Connell Brian: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6231] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the House for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this bill. Hitherto the good business people around New Zealand and the folk in Rakaia have been only too willing to take on young people who are generally unskilled people set them on the road to a career and give them an opportunity. However we now have to ask the question: why would they take the chance? As business people we understand—and we are the business people of this House along with the ACT folk who understand—that working is reciprocal. We pay for what we get in return. The young folk who will be jeopardised by this legislation understand that as well. That is the crime of this legislation. The Government has not thought it through. 
We had 4 percent growth when we had the best of times—I know that 4 percent is good but although I do not think it is bad it is not as good as we could do—and one of the factors that restricted our growth was the lack of skilled people in sufficient numbers across regional New Zealand to drive our economy once we had the opportunity. This bill will undermine that. Why would employers take the chance of employing people when they will be exposed to the whole 9 yards of the Government’s anti-business employer relations legislation? Why would they take the chance? Members should ask most employers and they will tell them that when it comes to arguing in the Labour Court they just give up. They say that it is cheaper to get the cheque-book out rather than fight through an institution that is biased towards them and it is a total sham. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: This guy makes up all sorts of things. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I heard George Hawkins call out. 
Simon Power 
: I didn’t understand him. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I did not understand him either but I really do think that that man is depriving a village somewhere of its idiot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is going too far. The member will withdraw that comment. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. I was just thinking out loud. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make any comment. He will withdraw or his speech will be finished. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. The other thing that concerns me and other business people around this country is that this legislation will drive up the costs of compliance and red tape. I refer to a commentary in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where Business New Zealand described the bill as anti-growth. It stated: “It would discourage apprentice training and mean increased payroll costs for employers.’’ The question that I ask—and I believe that it has been asked before and not answered—is how many people this will affect. The article went on to say: “It would also override existing employment agreements.”—agreements where the vast majority of people are entirely happy with their lot. 
What escapes people who are so purist about the bill is that most employers pay more than the minimum wage now. It is logical when one thinks about it. Why would people continue to stay in employment if they did not think they were getting a fair shake? They would just vote with their feet. 
The other thing that concerns me is that in a report that I picked up from a select committee I read that two parties—and I will name them National and ACT—were concerned that the Labour Department had been unable to estimate compliance costs to employees the effect on the labour market or the positive impact on trainees. We went to the office of the Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson but she was unavailable for comment. Do members know why she was unavailable for comment? It was because she did not have the answers. In fact I do not think she had even thought about it. 
Why do we not accept a sensible pragmatic solution to this problem if in fact one exists? My National colleagues suggested this leading up to the last election. Why not have a trial period where people can engage in an employment relationship where both parties can have a look at one another to see whether they want to stay in the employment relationship? The employer does not get stuck with a dud and let us be honest there will be some. I hope it does not happen very often. Employees may find that they have engaged in a job that is just not for them and they will not leave that with a black mark against their name. Each party will walk away shaking hands and saying: “It just wasn’t for us.” 
My colleague David Carter raised an issue that is worth dealing with. But just as an aside before I go there I talked about compliance costs and exemptions. I wonder how long it will be before Maori trusts are exempt from employing people at the minimum wage on the basis that they are too poor? I will just hang that question out there and let people dwell on that for a while. 
David Carter raised the issue of the interface between minimum wage work and welfare dependency. What has been suggested here will drive people into welfare and that will guarantee them a life of poverty and dependency. I do not know about members of this House but do we not have greater aspirations for our kids than a life of welfare dependency and poverty? I see the Green member shaking her head in acknowledgment. Why is that member supporting the Government in this type of legislation? Our population has not even doubled in the last 30 years but we have seen a 12-fold increase in welfare dependency. There is such a significant number of working-age people in this country on welfare that we could not even shoehorn them into the city of Christchurch. That is an indictment on this country. It is one of the greatest social failures in our history. 
Let us have a look at the forestry industry and the impact this might have on it. The headline here states: “The forestry has trees but no trainees. The forestry sector needs 30000 more workers by the year 2025”. [ 
Interruption 
]Does that member want the floor? She should take the call. 
Jill Pettis 
: Will the member yield? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If the member takes 10 minutes I will yield. 
Jill Pettis 
: I’ve already had a call. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It must have been very brief because it was very memorable! The key was to break down stereotypes and show young people who were keen to work outdoors that they would not be locked into semi-skilled repetitive jobs. That was the key. The industry was trying to attract young people. The question I now raise is: why will it bother? Have we actually now closed the door on 30000 young people getting into the forestry industry? That is the number of jobs it says it is looking for. The question is very very relevant because at the moment the forestry industry is quite marginal. By increasing the wage bill compliance costs will overnight with the stroke of a pen damage that industry beyond repair. 
I leave members with this thought—one that I think the Government should dwell on: if we want to share wealth then we have to create it first. The Government by doing what it is is doing that concept immense harm.