Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11159] 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The bill is to be debated clause by clause. Members must stick to the subject matter of those clauses. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for allowing me to take the first call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that we are debating the bill on a clause by clause basis and the first clause of course reflects that the name of the Act will be the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Act. The term “new entrants” was certainly debated during the select committee hearing as it was thought that it might not necessarily reflect that we are dealing with young workers in the workplace. However that is the terminology that has been accepted. 
I say from the outset that we do think this bill is well intentioned. We think it is an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member that we are talking about the title. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I was just talking about the new entrants and I thought as part of the title that perhaps I could— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I appreciate that we are talking about the title and the bill is about the new entrants. It is called the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. In describing new entrants what we are doing is describing young workers 16 to 17-year-olds who are presently paid the youth rate which is 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I say again that we think the bill is well intentioned. We are not necessarily convinced that the title is correct but we really must look at substance over form rather than form over substance. We do believe that the bill is an attempt to avoid exploitation of and discrimination against young workers but I have to say we do not believe that this is the right instrument to do that. Indeed we believe that the bill may do the very opposite and price the young workers—the new entrants—out of the labour market and we are concerned about that. 
We are also concerned that these new entrants in accordance with the title of the bill may be tempted or encouraged to leave school so that they can get employment. Again we think that young people especially 16 and 17-year-olds—whether they are called young people or new entrants—should be encouraged to stay in education for as long as possible in order to get a formal education skills training or whatever. We would rather they be encouraged to stay at school and not become a new entrant to the workforce because they have been lured by the adult minimum wage or by the provisional adult minimum wage for those 200 hours of work which I understand is to be increased to 90 days by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
When I listened to the second reading debate on this bill—which again included the title—I did note the fundamental point made by the honourable Sue Bradford. I do commend her for this bill but I noted her comment that the fundamental point of the original bill was to remove discrimination based on age from the minimum wage law. To use her terms and to accept the premise of age-based discrimination I say that this bill is still discriminatory because it now discriminates in its revised form against 14 and 15-year-olds. 
The bill as we know started as an attempt to abolish the youth rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is straying from the title. I am going to be strict because it is the title we are debating. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I do believe Madam Chairperson that the title has to be discussed in the context of the bill and I am trying to wrap the title around the context of the bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’re not doing it very well. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I am quite happy with what I am doing I say to the Minister. I go back to the title of the bill which originally was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The majority of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended that clause 1 the title clause of the original bill be changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. 
It is worth thinking about who new entrants are. Members of the select committee of whom I am one met many of them and it was a great privilege to hear from those young workers. I was certainly very very impressed with them. They are workers who work in hospitality retail and so on and they are the workers who will be affected by this new entrants provision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can we have some fairness in the Chamber? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The original title was about ending age discrimination I say to Mr Mapp. I said during the first reading debate that we had to think about that. It was an important issue that we needed to consider. I believe that in terms of the title of the bill the select committee has looked at the issue very seriously and approached it responsibly. I think members will find that we do consider that the basis of the argument is right in that paying workers on the basis of age is neither just nor sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to keep to the title. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: And the title I think reflects our consideration on that. 
Other submitters talked about paying young workers and new entrants. There was some argument—I heard it from the opposite side actually—that having a new entrants rate then led to a higher rate which would discourage young workers from staying at school. One quote is worth repeating. A young worker said that if payment of a few dollars more will make 16 and 17-year-olds quit school they will be quitting school anyway. I thought that was a very important point. I think the title takes into account the genuine concerns of many who felt that young workers in their very first jobs often lacked work socialisation skills and required more time and investment to adapt to working life and that is what the title of this bill is about. Although the committee agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be paid differently just because of their age we did accept the argument that the inexperience of first-time workers or new entrants deserves the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work. 
The new entrant concept is not a new one in the workplace. What it is effectively doing is paying workers for experience and that is common in many workplaces and in many agreements. Experience is often recognised through service pay so one could say that the provision is for a form of service pay. The new entrant provision means that people have to work a certain amount of time then they get paid more. I think what is really great about the bill though—and it is reflected in the title—is that thousands and thousands of workers will get a pay rise once they are no longer covered by the new entrant provision. It builds on the work Labour has done since we became the Government. I know this may be out of order Madam Chair but I do have to hold up this little chart. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is out of order and I just remind the member again about the title. Members have plenty of opportunity to debate the main clauses of the bill as we are doing it clause by clause. There are five questions. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will certainly come back to my chart. The debate around new entrants is a very interesting one and I can see my colleague over there having a laugh because “new entrants” is an interesting description of people coming into the workforce. It is quite a strange term particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time. 
Hone Harawira 
: Young slaves! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No they are not young slaves. The description is used for schoolchildren. We did debate a little bit about how we could better describe this phenomenon of new workers coming into the workplace such as “first-time workers” or “new workforce participants”. But on reflection I think the title does express the intention of the bill very clearly which is to pay an adult minimum wage to workers who have completed a very short period of work and have gained some experience. It recognises that when new workers come into the workforce they have some experience to gain. The period of work is a very short time and I am pleased that we have made really good progress on what that will mean in practice. It will mean of course that once new workers have completed the period of work for new entrants they will get a huge pay rise and is not that a wonderful thing? Who would deny 16 and 17-year-old workers a huge pay rise? In fact I do not know any workers who would say no to that level of pay rise and I really have to ask: what is wrong with that? 
I think the title of the bill does reflect what the bill is all about. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill Sue Bradford for bringing this issue to the House. I thank her for doing that because I think it is a very important thing for us to be discussing. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I would like to speak to the title. The original title was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and I think it should have stayed like that because that describes what the bill does and does not do. In fact a good title would be the “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is exactly what it does. One wants the title to say what the bill actually does. This is no different from Dr Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probationary period legislation which we did not support. This is the same thing. 
The title is wrong. New entrants could be 20-year-olds or they could be 50-year-olds entering into the workforce or into a particular job so having the words “New Entrants” in the title does not really encapsulate the idea of someone of that age but rather the idea of someone entering the workforce. If one goes shearing then one can be a new entrant into shearing at any age. Certainly as a rousie or a presser one can learn in 2 days what one is required to do and go straight into that sort of mahi. Furthermore with the age structure the way it is many Maori fall into that category of youth. So as we multiply as we are doing we will come under this legislation. 
I was really excited when Sue Bradford brought this bill forward because it was Maori Party policy right from the very beginning to remove that discrimination. But the bill does not remove the discrimination at all; it just changes the name. Therefore the title Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is the wrong name and it should be left as “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is what it does. Kia ora. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will be taking a couple of calls on the bill. I appreciate that this debate is about the title and the substance of the bill is really contained in clause 4. My next speech will be focused around that. 
