an hour with a new entrants minimum wage. The actual rate will depend on the outcome of the minimum wage review which is already under way. Our Government has a commitment confirmed in our confidence and supply agreement with both New Zealand First and the Green Party to move the adult minimum wage to $12 an hour before the end of this term of Parliament if economic conditions allow. So if the minimum wage does rise to $12 an hour on 1 April next year the new entrants minimum wage would also rise to $9.60 an hour in line with our intention that the new entrants minimum wage would remain at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
We will need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have for thousands of young workers against the possible negative impact of an incentive for them to leave school earlier with fewer qualifications. I do not want to send the message to our young people that leaving school with minimal qualifications is an idea supported by our Parliament. In my view this bill will not give that message. Our increase in the youth minimum wage over the past years has shown negligible impact on the number of young people who are leaving school early. In fact if anything it has allowed people to stay at school longer as part-time jobs are better paid and they are more easily able to balance work and school without working long hours. 
Under the National-led Government the youth minimum wage which is at the point of this debate applied to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Under National a person did not become an adult in terms of the wage he or she earned until the age of 20. What is more the youth rate was set at 60 percent of the adult rate not the current 80 percent. It is new to increase the youth minimum wage; that has been happening only in the last 8 years under a Labour-led Government. 
 When National was last in Government there were 17500 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit despite the fact that the youth rate then was so low that an employer could have employed 20 people in any business and it would have made hardly a little bump in his or her wage bill. The youth rates then under National were a pittance. What is that unemployment figure now? Under the National Government which was last in office in 1999 17500 18 and 19-year-olds were on the unemployment benefit. The rate now is fewer than 1000 people. There are fewer than 1000 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit now. Those are the statistics that National should think about before it comes into this Chamber and raises spurious arguments in opposition to improving the way that 16 and 17-year-olds are recognised through their wage packet. I am pleased we have been able to reach a position that is supported by the sponsor of the bill because this bill has been promoted for the betterment of young people so that the contribution they make in the paid workforce is properly valued. The amendment applies to all employment regardless of whether it is a first second third or fourth job. 
I am pleased about this great step forward that the bill represents for New Zealand young people. There is more debate to be had on these and related issues but this bill is certainly a magnificent step forward. I conclude by acknowledging again the voices of young people unions and employers who submitted on the bill. I thank my colleagues in the House for the contribution they have made in strengthening and clarifying the intent behind the bill when it was debated during the Committee stage. I particularly acknowledge the hard work the select committee members have done towards the detail. This bill is another example of the Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by the changes. I commend the speedy passage of this bill. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The sponsor of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford must feel very flattered. This afternoon’s proceedings started with a message from the Governor-General. We could not work out why the Governor-General had sent a message about the bill. New Zealand First members were mystified. We concluded that the Crown must have been underpaying Prince William and Prince Harry for some time and did not want to get caught by the net. But the mundane reason was given to us in due course. We would still like to compliment Sue Bradford. She stuck to this issue and was determined to deliver. She wanted to go a bit further than this bill goes but she has accepted it—finally because I know that at one time she was going to reject it. She has accepted the bill as a reasonable compromise. I think it reflects her efforts very well and is a very reasonable compromise. 
I have to say that I am disappointed with the National Party. Those guys could and should be doing better. [ 
Interruption 
] They should be doing better. There is a new member over there David Bennett; if he sat and listened for a little while then he would understand that the National Party is putting itself in a terrible predicament when it comes to dealing with young people or indeed people generally in the workforce. Wayne Mapp understands that. The National Party has never been supportive of a minimum wage in concept. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: We have never opposed it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well the National Party has never opposed a minimum wage but when National was in power between 1990 and 1996 the minimum wage went up—members should listen to this—by 25c. The minimum wage went up by 25c in 6 years! But to ensure that it was distributed fairly they introduced the youth minimum wage at 60 percent in 1994. Then New Zealand First came on the scene in 1997 and we increased the minimum wage by a relatively massive 62.5c. We are talking about a minimum wage of $7 after we had increased it. It went up under Labour to $9.50 in 2005 and by 2008 it will be $12. By and large young people will be on this minimum wage. It will be a significant help to young people and particularly to the young people whom I know that Sue Bradford is concerned about who actually work to help their family. 
The concern we have—and I want to be absolutely honest about it; that is why this intermediary step of a new entrants rate is acceptable to New Zealand First—is that we do not want a wage that will discourage people from staying at school and advancing their education. If we could give three assets to a young person on the verge of leaving school they would be education education education. [ 
Interruption 
] The member over there David Bennett thinks that that is a joke. I bet he stayed at school and got his education. He probably got it free on the taxpayer. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: He’s a lawyer. 
