Turner Judy: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11603] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. If the bill was a blanket provision covering all young people then I think the fears that have been expressed in the House this afternoon—that it would disenfranchise those in their early teens and younger who seek after-school work—may have been a point worthy of consideration. However the bill recognises those young people who are able to be in full employment yet subject to age discrimination. I think some aspects of this bill could well do with being reviewed in a couple of years’ time particularly the provisional 200 hours which may well be excessive. The House may be negligent if it leaves it too long before it examines how that aspect is working. 
I want to commend several people. First of all I commend the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford. I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done and the Minister and the Department of Labour officials who have worked well together to find an achievable outcome. Politics in an MMP environment is very much the art of the achievable. For the sponsor of this bill incremental change may not satisfy the ideal she holds to but progress is often a journey not an event. As members of a party that approached this bill fairly cautiously we are pleased to be able to support this final reading. 
Recent concerns expressed in the media that secondary school students are increasingly trying to balance long hours in paid employment alongside full-time study need to be further considered. At 16 and 17 education is still the preferred path and it is United Future’s hope that with improved wage rates students will be able to reduce the hours they work after school so that they can focus on their study. For those 16 and 17-year-olds who have opted out of school employment remuneration needs to be such that unemployment is unattractive. 
 I also bring to this debate what is probably a very provincial view of these matters for 16 and 17-year-olds. For those who are 16 or 17 and who live in provincial areas often work and leaving home are bedfellows. To be able to live independently on the youth rate is nigh impossible for them because youth rates assume that young employees are still living at home and that this is pocket money to be spent in their spare time supporting their extracurricular activities. The truth is that for a large number of New Zealand 16 and 17-year-olds the youth rate is now what they are reliant on to live and to make a future for themselves. 
We are very pleased at the way this bill has progressed. It has certainly addressed our early concerns. I think that it is a first cautious step and that if these measures prove to bed down well and there are no unforeseen or unintended consequences then maybe some of the aspirations of the sponsor of this bill may be recognised at a later date. We would certainly be open having seen how this legislation beds down to considering where we go from here with youth rates. However we are very happy that we still have some youth rates and that they apply where they do. I think it has been a very sensible first step and I commend the sponsor and everybody who has worked on this bill for the work they have done.