It is extraordinary is it not? We had the bill starting off as the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and it was a complete abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. The promoter of the bill Sue Bradford was very proud of that fact; that she was standing up for the rights of the oppressed youth throughout the nation. National opposed that abolition. We saw the age period 16 and 17 as quite a short period and in fact we think the bill provides some perverse incentives basically to encourage youngsters to leave school earlier than they might otherwise do. 
We now have a change to “New Entrants” which is actually misleading. I would have to agree with the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples that it is misleading. The whole point of the bill still if one reads clause 4 is about 16 and 17-year-olds whereas in fact it is a pretence that it is only new entrants. I also note the point that Dr Sharples was making about the 90-day legislation which he supported and in which I had made amendments to make it easier for the Maori Party to support in the long run. They know that. They were given plenty of notice on that. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are talking about the title not the 90-day legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes obviously the member wants his speech cut short. Keep to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was merely commenting on a previous speech which of course one is entitled to do provided one does not digress too much. 
Returning to the title issue it is actually now I think a misleading title to refer to it solely as “New Entrants”. The core of the bill is still about 16 and 17-year-olds and relates directly to the abolition of age discrimination which was the original title of the bill. So I have to ask the promoter of the bill why she agreed to this change. In fact she should have stuck to her kaupapa and said “this is actually about 16 and 17-year-olds only and it is about abolition of age discrimination.” That at least would meet the requirement of legislation which is to tell the public what it is about. The new title unfortunately fails that most basic of tests. 
How can we be sitting in this Parliament today purporting to pass legislation through the Committee stage with a title that is actually misleading? At the very minimum there should have been some reference to the fact of the age discrimination issues. Maybe it could have been called the “New Entrants Age Discrimination Removal Bill”—something like that would have at least connected the new idea with the 90-day period and the purpose of the bill: the abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
I should say that National is still fundamentally unconvinced that this measure is necessary; we do not believe it is. We believe as indeed is evident people are able to negotiate these kinds of arrangements and one such negotiation has already occurred. So employers have flexibility; they have different requirements and demands. While it is easier for large employers such as Progressive Enterprises it is not so easy for smaller employers. So we still remain unconvinced of the merits or the necessity of the bill. 
Clearly we recognise that it has been improved and I would have to put that on record. Clearly the bill has been improved and one of the issues that was raised through the select committee process was in fact the whole issue of new entrants—a training period if one will. The promoter of the bill will recall the discussion from the National side of the Committee on those very points and we do note that there has been some accommodation of that. But on the issue of the general principle we feel the bill is an excessive intrusion into the freedom of employment arrangements between people. We believe it will act still as a perverse incentive that will stop people furthering education and training but we understand the intent of the bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage on clause 1 the title clause of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The title was the subject of some change at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I was pleased to be a member of that select committee. The title of the bill is one of the things that the committee made an amendment to and a fact that many other speakers have alluded to. 
I want to talk about some of the reasons behind that change to the title. I differ from the previous speaker in that I believe that the New Zealand public understands exactly what the phrase “new entrants” means. It is the perfect description of what this bill does. The term describes people who are newly entered into the workplace in New Zealand. It is a very common term that we use for children entering the school system. We do not for example say when someone is in year 7 and changes schools that that child is a new entrant. No we do not say that. We say that new entrants are those who are new to the education system. They are newly learning the processes and structures involved in the education system. So the concept of a new entrant is one that is well understood in the New Zealand environment and is very appropriate to use for what this bill does. 
At the select committee we did not talk just about people who are new to a particular work environment because that would be discriminatory. People change jobs all the time and become new to the work environment but that is not what we are talking about in this bill. In this bill we are referring to those people who are having the experience of paid employment for the first time in their working lives. 
I am sure that many members in this Chamber can still reflect for themselves on what it felt like to be a new entrant into the workforce. Certainly for myself as a new entrant it was a bit of a shock to the system. My first job on leaving school was working in horse racing stables and that entailed getting up at 4 o’clock in the morning. It felt very much like a completely different scenario from getting up at 8 o’clock in the morning preparing my school lunch getting on the school bus going to school and really being the recipient of information coming towards me. 
Obviously when people move into paid employment they are not the passive recipients of information coming towards them; they are often required to be producing and to be producing every hour of their working day. That is quite a shift and quite an adjustment that new entrants into the work environment need to make. 
So I support the title that the select committee came up with: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. We could have called it the “Minimum Wage (Put our Money Where our Mouth is When it Comes to Low Pay) Amendment Bill” also because I think that that is one of the things that this bill does. Those parties that will be supporting this bill can proudly stand up and say: “Yes when it comes to low pay we are prepared to do something practical and something real to deal with low pay; it is not just a bumper slogan that we reel out during an election year.” In conclusion I tell the Committee that I support clause 1 the title: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 The name of this bill is a shame—the “New Entrants Bill”. Sue Moroney has just talked about new entrants going to school. There is a difference I tell her—we do not pay 5-year-olds to go to school. There is a big difference. We are talking about people going into the workforce here. 
The original bill was called the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill but we will not be able to call the bill by that name any longer because this bill will maintain discrimination against those people who are young. It has this new fancy kind of title because it continues to discriminate. I am ashamed to listen to these so-called tough unionists talking about workers’ rights etc. etc. when they are shafting the next generation of workers. They are from the party that talks about the working class—but let me take this back to the title of the bill. 
The Maori Party would like to call this bill the “Abolition of Age Discrimination Bill” because we are a tough unionised working class - type party. However in this bill we are about to reaffirm discrimination against young people so we cannot call it that. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: But that is what you are doing Darien—you know that I am right. You are affirming discrimination against people on the basis of age. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member was bringing the Chair into the debate— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: He was not! 
Sue Moroney 
:—during that speech and he knows not to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. Dr Mapp you are lucky to be here. The member knows that that was a point of order and that he does not talk through a point of order. I gather that the member who had the call was using the word “you” and it is something we certainly want members to cease doing. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: My apologies—my apologies. There could be another title for this bill when the thinking was: “We the Labour Party did our best to oppose Wayne Mapp’s 90-day bill and we have decided to be really really radical and introduce a Supplementary Order Paper so that this one becomes a 3-month bill which just happens to be hello 90 days.” I am ashamed to say that there is hardly any difference there. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: No no—we are talking about the title here. 
I want everybody to realise one other fact here. It is that discrimination on the basis of age is against human rights and Labour is pushing through Supplementary Order Papers and a bill to ensure that that discrimination will continue. 
