[Volume:608;Page:5135] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 While debating the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill clause by clause we are struck by the fact that there are only four clauses in this thin small bill which has had a chequered history through this House. We are concerned at the moment with the title and in particular the reference in the title clause to the Minimum Wage Act being the principal Act. I know that my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall will be formally tabling an amendment to the title of the bill but interestingly and as has been said many times when debating the title of any bill it is incumbent upon that title to reflect accurately what is contained in the bill. Unfortunately the title Minimum Wage Amendment Bill does not reflect what is in the bill at all. 
I will give a bit of background to what the title should be. This bill essentially removes the exemption from the minimum wage provision that applies to those who undertake at least 60 credits of training per year towards a qualification on the national qualifications framework. What is disturbing about that is the fact that this bill could well affect the numbers who undertake apprenticeship training and the system of that training in this country. That is what concerns members on this side of the Chamber. For the bill to reflect that concern it should be called either the “Repeal Training Exemption Bill” or alternatively the “Undermine the Apprenticeship Training Scheme Bill”. 
The biggest worry for those on this side of the Chamber is that the whole point of that previous exemption was that the cost to the employer of providing practical training was recognised. It was if one likes the first step on the ladder for young people entering an employment relationship and provided a practical way of offsetting some of the costs to the employer of the risk of taking on those young people. What would be a substantial concern to members on this side of the Chamber is that the long-term implications of this bill could well mean a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. That would worry us. On-site training has been proven to be a productive way to bring young people into any workforce to offer an opportunity that would otherwise not have been available to them and as I said earlier effectively to give that young person the ability to get his or her foot on the first rung of that ladder. 
This legislation which is somewhat wrongly entitled the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill removes the exemption that allows that apprenticeship training to occur. The greatest concern on this side of the Chamber is the fact that that could have the reverse effect to what is intended by this bill which is one would imagine to reward young people for work done at a rate similar to the minimum wage. We say that simply to take away the exemption could leave employers in a situation where they just do not take people on and where training is not an option that they consider. 
Who is that going to help? Will that help the young person who is trying to get his or her first step on that ladder to employment? Will it encourage the employer to take that first risk to give that young person a go and to give that young person the crucial experience he or she needs? We hear so often from a young person: “I can’t get my foot in the door because they tell me I haven’t got the experience to do the job.” What is this Government about to do? It is about to legislate to take away one of the tools available to the employer to provide that experience to those young people. We on this side of the Chamber say that that is a grave grave shame.