PETER BROWN 
: He’s a lawyer is he? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It was a waste of time educating him. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes. The National Party should also understand this issue because just about every other party understands it. Most employers are quite happy to see the minimum wage go up—maybe not for the early stages of a career but certainly very quickly. They do not see it as a restriction they want on age. In fact I think Kate Wilkinson told us last time she spoke on this bill in the Chamber that 85 percent of employers are quite happy to pay the minimum wage to young people across the board. The National Party does not even give credence to the employers. 
It is fair to say that some small employers will be upset by the passage of this bill because they like to think they give youngsters a chance and after 200 hours or 3 months—whichever comes first—they will be compelled to pay the full adult minimum wage. They tell us—and there is a degree of truth in this and it is a worrying degree of truth—that young people when they first go into the workforce do not place a priority on the business or on the work in hand; they place it more on their lifestyle and on their after-work activities. As a result some of the young people are unreliable and some of them are not as well dressed as perhaps they are required to be when they come to work. A lady made a submission to the select committee along those lines. I thought it was very well put. Hers was a concern that certainly registered with me. 
At the end of the day we have to make sure that youngsters get a fair go. We recognise that there should be adult wages for adult work. I think that is the term Sue Bradford used in her address. We accept that. If a young person goes and performs the work to the same degree as an adult to the same time frame and with the same degree of effort and skill or whatever then he or she should get the same wage. We are quite receptive to that idea. 
We have the worry—as I indicated earlier—that youngsters will leave school and think they will be on the adult minimum wage and will sacrifice their career. Equally we have the worry that some parents will say: “Well now you can go out and in a relatively short period of time you can earn the adult minimum wage.” and encourage their offspring to go into the workforce ahead of when they really should. Kids—youngsters—need an opportunity and many of them will get a greater opportunity from staying at school. We do not want to see this bill as an incentive for walking away from education. 
At least a couple of people whom I can recall coming to the select committee made a real impression on me. One was a young woman who worked in a hotel; the other was a young woman who worked in a cinema. They told us at length how long they had been in their jobs and what they did. Not only did they do the job that was in hand—and I am sure Mark Gosche will agree with this—they told us how they also took on new staff who were older than they were and who got paid more. These young people—and I have no doubt at all that they are very capable young people because of the way they presented themselves and how they put their case across—indicated that not only did they do their job but they also supervised people coming into those workplaces. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where’s this all going Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member thinks that young people should be discounted and disregarded. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: No; where is this story going? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am simply telling—if the member will listen— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I’ve been listening for about 14 minutes but it seems like an hour. 
PETER BROWN 
: Why does the member not take the advice of a very well-known former National Prime Minister and close his mouth and breathe through his nose for just a few moments and I will tell the member that these young people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think it is getting a bit raucous. Nobody can hear the member. Will members just desist thank you. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not even hear myself Madam Speaker. I just want to advocate for these young people who came before the select committee. They were in supervisory roles and training roles and they were getting paid 80 percent of the minimum wage. Frankly if those employers are concerned about this then they are their own worst enemy. 
There is an article here from the  
Dominion Post 
—[ 
Interruption 
]—and maybe the National member the man with the hollow mouth or the hollow head should take note of it. The article states that the rise in the minimum wage is long overdue. I suggest to National members as they are sitting there all looking dejected upset and totally appalled that we will give a wage rise to young people that they read this article. They should take it home at night and read it. It is good bedtime reading for National members. It will tell them exactly why young people deserve a fairer go in this society. 
New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill. We think the Minister’s compromise solution is the way to go and we congratulate Sue Bradford on being the proposer of the bill. I just say to National members before I finally sit down that if young people behaved the way that those members do then they would not be paid anything. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. Four years ago Radio Waatea carried an interview with a passionate union activist a veteran broadcaster an employer a board director a Maori rights campaigner a chief executive a man of Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou—the freedom fighter Syd Jackson. Syd issued a challenge that I believe has some relevance to the challenge of this Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. He said: “You have to be prepared to put yourself on the line to take to the streets to act to highlight and articulate your grievances. Simply get on and do the mahi …”. There is no better way to honour this leader than to honour today his lifelong campaign for justice through his standing up for our young people—standing up for our young people to get on to do the mahi without being discriminated against on the basis of their age. This bill purely and simply is about eradicating discrimination. It was a cause that Syd Jackson lived for: leaving nobody behind caring for te pani me te rawa kore and standing up for the poor and the impoverished.  