I have been known to call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. I will give a quote from Martin Luther King: “Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.” That is why I call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. Young people have no option but to accept it when their so-called union and working-class protectors have affirmed that that is the way it will be. 
If it is true that it takes 8 hours to train a person then why do we need to have a 200-hour limit in the bill? If it is true that it takes 16 hours— 
Darien Fenton 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is straying again from the title. Please come back to the title. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I would like to wrap it up there but I will make the point that the bill is inconsistent with the philosophy of unionism and the rights of the working class. It is inconsistent for a Labour Government to be talking about the title of the bill as being about new entrants when in fact it is a “Continuation of Discrimination Against People on the Basis of Age Bill.” 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in this Committee stage in relation to the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill and the fact that we are talking at this stage about the title of the bill. If we are to consider the title and how it should reflect the substantive matter of the bill then I think that the title is appropriate. 
I disagree with the previous speaker from the Northern Territory that it in fact does represent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member must refer to other members correctly. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: I beg your pardon. The title does in fact reflect the substantive nature of the bill because the bill is about the minimum wage. It is about making sure some statutes are in place that address minimum wages and it also reflects those minimum wages for new entrants. 
So I think that the bill is timely and that it is appropriately named. It is aimed at the group of workers that traditionally have had a long history of problems surrounding their rates of pay. Other names in the past have been used to describe pay rates for that category of workers if we are talking about whether this title is appropriate. Other names that have been bandied around have been “youth rates” and “under a certain age rates”. But I think we have come to a stage where in considering this entire bill the title is appropriate. It addresses the matters we are about to discuss as we continue this debate in the Committee stage and I stand in support of the title of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 2A Principal Act amended 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Clause 3 Purpose 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This is the purpose clause of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill but it obviously also includes certain criteria and whilst not straying from talking about clause 3 that naturally means I will have to also talk about the criteria. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the principal Act which as we know is the Minimum Wage Act to expressly provide for a minimum rate of wages to be prescribed for new entrants being workers who are 16 or 17 years of age and who meet certain criteria. This is not a huge bill but the criteria I think are very important. 
The criteria include such items as the length of employment whether that employment has been with one or more employers and the position held by the worker. That basically says it all. Nothing about how many hours of work is mentioned in the bill’s criteria although the commentary on the bill suggests a figure of 200 hours of employment on or after an employee’s 16th birthday unless that 16 or 17-year-old is employed in a supervisory position. The minimum rate as I think has been mentioned is set at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I state from the outset in relation to this purpose—and I restate—that we believe that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. No worker should be exploited because of age or for any other reason. But we are concerned about the criteria—and we share the concern of some of the submitters—that this bill will only raise the cost of hiring young workers. It will not actually increase their productivity and as I tried to mention in my address in relation to the title it may have an adverse effect on the employment and training of young workers. It may be a barrier to them entering the workforce and it may indeed tempt or encourage them to leave school and forgo their education or trade skill training for a job that is paid at or above the adult minimum wage. 
I say in relation to the criteria that I see no reason at all why a 16-year-old would not be paid at the same or similar rate to a 19-year-old a 25-year-old or for that matter a 40-year-old if he or she does the same work and makes the same contribution. But as one submitter said: “Younger people tend to be paid at a lower rate than older workers because age is a proxy for experience and performance on the job just as the age of 15 is a proxy for the minimum capacity and maturity required to drive a car on our roads.” Legislation like this whatever its purpose cannot change overnight the amount of experience and performance capabilities of any worker whatever his or her age. 
To paraphrase a useful quote—and again it is in relation to the purpose—”What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job.” I think that sums up a lot of our worries and concerns about this bill and its purpose that it will indeed be a barrier and not help the employment of young people. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 The National Party was quite struck that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to end age discrimination in employment by removing the ability of the Governor-General to set by Order in Council minimum wage rates defined by reference to the age of workers amongst other things. I would be quite keen to hear the matter discussed in more detail if the honourable member Sue Bradford would like to take a call. 
The National Party has huge concerns about the ending of age discrimination in respect of young people in smaller towns. I heard some of the submissions and arguments made about places like fast-food restaurants in small towns where people are working next to each other doing the same job but are paid differently because they are different ages. To be honest some of what they said made sense and when we heard from the young people themselves we were moved by their stories and agreed they were doing exactly the same job. 
The concern I have has also been expressed by other members on this side of the Chamber when we have discussed this bill at length. We have not made our decision lightly because it affects young people. Obviously in the National Party we agree that people should be paid what they are worth. There is no question about that. 
We could give the example of Levin a small place that has mechanics hairdressers small businesses and small retailers. They often take on someone from school to give that person a go. Those businesses do not have much money or much fat. They do not take on that young person to make the business some money or even really for that person to have a huge input into the business at that time but they see the benefit for the longer term of taking on that person. The businesses may be strapped for cash and not making a lot but by paying the minimum wage rate they can take on a young person. 
For example I have a dear friend in Taupo who owns a hair salon. She takes on someone from school on late nights on Thursdays and Saturday mornings. She said that to be honest the young person sweeps a few floors and does not really do much but it gives that young person a taste for the industry. It takes a huge commitment to train as a hairdresser. Trainee hairdressers work for a long time for only a little money in the hope that the qualification will lead to something worthwhile. My friend said that it is a huge commitment to undertake. 
The purpose of the bill is to remove age discrimination. The National Party has huge concerns that the bill actually discriminates against young people because small businesses in smaller towns cannot afford to give young people a go if they have to pay them adult rates. Those young people will end up in jobs in bigger places in supermarkets and so on and although there is nothing wrong with that it does not give them a taste of what they are hoping their future career might be. 
We heard another good example of a veterinarian who takes on young people—and I raise this in terms of the purpose of the bill to cut out age discrimination. That veterinarian takes on young people after school but can afford to pay only the minimum wage. The veterinarian cannot afford to pay them more than the minimum wage and does not want to pay them nothing so takes them on at the minimum wage. A young person in that situation is rapt quite frankly. The person is getting a go and having an opportunity that would not arise otherwise. 
These small businesses said that they knew the worth of what they are doing for young people. I wonder whether the bill has been as well-thought-out as it could have been in that respect. 
I say to the member in the chair Sue Bradford that we understand some of the bigger problems and perhaps why she has brought in the bill. We do not always agree with other members but that is the nature of this place and that is OK. We can argue about it. But I do have huge concerns about whether those smaller areas have been thought about—areas where there are not as many employment opportunities for those young people. Those small businesses are almost doing a community service by taking on these people. They are quite open about the fact they cannot afford to pay anything more than the minimum wage but they know it may help those young people with career opportunities later on. That is really important. 
