Prebble Richard: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5138] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we are opposed to this bill and that we intend to support the amendment Mr Ryall has just given notice of. I know that titles are occasionally ruled out of order by the Chair as being frivolous but if the Chair were able to make such a ruling against the Government then I regard this as one occasion when the title—in this case the “Minimum Wage Amendment Bill”—could be ruled out of order because clearly it is not an appropriate title. The title that has been put forward by Mr Ryall more accurately describes the bill. 
The notion of supporting minimum wages was I guess illustrated by Mr Peters’ speech. He set out the romantic argument for it but it is not in fact logical. The reason this bill should go through—[ 
Interruption 
] It actually should be supported by the Greens. That is the party that has argued that there ought to be a minimum wage for students and it keeps on making that argument. Here we have a Labour Government that says to the quarter of a million adult students in New Zealand: “No you’ve got to pay for your own education. Take out a loan if you haven’t got enough. No we don’t support a minimum wage.”—and I agree with that position. However the Government is suddenly turning round to 26000 people who are getting training and saying: “But in your case we are going to tell the employer that you must be paid a wage even if that doesn’t give an economic return to an employer.” The reason that the National and ACT parties are telling the Government that this is a mistake is that we do have some knowledge of business. Sure employers want to extend and help with training but they are up against costs and are required to make a return on money that people have invested in their businesses. They are not there to be a charity. The Government itself admits that this bill will cost jobs. 
I ask members opposite those who can remember—and perhaps Mr Peters who is supporting this bill; even in the area of education one would have this experience—to think about their own adult experiences. Most people would concede that they learnt more not at university not at polytech not at school but at their first job. People’s first job is crucial to their careers—and it is the hardest job to get when they have no experience. That is the start people want. In the legal profession which I am sure will not be counted in this bill if a person wants to become a barrister that person has to approach a Queen’s Counsel very politely and say: “Please sir will you take me as your pupil?” [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is extremely disruptive for Government Ministers to come over to this side of the Chamber stand behind me and hold a long conversation as they try to get the Greens to support their legislation. A Government Minister and the chief whip are holding a loud conversation behind me while I am speaking. I regard that as totally thoughtless and disorderly and they should be asked to leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is not in order for conversations to take place in the Chamber especially in the cross benches. They muffle the sound and make it very difficult for the speaker. I ask those members who wish to carry on a conversation to please do so outside the Chamber. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I was just telling the Committee that if one wants to be a barrister one has to approach a Queen’s Counsel and ask to be his or her pupil. Then one works like a slave for nothing. Why do people do it? They do it because the training is worth so much. No one is actually suggesting making a change in that area. However the more valuable the training the greater the risk to the employer. If a person is a pupil working for a barrister he or she is a danger to shipping. One has to watch every single thing that person does because one is responsible for their actions. The same applies to a trainee. That person has to be watched and the idea that we are helping young people by costing them the opportunity to get a job is nonsense. 
The Government itself does not actually believe this bill. It is being put forward for ideological reasons. The Greens might believe in it and if they do why is the Government not applying a minimum wage to students? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What’s the fundamentalist monetarist approach to that? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh that is the fundamental monetarist approach! Well that is very interesting. That is why it is not doing it—it is a fundamental monetarist approach. It is very interesting to hear that from the rather confused Government members. They cannot actually work out why they are doing nothing for students but they say they are doing something for a number of trainees.