The Maori Party was proud to stand with Sue Bradford at the first reading on the bill to stand for the chance for young people to benefit from adequate employment protection. We argued that rangatahi should not be vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal or unilateral changes to their terms and conditions of employment. They had the right to freedom from discrimination—as in the Human Rights Act 1993. They had the right to benefit from the anti-age discrimination provisions set out in theNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They had the right to enjoy freedom of discrimination as the most fundamental freedom. They had the right to enjoy freedom from elitism sexism religious intolerance racism and ageism. They had the right to enjoy freedom from discrimination against beliefs and against cultural values. And they had the right to enjoy freedom from discrimination as manifest in slavery in racial profiling in hate crimes and in ethnic cleansing.  
Discrimination is not of course a novelty in Aotearoa. We recall as most members might remember a shameful history in the 1950s when it was not unheard of for landlords to erect signs saying “No Dogs or Maoris” outside accommodation. We had thought that there was sufficient progression in legislation to seriously challenge the systematic oppression and mistreatment of particular sectors of our community: Maori Pasifika the young the old and the vulnerable. The original bill convinced us that the discrimination that was being experienced by young New Zealanders would stop—the discrimination revealed the fact that currently 16 and 17-year-olds can be paid a minimum wage of a mere $8.20 per hour compared with the adult minimum of $10.25 per hour. So we voted to end age discrimination to end adultism: the bias towards adults that is seen in the ugly combination of prejudice married with power.  
The Youth Advisory Council of the Child Welfare League of America concluded that the end result of adults practising adultism is that young people become disempowered and disenfranchised. Surely a Parliament that values an investment in our future our growing young population would not want that. Except this is where it all became unstuck for at the select committee suddenly the Greens’ bill became renamed. The term “discrimination” was deleted the term “abolition” was abolished and a new vocabulary was created introducing the “new entrant” to the workforce. Or as my colleague Hone Harawira said the name is just another name for the Young Slave Bill.  
The select committee recommended that for the first 200 hours worked by a young worker after he or she turns 16 he or she will be paid at the “new entrant” rate. This is a new term as Darien Fenton explained during the Committee stage: “It is quite a strange term particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time.” It is a strange term and a misleading term to make discrimination acceptable—the ongoing discrimination that these new entrants will be paid a lesser rate than even the minimum wage of adults. It is a term of pretence because it does not actually describe “new” entrants to the workforce—not 50-year-old new entrants not 30-year-old new entrants—only 16 and 17-year-olds will be entitled to this measure of divide and rule. We were repeatedly told during the Committee stage of this bill as I understand from my colleague that this strange new version of the original bill was—if I may quote the proverbial—better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. We were scolded and were asked how we could object to progress. But the Maori Party is not prepared to settle for the watered-down version of justice. We are not about to meekly comply with a second-rate version of the truth.  
Another bizarre piece of persuasive political posturing that came out during the Committee stage was the concept that what was really wonderful about this bill was that thousands and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will get a pay increase after they have done 200 hours of work. Union workforce statistics however show that 50 percent of the 16 and 17-year-olds who are working currently work 10 hours or fewer each week. So we are looking at the minimum of 5 or 6 months as a base before young people are considered worthy enough to earn the basic minimum wage—before they are entitled to that wonderful pay rise! What does it do to a community to legalise adult privilege in legislation in such a way as to mean that young people will not be paid equally for work of equal value? What does it do to young people to be paid less simply because they are not deemed adults by the country’s lawmakers? What message does it send about the worth of our young people? What further abuse is made more likely as a result?  
The Human Rights Commission told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the youth minimum wage has a significant impact on the earnings of young workers; that it perpetuates stereotypes about their capabilities and that they are worth less because they are young; and that paying 16 and 17-year-olds less than other workers breaches fundamental principles of fairness and equity. So you see it is about fairness justice and decent wages for decent work and it could have been so different. We have a saying that demonstrates how it could have been: “E ngaki ana a mua e toto mai ana a muri”—while people go ahead and weed others follow behind and plant.” The meaning is that if the first group do their work properly then those following can accomplish their task and everybody gets together to get the job done. What we are doing tonight is not about doing our work properly. What message is this bill giving to our children and our grandchildren—to put up with injustice that second-best is good enough and that they should be grateful for their lot? 
What do the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Youth Affairs and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs have to say? How can they defend this tangled plot of weeds that is left behind to constrain our young? I would remind the House that a massive 35 percent of the Maori population is aged under 15 years and that the median age of both the Maori and Pasifika populations is a mere 21 years compared with a median age of 36 years for the total New Zealand population. We are a very young population and we in the Maori Party must stand here tonight with the interests of that population at heart. Those young people deserve to be treated by the system in a way that is tied unreservedly to their skills. We should be united in calling to abolish any differential wage based on age. It is unfair it is discriminatory and it is exploitation. 