I have personally had people write to me and National has had many people meet with us. They range from veterinarians to hairdressers mechanics panel beaters and many others. Kids working for these businesses are looking for a bit of a break and a taste of the work so they can see whether that area suits them. 
Sue Moroney 
: Talk about clause 3. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I have been talking about the purpose clause and we hear moans and groans from members on the other side of the Chamber because that is what they like to do. I do not believe that any member of the House wants people not to be paid what they are worth. That is the truth of it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The member from National Paula Bennett has inspired me to speak because first of all I would like to respond to her comments. Young people in smaller towns if not older people are actually worth the same for the job they do wherever they happen to live in the country unless one is proposing a policy that says we should discriminate in wages on the basis of where one lives which I would find an extremely odd policy. I would also point out that a number of programmes for young people to gain work experience are available I believe in smaller towns as well as in cities such as Modern Apprenticeships and work placement programmes from schools. This bill does not tamper with the training wage either which is still available. So I really do not think that the problem the member speaks about is a real one. 
I would also call the member’s attention to an agreement that was signed yesterday between Progressive Enterprises and the Northern Distribution Union—it was very happily supported by that employer last night and today; a progressive employer indeed—where that employer has agreed to take everything a step further than this bill goes. All its young workers will be paid from when the agreement kicks in after the first 200 hours or the first 3 months on the job whichever comes first. Workers for Progressive Enterprises supermarkets will hit the full adult wage after 200 hours or 3 months and that will happen not only for 16 and 17-year-old workers but also for 15-year-old workers. I am hoping that other supermarket chains and retailers will follow that company’s example. 
Further to the purpose of the bill overall my original purpose was to remove fully discrimination on the basis of age for 16 and 17-year-old workers. That has not been completely achieved by the bill as amended and I will talk about that a bit more when we come to the debate on the next clause. But in terms of the main purpose of the bill it is simply unfair that the wages should be different for people doing exactly the same job. 
The previous speaker said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received plenty of submissions and could see that these young workers are doing the same job as older workers. In fact in a number of cases they are supervising and training older workers which is almost the grossest injustice of all. Particularly in places like the fast-food industry and in some retail outlets the young workers have sometimes been on the job for 3 years. They are still 16 or 17; they are put in the position of training and supervising older workers. There could not be anything less just than expecting those workers to continue to receive the minimum wage at over $2 an hour less than what the people they are training are receiving. The work is the same the employer’s expectation is the same and the job description is the same. 
The other thing that is the same is the cost of food clothing and transport. That does not change because one is 16 or 17 either. It does not matter what part of the country one is in; it is a myth that the wages young people earn are not for “real things”. Often these young people are helping to support their families. As we know wages are too low in this country anyway and some families are on benefits. Often these young people are contributing to their family. In other cases they will be contributing to their own clothing transport and food—the necessities of life. These things do not cost young people any less just because of their age. 
All workers also need a short period in which to learn the job. It does not matter what age one is when one starts work. It does not matter whether one starts work at 16 or 60 there is an orientation into any workplace. The Green Party certainly does not believe that workers should have to spend 2 years being paid a lower wage simply because they are learning how to work or how to do a new job. 
Wage discrimination is arbitrary inequitable and unjustifiable. I am really pleased that this bill even in its modified form is taking a big step in the right direction in terms of finally getting rid of this inequity of discrimination on the basis of age. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak about clause 3 “Purpose” of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. It is no surprise that the National Party is opposed to the purpose of this bill. From time to time National members say that they want to do something about low wages in this country and they have the opportunity this very evening to support the purpose of a bill that has a practical impact on improving low pay in this country. Given that opportunity National members stand up and say they oppose clause 3 being the purpose clause. 
Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to provide expressly for a minimum rate of wages to be prescribed for new entrants …” and we have talked about the title of the legislation and who new entrants are. This clause describes new entrants as being those who are 16 or 17 years of age and who meet certain criteria. I know that we will have an opportunity later on in the debate in Committee to talk in more detail about what those certain criteria are but Sue Bradford certainly made reference to the fact that they will be around such workers not being in situations where they are supervising other staff. 
Of course that situation exists at the moment. Many 16 and 17-year-olds came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and were able to tell committee members about situations where they were supervising other staff who were on higher pay rates than they were receiving simply because the Minimum Wage Act in its present form allows that to occur. Also one has to say it was because their employers chose not to pay them what they were worth. 
The member Paula Bennett raised the issue about young people in small towns. I spend a lot of time in many of the small towns in New Zealand. 
Paula Bennett 
: Cambridge? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes places like Cambridge and places like Matamata and Morrinsville. 
Hon Member 
: Sandra Goudie was in Cambridge recently. 
SUE MORONEY 
: They just about ran her out of town but that is not the subject of this debate. My experience is of being in Matamata on a Sunday and buying groceries. I try not to do that on Sundays too often but in this particular event I was. Two young women both 16-year-olds were there. One was putting the groceries through the checkout and the other one was packing them. It was Sunday afternoon and I asked them what wages they were being employed on. [ 
Interruption 
] I will talk about stable hands shortly because that is another group who will benefit greatly from the purpose of this bill which the National Party opposes. 
These two young women were really very aware. They were pointing down the aisle and one said: “Look that woman down there is doing packing at the same rate as I am.” I think they told me she was on about $12 an hour and these young women were on $5 and $6 an hour. They were doing exactly the same job on a Sunday. In years gone by they would have expected penal rates for that as well but that is a whole different debate again. 
So I certainly cannot support the view of the previous speaker Paula Bennett that perhaps this is an opportunity to introduce geographical discrimination because this bill was an opportunity to get rid of age discrimination. The impact of that move will be widely felt in the small towns in New Zealand. It will be greatly appreciated by 16 and 17-year-olds. 
I say to Ms Bennett that yes people do work in stables in places like Matamata and Cambridge. The legislation will have a big impact on that industry. Those young people are getting up at very early hours and are working very long hours. In fact they would be able to meet the criterion of having worked for 200 hours a lot earlier than they would meet the criterion of having worked for 3 months. Many of these young people would be meeting the 200-hour criterion in about 4 weeks such are the hours they work in that industry. 
These are the realities out there for young people in these positions. They are working in industries that are well supported by this Government and that are thriving under this Government. This is another piece of legislation coming forward from this House that will further support those young people in their endeavours. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Prescription of minimum wages 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on clause 4 of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I understand there is a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to this clause. Can I say from the outset and repeat that the National Party thinks this is a well-intentioned bill and an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination of young workers but it is not the right instrument in which to do that. 
