Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11168] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The member from National Paula Bennett has inspired me to speak because first of all I would like to respond to her comments. Young people in smaller towns if not older people are actually worth the same for the job they do wherever they happen to live in the country unless one is proposing a policy that says we should discriminate in wages on the basis of where one lives which I would find an extremely odd policy. I would also point out that a number of programmes for young people to gain work experience are available I believe in smaller towns as well as in cities such as Modern Apprenticeships and work placement programmes from schools. This bill does not tamper with the training wage either which is still available. So I really do not think that the problem the member speaks about is a real one. 
I would also call the member’s attention to an agreement that was signed yesterday between Progressive Enterprises and the Northern Distribution Union—it was very happily supported by that employer last night and today; a progressive employer indeed—where that employer has agreed to take everything a step further than this bill goes. All its young workers will be paid from when the agreement kicks in after the first 200 hours or the first 3 months on the job whichever comes first. Workers for Progressive Enterprises supermarkets will hit the full adult wage after 200 hours or 3 months and that will happen not only for 16 and 17-year-old workers but also for 15-year-old workers. I am hoping that other supermarket chains and retailers will follow that company’s example. 
Further to the purpose of the bill overall my original purpose was to remove fully discrimination on the basis of age for 16 and 17-year-old workers. That has not been completely achieved by the bill as amended and I will talk about that a bit more when we come to the debate on the next clause. But in terms of the main purpose of the bill it is simply unfair that the wages should be different for people doing exactly the same job. 
The previous speaker said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received plenty of submissions and could see that these young workers are doing the same job as older workers. In fact in a number of cases they are supervising and training older workers which is almost the grossest injustice of all. Particularly in places like the fast-food industry and in some retail outlets the young workers have sometimes been on the job for 3 years. They are still 16 or 17; they are put in the position of training and supervising older workers. There could not be anything less just than expecting those workers to continue to receive the minimum wage at over $2 an hour less than what the people they are training are receiving. The work is the same the employer’s expectation is the same and the job description is the same. 
The other thing that is the same is the cost of food clothing and transport. That does not change because one is 16 or 17 either. It does not matter what part of the country one is in; it is a myth that the wages young people earn are not for “real things”. Often these young people are helping to support their families. As we know wages are too low in this country anyway and some families are on benefits. Often these young people are contributing to their family. In other cases they will be contributing to their own clothing transport and food—the necessities of life. These things do not cost young people any less just because of their age. 
All workers also need a short period in which to learn the job. It does not matter what age one is when one starts work. It does not matter whether one starts work at 16 or 60 there is an orientation into any workplace. The Green Party certainly does not believe that workers should have to spend 2 years being paid a lower wage simply because they are learning how to work or how to do a new job. 
Wage discrimination is arbitrary inequitable and unjustifiable. I am really pleased that this bill even in its modified form is taking a big step in the right direction in terms of finally getting rid of this inequity of discrimination on the basis of age.