Voting to support a new entrant sub-minimum wage will worsen youth poverty and it will make it harder for young people just to meet basic living expenses. It perpetuates a low-wage climate by allowing wage standards to be lower than the minimum rates of acceptability. New Zealanders need far greater employment protections. Ending youth rates is just one part of the picture. The Syd Jackson we knew as a union champion activist and freedom fighter would never have compromised his principles. He would never live on his knees he would die fighting for the things that he believed in and he would say to us right now that we have to be prepared to put ourselves on the line to take to the streets and to act to highlight and articulate our grievances. Our young people deserve nothing less. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. If the bill was a blanket provision covering all young people then I think the fears that have been expressed in the House this afternoon—that it would disenfranchise those in their early teens and younger who seek after-school work—may have been a point worthy of consideration. However the bill recognises those young people who are able to be in full employment yet subject to age discrimination. I think some aspects of this bill could well do with being reviewed in a couple of years’ time particularly the provisional 200 hours which may well be excessive. The House may be negligent if it leaves it too long before it examines how that aspect is working. 
I want to commend several people. First of all I commend the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford. I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done and the Minister and the Department of Labour officials who have worked well together to find an achievable outcome. Politics in an MMP environment is very much the art of the achievable. For the sponsor of this bill incremental change may not satisfy the ideal she holds to but progress is often a journey not an event. As members of a party that approached this bill fairly cautiously we are pleased to be able to support this final reading. 
Recent concerns expressed in the media that secondary school students are increasingly trying to balance long hours in paid employment alongside full-time study need to be further considered. At 16 and 17 education is still the preferred path and it is United Future’s hope that with improved wage rates students will be able to reduce the hours they work after school so that they can focus on their study. For those 16 and 17-year-olds who have opted out of school employment remuneration needs to be such that unemployment is unattractive. 
 I also bring to this debate what is probably a very provincial view of these matters for 16 and 17-year-olds. For those who are 16 or 17 and who live in provincial areas often work and leaving home are bedfellows. To be able to live independently on the youth rate is nigh impossible for them because youth rates assume that young employees are still living at home and that this is pocket money to be spent in their spare time supporting their extracurricular activities. The truth is that for a large number of New Zealand 16 and 17-year-olds the youth rate is now what they are reliant on to live and to make a future for themselves. 
We are very pleased at the way this bill has progressed. It has certainly addressed our early concerns. I think that it is a first cautious step and that if these measures prove to bed down well and there are no unforeseen or unintended consequences then maybe some of the aspirations of the sponsor of this bill may be recognised at a later date. We would certainly be open having seen how this legislation beds down to considering where we go from here with youth rates. However we are very happy that we still have some youth rates and that they apply where they do. I think it has been a very sensible first step and I commend the sponsor and everybody who has worked on this bill for the work they have done. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 A bill like this Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is I acknowledge always put forward with the best of intentions. I appreciate that the Green Party has put forward a range of legislation as indeed has the Government and those members always preface it with good intentions. They say that it will rectify some aspect of injustice or it will elevate the advantages of someone. 
I notice that we always see United Future and New Zealand First sort of moving along in the slipstream as we heard in the previous speech made by Judy Turner saying how wonderful it is. I would ask those parties to pause and think because this country faces a deep-seated crisis. I do not mean it is a crisis that is an instant crisis. It will not break over us tomorrow but we are seeing a deep-seated decline—a malaise if you will—as this country just progressively slips back relative to other countries. Yes we have some growth. That has been well acknowledged but this Government has squandered that growth. It has squandered some of the best economic opportunities we have seen for years. 
I want to go through the legislative programme and this is the point I am trying to make because each of these measures acts as an impediment to productivity growth. None of them are huge impediments in their own right but their cumulative effect is very serious. In the year 2000 when the Government won the Treasury benches New Zealand had high productivity growth as well as high economic growth and there is a difference. 
Today productivity growth is low—there is no growth in fact. It is actually flat. The Government is now relying on three things for growth. One is commodity increases which have gone up. Growth in the total size of the employment has increased; there is no question about that. But there has been no productivity growth. Do members know what that means? It means that the living standards of New Zealanders relative to that of people in other countries is declining. The Government says that it is only a small decline and that it does not matter year to year but New Zealanders look forward. They understand these things and they make their own choices. [ 
Interruption 
] That number is accelerating—600 per week are now travelling to Australia. Why do they do that? They do it fundamentally because there are better economic opportunities there. Why are there better economic opportunities there? It is not because Australia to quote a former Prime Minister digs itself up. It is actually because Australia has a more competitive economic system. It has higher productivity growth. It has a lower level of taxation. In fact the current Government in Australia each and every year has had a planned programme of tax reductions—not gigantic one-off reductions but planned and progressive reductions. All that builds confidence and security in people about their opportunities. So New Zealanders young New Zealanders especially see that fact and make their own choice. They see greater opportunities and greater prospects and they vote with their feet. 