I will pick up on one of the scenarios that the honourable member Sue Moroney mentioned in respect of the young women in the supermarket on $5 an hour. That seems somewhat incredible to me because if those women were aged between 16 and 17 then under the current law they should have been in receipt of 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. If they are earning less than the adult minimum wage then that is contrary to the law. That may indeed be—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that it is not permitted for those who do not have the call to interject on each other. Interjections are only for the member who is speaking. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I would also like to repeat the quote that I used earlier because I think it is a good quote to use to preface the debate on clause 4: “What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her”— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although your ruling at the last break in proceedings was that people who were speaking could be interjected upon—and I have absolutely no difficulty with that and I am not disputing it—I would ask you to remind members on the Government benches that those who have shifted their seats to gain advantage should not use that advantage to interject on others. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution and say that a number of members on both sides of the Chamber have shifted their seats. I will take into account what the member has said. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will paraphrase the quote that ended my previous speech because I think it is a good quote to preface what I want to say in relation to clause 4. What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? We really need to focus our minds on that because if the bill even though it might be well intentioned becomes a barrier to young people obtaining work and if it prevents them from getting work then the bill will have the opposite effect of what is intended and it will not be good effective law. 
Clause 4 relates to what the Governor-General by Order in Council may prescribe as the minimum wage and this provision is in relation to 16 or 17-year-olds who basically meet the criterion. The criterion was specified in the commentary on the bill as being 200 hours of employment. We recognise the introduction of the new entrants’ requirement of 200 hours. I appreciate that Supplementary Order Paper 137 proposes to replace that period with 90 days but I will speak to that later. The requirement is designed to provide young workers with time to acquire the skills and experience necessary to hopefully lift their productivity which is what we all want to achieve and to justify a higher minimum wage. The difficulty with this 200 hours’ training requirement is that the formula provided for it is not clear. The 200 hours could be with one employer in which case those skills could be cumulative. It could be with two or even more employers. In that situation one cannot assume for example if a young person worked for four employers at 50 hours each that that experience gained is actually transferable to the latest employment. One cannot assume that the skills and experience of the different jobs are transferable and that the young person is valuable enough to the employers to justify the adult rate. 
The interesting thing about the Supplementary Order Paper is that it abolishes the youth rate—to use the colloquial term—but then it proposes to insert a provision in respect of workers who are new entrants “being workers who are 16 or 17 years of age except workers (i) who have completed 3 months or 200 hours of employment whichever is the shorter;”. I want to focus on that criterion for a moment. I wonder whether the member Sue Bradford might take a call and explain what she understands by the amendment—although of course the amendment has been introduced by the Minister Ruth Dyson. 
There are two issues in respect of this amendment. One issue is that the definition of employment includes employment undertaken with more than one employer. So this provision basically includes a young person who has worked for a couple of employers. But what happens if the young person is employed with only one employer? That is not included in this clause. I am not sure what the rationale would be for this. It seems to me that if it is a training rate a provisional period or something like that then employment with one employer would translate into an employee acquiring more cumulative and better skills training and experience rather than working for more than one employer and doing the same job but not learning. Maybe there is a very good reason why the provision relates to employment undertaken with more than one employer. I would have thought the correct drafting—not that I am here to help the Government draft its Supplementary Order Papers—would be that it should be one employer or more than one employer. If that were an error of drafting it would not surprise me. 
The second point I will make in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper is in relation to the provision that the new entrant has completed 3 months of employment. There is nothing in the definition of employment to say how many hours that 3-month period of employment is. Is it 3 months? I know that Supplementary Order Paper 137 states that it is 3 months or 200 hours whichever is the shorter but 3 months could be 1 hour per week or it could be 1 hour per month. There is no qualitative criterion for that 3 months of employment. I think that this leads to some uncertainty and we all know that uncertain law is bad law. 
I will talk further in relation to the wider ramifications but those are the two issues that I raise in relation to the technicalities if you like of the Supplementary Order Paper. I understand and appreciate what the author of that Supplementary Order Paper is trying to achieve but I am not actually sure that that will be achieved through this amendment. 
I also say at this stage that many employers at the moment—and we understand through submissions that the figure is about 85 percent—already pay above the minimum youth rate to their staff. That is because they recognise that the value their staff are providing warrants a higher level of pay. I was interested to listen to the submission of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. In its submission it advised that none of its members receive the youth rate at all; in fact they all received above the youth rate. 
We have to wonder what the point is of having a prescriptive bill like this that could be the very barrier that stops young people from getting a job. 
Paula Bennett 
: More compliance costs. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes it is a case of more compliance costs because employers have to keep a record of not only the hours worked with them but the hours worked with other employers. They may not even necessarily know what other employers the young person is working for in terms of the 200 hours or the 3 months. When does the 200 hours actually kick in? It is not the responsibility of employer A to know exactly what employer B is doing. Keeping a record of the hours per se is not a problem because wage records are kept. But one does not keep records of the hours worked in respect of other employment matters or issues or for other employers. I think that it is somewhat unwieldy. Again unwieldy and uncertain law is bad law. It is good for the lawyers but it is bad law. 
In any employment relationship the last thing people want to have to do is resort to the tribunal the authority or the court procedures to try to work out exactly what this law is supposed to say. I believe that the bill is not particularly workable. The intent of the bill is fine. Let us avoid the exploitation of young people. If young people deserve a fair wage then they should get a fair wage. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk to clause 4 of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Kate Wilkinson referred to the Supplementary Order Paper and I will not attempt to unravel the lawyer-speak that the member presented to us in that last speech. I think that is unnecessary actually because I think it is far simpler than she is saying. 
The fundamental thing about this bill that perhaps some people have not understood is that we are talking about the minimum wage here. We are talking about a minimum wage. Maybe members opposite do not understand what the minimum wage is for. A minimum wage sets a floor below which no employer can pay. It is about having a socially acceptable minimum wage. 
I heard the member Paula Bennett calling out to ask what unions are doing. Well I think we have seen what unions can do with the Progressive Enterprises settlement—and the Spotless settlement has in fact set a whole new benchmark of $14.25 an hour. That is what unions are able to do. This legislation is for workers who are vulnerable and who rely on this but it was never intended to be the primary wage-fixing instrument. So let us just remember that too. 
