Collins Judith: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5148] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The commencement date of 2001 in this bill has already passed. That is just another example of a date that is completely out of date and a bill that is completely out of date. As my colleague Mr Lindsay Tisch has said not all employers are exploiters. In fact one would hardly ever find an employer who is an exploiter these days; the situation is quite the opposite of that. 
One of the interesting things with this bill is the date and I would like to speak now to the amendment that the Hon Tony Ryall has put up. I disagree with him because I think we will just give this legislation another few months after we win the next election on 30 November 2005. I disagree with a commencement date in November 2005. I have already checked this with my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall and he is happy with my suggestion that we move the commencement date to 1 April 2006. 
The reason for that is that we will have so much legislation to repeal. I do take Richard Prebble’s point about that. We have to accept Richard that we will have to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to a person by his or her Christian name. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We will have so much legislation to repeal that I think the commencement of this legislation will have to wait until 1 April 2006. Now why would we want to do that? For a start as has been pointed out we have the official record that states that the costs will be too high and there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. We will have to tell employees who need training that they might not have a job. 
It is very interesting on looking at a bill like this to see just how much consultation has taken place. Maybe more time is needed for consultation. The consultation has been with the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs the Ministry of Women’s Affairs the Ministry of Youth Affairs Skill New Zealand Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury. Well I do not think any of those agencies are employers. Not one of those agencies has ever mortgaged its house put its house on the line to go and set up a business— 
Shane Ardern 
: Gone broke! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is true that not one of them has ever done that. I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My understanding is that a running commentary of interjections is disorderly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3). I have already referred the Government member on my right to it. I now refer the member to Standing Order 85. That member has her first yellow card. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So we have a situation where there has been insufficient consultation. Not one of the agencies consulted with has ever been or actually is an employer. They are all Government agencies. 
Jill Pettis 
: And councils! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member on the Government side of the Chamber is continuing with the objections obviously contrary to your advice. I think that is disorderly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member was doing that the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Mark Peck 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was not that member Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member stand withdraw and apologise. 
Mark Peck 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would Mr Peck please be seated. Jill Pettis— 
Jill Pettis 
: I did stand withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So there really has not been enough time for any consultation with employers. I would like to know whether anyone has actually asked for the views of any of the freezing works or of any of the lawyers who as Richard Prebble has very very carefully advised take on a lot of people to receive training in their offices. Who has actually asked anybody—anyone who actually employs people—for a bit of consultation? In fact no one has even consulted with the youth whom we are talking about—the people actually receiving the training. That is one of the points. The date that we are talking about in the bill will not be possible because it has already passed for a start. Secondly I say there has not been enough consultation with anyone whose job is probably on the line. 
One of the points I would like to raise—and I would like to hear from the Minister on this—is whether the Minister has considered the effect of this legislation on volunteers. One of the things that will happen is that a prospective employee will be told the employer does not want him or her as an employee because the employer cannot afford to pay the employee while he or she is training with the employer but that he or she will be taken on as a volunteer. And that is the point: this bill does not protect volunteers. The people who are currently receiving some money while they are training with an employer will turn into volunteers—unpaid workers who will be on the dole or on some sort of training allowance. That is what will happen. The very people who have had jobs even if they were not very well paid but who have done that because they were being trained will have to lose those jobs become volunteers and add to the dole list. In fact any smart employer and any smart person wanting to be trained will get around this legislation.