I will go through the range of legislation of which this bill is a part that has hindered productivity growth. I emphasise that point for Government speakers: productivity growth. Today the particular measure that is being debated is the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I emphasise the term “new entrants”. Yes that was a change. I know that the Maori Party thinks it is a terrible thing and that even the 200 hours of employment set out in the bill is discrimination but the truth is that we are talking about 16 and 17-year-olds; we are not talking about 16 to 25-year-olds and we are not talking about 60 percent. The gap is only 20 percent and for only 2 years. Actually it is a time when young people should be at school in any event. Countries that are much higher up the income scale than New Zealand—the United States Australia and so forth—actually do have youth rates. Are those countries in crisis? The answer is no. 
So this legislation will be just one more impediment to productivity growth. What is another one? Well the Green Party—also with good intentions no doubt—has put forward the concept of flexible working hours. That is another thing that just adds cost and complexity to the way that business is undertaken. The Labour Government even wants independent contractors to be subject to employment legislation. What an oxymoron that would have to be! I guess it was some sort of crazy token to one of their more—let us be charitable—inexperienced members of Parliament Darien Fenton. But one can only imagine that someone like the Minister of Finance was wiping his brow and thinking: “Christ Almighty why on earth is this happening in a party I’m a senior member of?” 
Now of course we can refer to the Employment Relations Act and particularly to the amendments of 2004. I acknowledge that many of the changes from the Employment Relations Act of 2000 were relatively smoothly adapted into employment law but the changes from 2004 have caused significant problems. There has been a lot more litigation in front of the Employment Court and a higher level of strikes than this country has hitherto had all of which adds to the costs across the workforce. 
Then there is the Resource Management Act. At every public meeting I go to someone is bound to raise their direct experience with the complexities of the Resource Management Act. Did this Government do anything at all meaningful to relieve that burden? The answer is no. 
Labour’s very first move in Government was to remove competition in accident compensation. I want to dwell on that point for a moment. When National introduced competition we had an iron-cast rule that there would be 24-hour 7-day no-fault coverage. That was never denied by Labour. The full rate of coverage was always there and the treatment was always there. People who suffered injuries were not adversely affected but employers had dramatic reductions in the size of their premiums—that is their costs went down and their productivity went up. Then we had the complexity of the Land Transport Management Act. Now it is sought to have the minimum wage set at $12 an hour. There is the local government legislation and so on and so forth. Each one of these measures has hurt productivity. It is now zero. 
The legislation that is being promoted today well-intentioned though it might be will be just another little thing that will harm productivity. But if we add it to all those other things we have quite a serious impact. So whereas 9 years ago this country had productivity growth of about 1.5 percent—still less than Australia or the United States but it was 1.5 percent of GDP—there was actually a chance that we could go up the OECD ladder in terms of growth. Today it has inexorably declined to zero. I am not talking about economic growth—let us not confuse these points—but about productivity growth. Real wealth ultimately comes from productivity growth. 
National is saying as a party that we have to take stock. We have to be careful in the nature of the compliance costs we load on to business. That does not mean to say we cannot deal with real injustices and it does not mean to say we cannot improve the situation but there is no point in just adding on each of these little measures and imposts that ultimately harm the growth of this country. I have to say to the Government and the parties that support the Government that the effect of this legislation will be to drive more New Zealanders out of this country and it will be the very people the Government wants to help because the people who go will be the young people. They will go to Australia for a better future and that is an indictment on this Government. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a widely held view that dinosaurs are extinct but we sit every day and look at them across the House. The last speaker was the “Mapposaurus”. I want to comment on a couple of his points. Do members remember the National Party leader— 
Darren Hughes 
: Which one? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Probably all of them. They have had so many I cannot remember. They wail and gnash their teeth about the low wages in New Zealand compared to Australia and they worry about the low-paid and the underclass. We just heard about that from the “Mapposaurus”. Let us have a look at the truth. Who was the Government in 1994? I think it was National. I say to Dr Mapp that the youth minimum wage—and one had to be 20 to earn the adult wage in 1994—was $3.68 an hour under that National Government. Adults were really well off; they got $6.12.5! 
