Lees-Galloway Iain: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8651. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Clause 7 in Part 2 of this bill the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill reveals why this piece of legislation is actually absolutely unnecessary or should be absolutely unnecessary if this Government was actually doing its job. Clause 7 as other members have referred to establishes the transitional period or the transitional effect for those workers who are already on the 3-month starting-out provisions that are already available. The Government says that this bill is about giving young people a chance to get into the workforce. It says that the way to do that is to have a period of time in which they can be paid less. Well not that we are entirely comfortable with it but that situation already exists. So the answer to the Government’s question of how we can get more young people into work has already been answered. But of course what this bill does is extends the period of time from 3 months to 6 months and extends the number of people who will be affected by the legislation from not just 16 and 17-year-olds but 18 and 19-year-olds as well. Therefore we need the transitional effect of clause 7. Why? Well the only answer can be that this Government has failed to create jobs because what we have got now is the situation where these young people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation are competing for low-wage and low-skilled jobs with an older population who used to occupy the high-skilled high-wage jobs that no longer exist in New Zealand. That is the answer to getting more young people into work—creating more jobs so that people who qualify for the full adult rate actually have decent work to be applying for. 
But no people in their 20s their 30s their 40s their 50s and their 60s are competing with teenagers to work at McDonald’s. That is the situation that this Government has created that is why young people cannot get into work and that is why the Government needs to pass this legislation so that young people can compete with older people for the jobs that only young people ought to be doing. The only reason we are in that situation is that this Government has failed to create jobs. This Government has lost its ambition. This Government has lost its way. This Government has no plan. 
I would like to refer to some comments made by Mike Sabin whilst debating Part 2 because they contradicted an interjection that he made earlier on while my colleague Sue Moroney was speaking. He got up and said that 20-year-olds are not going to be chucked out of their jobs so that a 16-year-old can come in. 
Mike Sabin 
: A 25-year-old. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Oh 25-year-olds even—look that is probably true. But what Mike Sabin did say in an interjection was that if there is a job it is more likely to go to a young person than it is to an older person which actually accepts the fact that firstly young people— 
Mike Sabin 
: A new job. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well first of all where are the new jobs Mike Sabin? Where are the new jobs? If they are in McDonald’s and Burger King and Wendy’s then that is a sad indictment on this Government’s efforts in getting our economy going again. If that is where the new jobs are if those are the jobs that people are competing for then what does that tell you Mr Sabin about this Government’s failure to get the country working again? Sixteen and 17-year-olds are not going to be competing for engineering jobs. They are not going to be competing for research jobs. They are not going to be competing for teaching jobs or for medical jobs or for nursing jobs. They are competing for low-wage low-skill fast-food supermarket kinds of jobs. The only reason why they are competing with older people is that all the other jobs that people should be doing have gone and that is because of this Government’s failure. It is no wonder so many New Zealanders are opposed to this piece of legislation and Labour is happy to represent them.