Adams Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6033] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I personally believe that this bill undermines the privilege that it is to learn and it puts another unnecessary cost on business in New Zealand. There are many employers in New Zealand who are very happy to employ staff for work done but this bill requires employers to pay staff even when they are not working and are instead in a training programme. Many people seem to think that the poor old employer is a bottomless pit able to pay for all and sundry but that is simply not true. Many small businesses struggle under a tremendous load. 
In my younger days I personally found it a privilege to learn from those who had experience and I went out of my way to glean information from others at every opportunity I could. However it would never have entered my head to ask them to pay me for the knowledge I was receiving; it was a privilege to learn. To have sustained employment we must have two willing parties—a willing employer and a willing employee—and the arrangement must be fair to both parties. However many small businesses are finding it harder and harder to keep up with the ever-increasing paperwork and compliance costs and now this bill is asking them to pay staff while they are on a training programme away from their workplace. 
This bill enables different minimum wage rates to be fixed for workers who are required to undergo training. United Future did support this bill going to the select committee in 2001; however I note that even the select committee could not reach a majority decision on the necessity for this legislation. Personally I believe that most employers do not object to workers being paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work but it is very one-sided to lay on employers the responsibility to pay for everything along the way. I believe that with all the responsibilities employers currently carry for the staff they employ—which in my personal opinion are currently very much in favour of the employee—this is an additional burden that employers do not require. If this measure is passed I believe that it will be another disincentive to employ staff. 
What many people fail to understand is that most employers are people also. Yes they may call themselves by a company name but behind that name is a real person. In many cases those people receive very little in the way of wages for themselves. Their wages are often far below what they pay their staff. Those people are the ones who often lie awake at night wondering whether they will receive payment for work done to enable them to pay their staff rent power GST PAYE etc. Many small-business owners carry a genuine concern for the families that their small businesses support and I commend them for that. 
I have been an employee and I appreciated my job but there is something refreshing about leaving work at night closing the door and leaving all of the concerns of the day there. The self-employed—and in most cases employers—cannot do that. They carry the responsibilities with them day and night. That is a considerable burden that is not often appreciated. I have spoken to many employers over the years and I often asked them: “How many of your employees have ever thanked you for the job you have provided for them?”. Mostly they look at me in amazement as it is a very rare occurrence. 
In my school days my mother often gave me an apple for the teacher. What was she teaching me here? She was simply teaching me to appreciate those who are instrumental in helping me on life’s journey. She taught me to go through life being a giver rather than a taker and that principle has never let me down. We are teaching people that it is a right to have an income whether or not they work rather than teaching them that they have a responsibility to work—if they are able—and that if they continue to learn and to do their job diligently then rewards will naturally follow. 
Most responsible employers train their staff at their own expense to enable them to do the work that is required in that particular business but this bill is not about that training. United Future could find no information about the likely compliance cost to employers the effect on the labour market the impact on trainees or the physical cost to the Government nor is there any hard data as to how many trainees are currently paid less than the minimum wage although anecdotal evidence suggests that there are very few. This bill may even have the perverse effect of reducing training wages to a minimum creating job losses or making employers reluctant to take on untrained staff. United Future will therefore not support this bill.