Let us go forward a bit to 1997. There was as we heard influence from New Zealand First and they put it up to $7 in 1997. So it languished at $6.25 or $6.37.5. Then it leapt up to $7 because as Peter Brown told us New Zealand First put the National Party’s arm up its back. In 1998 it was $7. In 1999 it was $7. What were those under-20-year-olds—they could have been 19 years and 9 months—earning under the National Government? They were earning $4.20 an hour. In 1999 if one was a 19-year-old working in a factory a shop or a fast-food chain one was earning $4.20 an hour. That is what the National Government did to this country. Alongside that was the Employment Contracts Act. Now National members are wailing and gnashing their teeth and saying the wages in New Zealand are too low compared with Australia. Well we have done a lot about that during our time in Government. 
We have seen the age for the adult minimum wage come down to 18. Did the National Party members support that? No they voted against it. They wailed and gnashed their teeth every time we put the minimum wage up. They are still doing so today. They do not support the minimum wage going up to $12 as we have heard from speakers in the National Party and they certainly do not support young workers getting a decent wage either. But they will continue to tell people they are concerned about low wages and the underclass and they will try to pretend they would do something about it. We know what they would do. They would reverse this measure would they not I ask Dr Mapp. Or would it be a case of “me too” like John Key does with everything else. National members wail and say there will be displacement if young workers get the same pay as adults and they will not get jobs. Well those members should look back at what happened when we changed that law to make the age for the adult minimum wage 18 years of age. Did it happen? No it did not. The statistics heard by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which National members might choose to ignore showed that there was actually no displacement for 18 and 19-year-olds. In fact the number of hours they worked went up. 
The National Party hates facts getting in the way of its dinosaur views but the select committee that dealt with this legislation was interested in listening to the views of employers and unions and as a result the bill was amended. I listened particularly to small employers because small employers came along in their droves and said they actually ended up paying their workers above the minimum wage fairly quickly after they started work because they wanted to reward them for the extra effort and the knowledge they picked up in the first few months of employment. A lot of small employers said that. Small employer after small employer from around New Zealand said: “We do not always keep our people on the minimum wage as the law allows us to because we think they should get paid for the work they do and the skills they acquire.” That is exactly what this bill actually picks up on. 
It is interesting that many of the large employers—the fast-food chains etc—simply pay it because the law allows them to. They can afford to pay more because a number of them we were told by submitters do not pay youth rates at all regardless of age. They are the large employers. They said they rejected that and would pay those people as the law allows them to. The vast majority of those large employers in the fast-food and hospitality sector pay it because they can; not because they need to but because the law allows it. 
So I think this is a very important bill and a very important step forward for workers in this country as are the increases to the minimum wage that this Government has put through every year since we became Government. I just remind members again that $4.20 was the youth rate for a 19-year-old under National back in 1999 and the adult rate which had sat still for 3 years was $7 an hour. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: So why is everyone going to Australia? Answer that! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Dr Mapp and his mates if they had the chance would do it all over again. They would revert to that sort of dinosaur thinking of not liking workers and of not liking unions and they have always passed laws that prove that. That is why National is voting against the bill today. 
I want to talk to another party that is also saying it will vote against the bill the Maori Party. We have heard today the name of Syd Jackson and I send my condolences to his whanau. I worked with Syd for many years in the trade union movement. In fact the union that I represented before coming here amalgamated the Clerical Workers Union into our organisation as a result of the ravages that the Employment Contracts Act wreaked upon the membership of that union. I say to members of the Maori Party that if they had been able to talk to Syd now—and obviously they cannot do so—he would have told them one thing that he learnt as a trade union official and practised every day of the week in representing clerical workers who were not industrially strong and were the types of workers who worked in very small workplaces. The job he did every day required compromise and Syd would have been able to tell members of the Maori Party that if he were here today and I will say it to them on his behalf. There are times when one demands 100 percent and when one cannot get it as he would have known and as I knew 95 percent becomes the reality and one grabs it with both hands. 
Young Maori and Pacific people who go to the local schools in my community of South Auckland are walking around wearing badges celebrating the passing of this bill and the Maori Party will be on record as having voted against it. I ask members of the Maori party to rethink that position tonight because there will be a vote fairly shortly and I would rather see that party which is voting against the bill coming over to the side voting for it because the Maori Party stands for the principles of the bill and it would be a shame not to have that on record. I understand all about trying to be 100 percent on this issue and I sometimes wish that that could happen too but we have a very workable compromise and it is one that should be celebrated—and it is being celebrated on the streets of South Auckland by young Maori and Pacific workers and by other young workers as well. I really would like to see the Maori Party change its position tonight and vote with the rest of us on this. I understand the desire to have 100 percent on this issue but Syd would tell the members of the Maori Party that that was not something he achieved very often as a representative of clerical workers. It was the same for me when I represented service workers who had very little industrial power. It is something we learn a lot about in the industrial relations world particularly if we are representing the weak the vulnerable and the hard to organise which I have done for just about all of my working life. 