I think the other thing we should remember is that we have come a long way but boy did we have a long way to come! When Labour became the Government in 1999 16 and 17-year-olds—and indeed 18 19 and 20-year-olds—were being paid $4.20 an hour. That is shameful absolutely shameful! The first thing Labour did was to lift the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. What is wrong with that? Now their pay is nearly three times what it was in 1999. The minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds has increased by more than 100 percent during the same period. What is wrong with that? That is fantastic. 
We have provided legislation for other workers to have a minimum wage—for example workers with disabilities. In a few weeks the House will be debating my member’s bill about dependent contractors being entitled to a minimum wage. What is wrong with that? What we are talking about is people getting paid socially acceptable minimum wages. 
What is wonderful about this bill and about clause 4 is that thousands and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will get a pay increase after they have done 200 hours of work or have worked for 3 months whichever is the lesser period. Again I acknowledge Sue Bradford. She has done a wonderful job in bringing this issue to the House and the parties who vote in support of this clause tonight will be making history. As I have said in a previous debate it is world leading. 
I say to the members of the Maori Party that I am a bit puzzled about why they would choose to make no progress at all and to leave the current injustice in place so that 16 and 17-year-olds continue to get the youth minimum wage for 2 years rather than to make progress. One of the things that I have understood for many years as a union negotiator is that if one asks for 10 percent and gets 8 percent one does not say to the boss: “Sorry that is not good enough. We will have nothing.” It is better to make progress and that is what I think this bill does. A whole lot of workers out there are saying that this is a whole lot better than nothing and that they are looking forward to getting a pay increase. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 which was moved by the Minister Ruth Dyson locks in the adult wage for 16 and 17-year-olds. This means that a future Government under the Minimum Wage Act cannot go back to having a youth minimum wage apart from the new entrant period. This is fantastic—unless of course a future Government changes the law; let us not let that happen. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 also locks in the provision that if a worker is supervising other workers then the new entrant provision does not apply and the worker goes straight on to the adult minimum wage. That is fantastic. What is wrong with that? 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes sure that where the new entrant provision applies the worker gets 80 percent. At the moment there is no guarantee of that happening; the worker gets whatever the boss chooses to pay. So that locks it in too. 
As I have already mentioned the new entrant provision applies for only 200 hours which is 5 weeks for a full-time worker or 3 months. It might be only an hour a week but hey we have made a judgment on that and we think that is fair given the nature of the industries that are covered by the minimum wage or the youth minimum wage—the retail industry the hospitality industry and so on. 
Once again for the benefit of the Maori Party this bill has nothing to do with probationary periods. This bill is amending a totally different Act of Parliament. It has nothing to do with Wayne Mapp’s bill even though he keeps trying to bring it up—he has not really got over it. Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call in order to make a few comments about Supplementary Order Paper 137 that has been proposed by the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not think it is any secret to the Committee that the Green Party and I were not particularly happy with the bill as it was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—as I said in the House and as we stated in the minority report. However we do support the latest Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister and I would like to give some of the reasons for that. 
First of all the Supplementary Order Paper enshrines the decisions that were made by the select committee and that appear in the commentary on the bill. Secondly the Supplementary Order Paper strengthens those decisions by adding a time-bound maximum of 3 months’ service as an alternative trigger to 200 hours for the period that new entrants are required to work before they move to a full minimum wage. This is really important and that is what I am really pleased about as a number of young people work only a few hours a week and it would have taken some of them up to 6 months or even 9 months before they could have moved to the full adult wage—it would have taken them as long as that to reach the 200 hours. That provision would have applied in a lot of workplaces and any pretence that somehow it takes 6 months or 9 months to learn how to do a job to be a new entrant in a job is just ridiculous and I am really glad that this progress has been made. Thirdly and most important for me the Supplementary Order Paper is strengthened by removing the power of any future Minister of Labour to again regulate across the board for discriminatory youth rates. I would like to congratulate the Government on taking that step. 
These changes make a much better bill. They make a bill that is much closer to its original intent than that which came back from the select committee. That is why the Green Party is really happy to support this amendment and feels confident of making big progress with the bill today and when it next comes back to the House for the third reading. 
This Supplementary Order Paper and the bill as amended are an indication to employers and workers alike that across-the-board age-based discrimination has been removed from our Minimum Wage Act. It allows unions and employers to negotiate wages with certainty and not have to worry about a rogue firm gaining a competitive advantage through the hiring of low-cost young workers. I would like to thank the Minister Ruth Dyson again for drafting this Supplementary Order Paper which now enables at last the Green Party to happily support the bill. I would also like to mention and thank Peter Brown and New Zealand First for agreeing to the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper. I know the member has been very involved in the select committee and the process of this bill going through the House. I thank him and his party for their support and for making it the better bill that it has become today. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have just been listening to the debate and I felt somewhat— 
Nathan Guy 
: Moved. 
ERIC ROY 
: Moved would be the word yes. I was going to say “angered” but moved will do. I felt moved to make a contribution to this debate because I can recall with great clarity the first debate we ever had about putting in place youth rates and that was by way of a private member’s bill moved by Michael Laws and Nick Smith in 1994. So this debate has gone on over time. The issues that were apparent then are just as clear today and I wish to draw attention to those issues. 
The first point is that this bill says that the best way we can help people to get involved in the workforce and to get rewarded for what they are doing is to have the Government say what they are worth. And I would say that that is a flawed notion. 
David Benson-Pope 
: There were 161000 people unemployed under that party. 
ERIC ROY 
: The member who is making a great fuss on the other side of the Chamber needs to consider these issues. I absolutely agree that people should be paid what they are actually worth but the history under this Government is that productivity in New Zealand has gone down and by every measure we are worse off now productivity-wise which means that we are less able to compete in the world market and ultimately that there will be fewer opportunities for young people. 
The question surrounding the minimum wage is whether there is a job opportunity and whether we rule that out by setting the barrier of a wage that is too high. I give members this example. In the petrol station where I get my car filled with fuel there used to be a person on the forecourt who filled up my car. But as soon as we put minimum wages up to a point that has an impact on the price of fuel I will go and get my car filled up somewhere else where I can pump my own gas. So when we set the bar too high it becomes a disincentive for employment because at the end of the day someone has to pay. So to think that we can resolve the situation of a low-wage economy—which I admit we have in New Zealand compared with all other countries particularly those above us on the OECD list—by just putting wages up can in actual fact work as a disincentive for employment. That is the first point. 
The second point is that when we start to dictate what a minimum wage should be and when that bar is too high then that sends a false message and locks in dependency because many young people think that that wage is as good as it can get. The moment young people step into a minimum wage without education and without any incentive they are locked into that for the rest of their lives. 
I want to pick up on clause 4 because this is the part that really starts to concern me. Clause 4 will enshrine in law a delegated authority to set what the wage is. So by passing clause 4 today we are saying by Order in Council that somebody can set the wage. 
Darien Fenton 
: Haven’t you read the Minimum Wage Act? 
ERIC ROY 
: My questions are—and I expect someone who is very vociferous on the other side of the Chamber to answer this—”What is the mechanism to be used by those people who make the recommendation to the Governor-General and who are they?”. I have only just picked up this bill and had a cursory read of it. Is it the Minister of Labour? [ 
Interruption 
] Well someone can take a call and respond because I believe that this is an issue we need to know about. What are not stipulated in respect of this delegated authority are the measures to be taken by the group individual or person making the recommendation for that minimum wage to be set and altered at any point without the intervention of Parliament. What criteria will they consider when they are using that delegated authority to set the minimum wage? So I have some serious concerns that by passing clause 4 as it stands we are locking in a mechanism whereby some people who are not specified in the legislation have a right at any time not determined in there—it could be twice a year or every 5 years; we do not know the specifics— 
Dave Hereora 
: Read the bill! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well someone can respond to that; I have had a quick look at it as I say. 
 Let me just restate that this is not a case of helping young people by locking them into a situation. If we want young people to be incentivised to be interested and to be taking opportunities then it is not a matter of encouraging them to lock themselves into a low and minimum wage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker for the benefit of my learned colleagues on my right I tell them that I would like them to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3. It was a favourite of former Deputy Speaker Geoff Braybrooke and it is becoming one of mine. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As we have heard from Sue Bradford who has been the driving force behind the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill—and it is good that she has had all the commendations from around the House; even from National members who say it is a well-intentioned bill even if they do not support the content—the Green Party will be supporting this bill this clause and Supplementary Order Paper 137. 
I would like to put to rest Kate Wilkinson’s idea that somehow this bill will stop employers from employing people who are not getting youth rates. In fact I think a lot of the evidence she has provided argues the other way. As she pointed out 85 percent of people at that age are not paid youth rates at present and most of the people on youth rates are in either the retail or the fast-food industry. We have had Progressive Enterprises a big chain coming out and saying that it can quite easily do away with youth rates even for 15-year-olds so I think the idea that any of these firms will go bust if they do not give the odd extra dollar to make up the full minimum rate for workers is not particularly apt. Doing away with youth rates is no great sacrifice for the employers but they are a huge sacrifice for young people entering the workforce. 
I think it is great the way Progressive Enterprises has come out and responded to the concerns of the general population and of young people in particular in the same way that their competitor Foodstuffs has come out recently and supported the labelling of fresh fruit vegetables and meat in supermarkets as a response to popular concern about that issue. The way that these companies are getting ahead of the play is fantastic. 
There was a bit of an argument about people being paid $4 an hour and whether that is below what they should be paid on youth rates. I will not get into the particular argument or the figures but I will say that young workers are often duped to some extent about what rate they are owed. The existence of youth rates makes it more difficult because they know they will get a lesser rate as a result of these youth rates and anyhow they are all a bit scared in their first time in employment. Often they do not want to talk back to the employer and a lot of them are not unionised. Unite! and the National Distribution Union are gaining members in the industries that employ young people but a lot of those young people are still not unionised. Unknowingly they sometimes take a lower rate than they should have to legally. The very fact that we have clear legislation will give those young workers more confidence. 
The move to complement the requirement of 200 hours’ work with a minimum 3-month period will help a lot of workers to work out where they stand too because it might be a little hard for them to shuffle around bits of paper about how many hours they have done for this employer and for that employer and add it up to 200. It will be a bit complicated but hopefully they will be able to do it if they are getting their 200 hours up in less than 3 months. At least they can work back to the date that they started work and figure out when they qualify for the full rates so it will be easier in that respect. 
I think there was a misunderstanding over whether the requirement is 200 hours with one or more employers. I looked at the explanatory note on the back of Supplementary Order Paper 137 and it states that “employment” includes more than one employer. If we were to apply that explanatory note to the definition then clearly it is employment with one or more employers. 
Of course the Greens would like this bill to go a little further. We are not really in favour of youth rates in any form for 16 and 17-year-olds but this bill is a great step forward and we will definitely be supporting it. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I will start by acknowledging the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford. I thank her for her determination and her stubbornness on many occasions as she watched the bill go through its many iterations at select committee in and out and I thank her for her support for the Supplementary Order Paper that I am moving to amend clause 4 which we are debating at the moment. This is really the heart of the legislation: the prescription of the minimum wage. 
I listened with great amusement—and that is the kindest adjective I can apply—to the contribution from the member from Southland Eric Roy who described the process of reviewing and setting the minimum wage in Sue Bradford’s bill and Supplementary Order Paper 137 as if it were new. Frankly for the National Party perhaps it is new but it has been that way as a process in the Minimum Wage Act since 1983. What happened in the 9 years from 1990 to 1999 when there was a National Government in New Zealand was that National complied with the law because all the law stated was that one had to review the minimum wage. It did not say one had to increase it and that is why the previous National Government did not do so. For 9 years the adult minimum wage stayed at exactly the same rate except for a pathetic increase of $1 an hour over the entire 9 years and at that time young people were included right up to the age of 20. 
The youth minimum wage which is the point of this debate applied to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Under National one did not become an adult until the age of 20 and what is more the youth rate was set at 60 percent of the adult rate not the current 80 percent. So for that member to come in here and say that this is new is just nonsense. It is new to increase the youth minimum wage; that has been happening only in the last 8 years under a Labour-led Government. That is why the graph of the minimum wage looks like it does with the blue numbers flat-lining and the red numbers going up. Sue Bradford’s bill will improve that situation even further. 
I also commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because this legislation is not as easy as the original proposal. The idea that jobs should be paid according to their value is pretty straightforward and I think that it is an excellent principle on which this bill was developed. But the submissions to the select committee raised a number of issues including the main driver behind our consideration of the amendment which was the socialisation skills that young people do not have. It is not skills for the job and it is not skills generally that training itself will fix because we still have a training rate linked to skills—and the list member from Christchurch did not seem to indicate her understanding that we have a training rate that is skill-specific related. This is about socialisation and that is all. Frankly some of the contributions at the select committee would indicate that even the adults who made the submissions had not quite got to that stage in their presentations either. So after hearing from the select committee and listening to what are quite complex submissions and debates I proposed this amendment. 
As I said earlier I am really delighted that the proponent and sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford has urged her caucus colleagues in the Green Party to support it. I also acknowledge New Zealand First the Maori Party and United Future which are also supporting it. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I thought United Future was going to support it. 