I congratulate Sue Bradford and I congratulate all of the parties who are supporting the bill. The bill has in my belief listened to the views of New Zealand and that includes the small employers who said they would pay more but who wanted a little bit of time upfront to train those workers in the soft skills of customer relations etc. The bill recognises that but fundamentally it very much shows the divide in this House between those who are here to seek justice on behalf of working people and make sure they get a fair deal and a fair wage for the work they do and that lot over there—the dinosaurs who still remain running around this earth—called the National Party. 
National members will always oppose this sort of legislation because at the end of the day they could not care less about the exploitation of young workers old workers Maori workers Pacific workers—any workers. They actually stand for that exploitation. Every bit of legislation National has ever passed in this House in terms of industrial relations tells us that and those members oppose every bit of legislation we put up to turn the clock back on their stuff as well. They will always be the same. That is why they are the dinosaurs of this nation and that is why they will not support this bill. But Labour will proudly support it alongside the Greens New Zealand First United Future and others and I would really be keen to see the Maori Party vote with us on this one as well. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 If we wanted to hear from a dinosaur we have just heard from one. If we wanted to hear a blast from the past that is what we have heard from Labour and the Greens in respect of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill because this is communism. This is saying that everybody is equal and everybody is the same. Those parties if they had half a chance would have everybody in this room sitting at the same level. They say there is no difference between someone who has just started working and someone who has been working for 30 years. They say there is no difference between the person in the front row and the person in the back row and there is no difference between someone who is leading a party and someone who is sitting at the back. Well there is a difference. There are differences when it comes to everything we do in our society. We have a hierarchical society. It is based on success and it is based on positioning and one has to get a start. This bill is hurting those people who need to get a start. If we want to go back to the past and talk about communism dinosaurs and blasts from the past then we should look at Labour and the Green Party because that is what is happening in this legislation. 
It is not helping the people who need assistance. The young people who will make this country strong are not being helped by this legislation. All we are doing through this legislation is making sure those people will not get that first chance. They will never get a start. They will not get the chance to go out there and prove themselves to develop those skills and to make a go of themselves. 
We have one of the highest rates of youth unemployment especially Maori youth unemployment. Will this bill help that? Forget it! If an employer has a choice between somebody who has 20 years of life experience and somebody who is just coming into the workplace whom the employer has to pay 12 bucks an hour I ask who that employer would choose. I would like to see Labour pay all its staff and all the people who have ever worked for it in any capacity on the full rate. I bet members that Labour does not do so. I bet Labour has been rich enough to take advantage of this legislation in the past. I bet Labour’s funders have been rich enough to take advantage of this legislation in the past. It is good enough for Labour to vote for it but its members will not come in here and do the opposite; they will use that legislation to pay people at a minimum rate then come in here say they are holier than thou and will pay everyone $12 an hour and then see how the employers get on. 
That is a recognition of a Government that is out of touch with the people and that is why it is polling at the current rate. The Government has no idea of what the employers want it has no idea of what the community wants and more important it has no idea of what young people want. Young people want a start; they want a future. That is why they are going to Australia. It is not the old people leaving and going to Australia; it is the young people who want a future who are doing so. 
 They are going because they can see they will be able to earn more and be taxed less and they can see there is economic growth. Economic growth is the thing these guys have stymied. Economic growth in Australia today is at 4 percent. What are we at? We are struggling to be at 1 percent. That is the difference between our countries. If the Government wants to do something for our young people then it should have policies that will get us up to an economic growth of 4 percent. If it keeps us down at 1 percent then it will not be able to pay the $12 per hour minimum wage rate. There will never be an ability to pay that $12 to young people going into the workforce if our economic growth is kept at those low levels. 
This is not an argument about justice for young people as the Green Party has tried to put out. Even if it were that party’s members got shafted in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by the Labour Party. They went in there with the philosophy that this is better than anything else that this is what they wanted to do to have equality across the board in New Zealand. That is true Green policy which is fine; that is what the Greens believe in. But they got slammed by the Labour Party. The Labour Party went in there and said “No”. In fact the Labour Party did not actually say no; the Labour Party did what it normally does: it took the Greens right to the altar. It took them right up there and said it would back them that it would be there and that it would be the one to go to bed with them. And what did Labour do? At the last minute it said “No”. It said it wanted 200 hours as a new entrants scheme. What did that do? It meant that those beautiful people from New Zealand First who have no ability to change their minds had to come in behind because once the Labour Party does something New Zealand First also has to do it. 
That is what has happened in this case. The Green Party went into the select committee with the emotional intent and the pure ideology of what they wanted to portray but it got shafted by the big bad red party and New Zealand First had to come in behind it and back it up. That is the reality of what has happened with this legislation. It is nothing about helping young people. It is not about the new generation of New Zealanders getting a chance. This legislation shows politics at its worst. It shows an idea that has been transformed and mutated by a Government that wishes to stay in power and wants to put its spin on something but not actually change the rules. That is what has happened in this case. 
When the members of the Green Party walk out of this Chamber they will try to have some face hold their heads high and say that they achieved this. But the reality is that the legislation we are passing is not what they really wanted. It is not what they went after in the first place. This is a Labour Party jaunt on top of what they tried to do. At some stage the Greens will have to stand up and say what they actually believe in not what those guys tell them they have to believe in to get something through this Parliament. It will be an interesting day when that actually happens. 
When we look forward we have to look at a tight labour market in the New Zealand economy. In any Western country it is tough for employers to get good staff and they will pay people what they deserve. There is nothing discriminatory in what the National Party is saying. We are not saying that this is a maximum rate; we are saying that this is a minimum rate. There is a big difference. Employers can actually pay more than the minimum rate if they want to. They can go out there and say they want a person who they think is a good employee. They will not care what age that person is and they will pay that person at the right rate. There is nothing discriminatory about that. If we said there was a maximum rate then fair enough: that is discriminatory. But we are not doing that. We are talking about a minimum rate. That is not discriminatory. That is the big difference that I think these political parties need to look at. 
It is not about saying that one party is against youth against minimum rates or against employees. It is not about that. This is a purely philosophical argument about a party that said what it believed in and a party that overrode it. The National Party has been constant in saying throughout the whole time of this debate that it believes that employers have the ability to pay more than that rate. We say that employers can pick the right people and pay them the right rate. We do not see this debate as being about young people not getting paid for what their value is; this is a debate about how we send the signals out there. Our signals through our community are ones of hierarchy. [ 
Interruption 
] No our signals are of hierarchy. We sit in a building that is based on hierarchy our questions are based on hierarchy and our votes are based on the hierarchy that comes from an election every 3 years. Then we expect everyone to live by different rules. We cannot do that. There is only one way to go—that is to achieve success through building up from having a start. That is what we are denying our young people. We are denying them that step through the door. 
How many people in this room have had to give in order to get where they are now? I bet everyone would say that they have. David Cunliffe a Minister actually said in the second reading of the bill that he had to give to the Labour Party in order to get into this building. When one is a young person starting out in a job one has to give something to get the experience in order to get that step through the door to make a start. I bet that all those people opposite gave something. They would have given to a union which is not a very good choice. But they gave something. Now they have moved up and are sitting on those benches without having any idea of what it is like to be an employer. They would have no idea what it is like for young people out there now who want to take a step who want a chance and who want a dream. This legislation denies them that chance and that dream and the shame is on Labour on the Green Party and on the New Zealand First Party for doing it in this way. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I thank the different parties particularly the parties that support the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. But I also respect Kate Wilkinson who seemed to accept the moral basis of the bill. She said that people should be valued for the work they perform and that there should be a fair wage for fair work. Her objections to the bill seemed to be practical but had she listened to the young people who mobilised around the country—Sue Bradford and I were part of various demonstrations and even student strikes—she would have heard them saying that they needed this money not to stop them from going on to higher education but to help them to achieve it. Those people were driven to advance their careers. So I think we can knock out that practical argument that National came up with. 
National’s other argument—its only other leg to stand on—was that in some ways people have to be rewarded for skills and that employers will hire older people because they have more skills and experience. In actual fact the most skilled jobs in the economy do not have youth rates; it is the least skilled jobs in the areas of fast food and retail that have youth rates. Contrary to what Wayne Mapp said the economy will not collapse if these young people are paid a couple of extra dollars to take them to the adult minimum wage. That view is just stupid in my opinion. 
I think that the effort from all parties including the Maori Party has been tremendous. Even though the Maori Party is not supporting this bill it has been part of the campaign to get this legislation through for young people and for justice. The Green Party is totally in support of what we have achieved tonight. I particularly thank my colleague Sue Bradford for bringing this legislation forward. We can live with a position of compromise even though we have some reservations about it. But we have to recognise the great achievement that this bill is and celebrate it together. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.