Darien Fenton 
: The Maori Party isn’t. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Maori party is not supporting it? I cannot believe that those members would not support such a good step forward for young people. They still have time to change their minds as the debate will go on for a little while yet. But the parties that are supporting the bill did so after a lot of careful thinking. 
We do not want to send the message to young people that leaving school early with no qualifications is a good idea and I do not think this bill will drive that message. Our increase in the youth minimum wage over the last year has shown a negligible impact on the number of young people who are leaving school early. In fact if anything this increase has allowed people to stay at school longer because the part-time jobs are better paid and they are able to balance work and school without doing long hours. We do not want to send a message that it is OK to leave school too early with no qualifications. 
I also want to just touch on the other spurious point that Eric Roy made in his contribution—I think Paula Bennett may have made passing reference to this as well—which was about the possible impact on unemployment for young people that a higher wage would have. I cannot believe the short-term memory loss that has occurred in the National Party in the last 8 years. When National was last in Government there were 161000 people on the unemployment benefit and that figure now is 20000. There has been a drop in the rate of people on an unemployment benefit of 140000 people despite the fact that every single year we have increased the adult minimum wage we have increased the youth rate we have increased the percentage of the adult rate that the youth rate has attached to it and we have also made sure that people at 18 years of age receive the adult rate. 
With all those changes we have had a decrease of over 140000 people on an unemployment benefit. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Tell us about the young people. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My colleague asks about the young people. Well I just happen to have that information. When National was last in Government there were 17500 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit despite the fact that the youth rate was so low that a person could have employed 20 people in any business and it would hardly have made a little bump in his or her wage bill. The youth rates were a pittance. What is that figure now? The rate of 18 and 19-year-olds on an unemployment benefit in our country now is 1000 people. Those are the statistics that National should think about before it comes into this Chamber and raises spurious arguments in opposition to improving the way that 16 and 17-year-olds are recognised through their wage packet. 
In conclusion I acknowledge that this bill does not go as far as the sponsor of the bill and the Green Party originally intended. That is one of the things that happens when we are in a Parliament that comprises a number of parties. If we have a day when the Green Party is a majority Government it will be able to go ahead with exactly what its members want without any debate discussion or perhaps compromise with other parties. But I seem to recall that the Green Party was a strong supporter of proportional representation; certainly my colleague Rod Donald was as co-leader of the Greens. This is one of the results of proportional representation. We have to work with other parties and we have to make some compromises. We cannot just bowl ahead and do what we want. 
I am pleased that we have been able to reach a position that is supported by the sponsor of the bill because this bill is done for the betterment of young people so that the contribution they make in paid work is properly valued. The amendment applies to all employment regardless of whether it is the first second third or fourth job. I am glad that other members read the full Supplementary Order Paper rather than following Kate Wilkinson’s very shallow example of not even reading it. Lawyers should read the legislation before they make a contribution in Parliament; it is very damaging to one’s reputation if one does not do that. It is very clear that the legislation applies to all paid employment of 16 and 17-year-olds. It includes employment undertaken before the commencement of the Act. It does not include employment for those under 16 years of age. That is a debate for the future I am sure. 
In my view this legislation is a huge step forward for 16 and 17-year-olds. It recognises the primary valid concern of employers that some period of socialisation be required. This period is almost a transition between school and a paid job. Perhaps the 200 hours was too much—it was only 5 weeks in a full-time job—but we have reached a position now where 200 hours or 3 months applies whichever is the shorter across all employment. That period can obviously commence prior to the implementation of the Act. There will be a huge wage increase for people and that recognises the value of the work they are doing. Many of them are doing exactly the same work as people who are older and who are getting paid more. 
I also acknowledge the contribution from Business New Zealand. The point it raised in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is also reflected in this Supplementary Order Paper and indeed in the bill as reported back from the select committee. Business New Zealand was not supportive of the bill but it did say that anyone supervising somebody should be paid at the adult rate. This legislation achieves that as well. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tena tatou katoa e hui nei ki te korero i te pire nei. I want to make the stance of the Maori Party very clear. All members somewhere in their speeches on this legislation have said they believe in the principle of equal pay for the job done yet here we are with a bill that does not supply that. Why have we not got the guts to go the whole hog? That is the point.  
The Maori Party went up and down the county in support of repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act. The principle of repealing section 59 was to give children the same status as adults—in other words to end discrimination against children. Why should there be a defence for an assault on a child that cannot be used for an assault on an adult? The same thing applies here. Why can we not go the whole hog and say that we do not agree with differential wages for 16 and 17-year-olds without having to invent something like new entrants korero? 
Although the Supplementary Order Paper is an improvement on the bill in that workers now qualify for the adult minimum wage if they work for 200 hours or 3 months whichever is the sooner it still does not satisfy the Maori Party position of opposing discrimination. Our kaupapa and our tikanga the resourcing of whanau and the promotion of rangatahi [ 
Interruption 
]—if members listen carefully—are values that are very important to Maori. We Maori are also the ones who have a lot of our population in the youth area and what sort of message are we giving young people by saying they are worth less? What sort of work ethic are we supporting? What are the inside messages that we are sending to young people by saying to them that they should start at this lower rate? 
The concept of a new entrant into the workforce does not sit with that entrant being of age 16 or 17 either. It could be that someone who is 20 41 or 51 is entering into a new work area. Many Maori are employed in areas such as shearing sheds the road and a lot of manual jobs. They do not need a new entrants supervisor or skills to swing a shovel or to use a handpiece—well they need a bit of practice for the handpiece but to throw a fleece— 
Eric Roy 
: How many a day do you do? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: All of those bro—200 a day. I am just saying— 
Eric Roy 
: You understand. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes that is right. So despite the heckling and the support I say that that is the reason why we are opposing the bill: it is the whole thing or nothing. It is about discrimination and this bill still discriminates. Kia ora. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My honourable colleague from the Maori Party has raised a very interesting question. Let me make it quite clear that New Zealand First supports this bill and all the amendments under the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought to the Committee. We think that this legislation is a way forward. We recognise that many employers in this country are now sympathetic to the cause and we want to be behind them. 
But the co-leader of the Maori Party Pita Sharples—for whom I have a great deal of respect I might add—raised an interesting question: why do we not go the whole hog? Let me answer that by saying that there are employers in this country who have some fears. It is not just a case of employing person A and person B to do the same job when one is lifestyle-experienced and the other is new. There are other qualities that employers have to take into consideration. It is not just about a measure of competence; it is about a measure of attitude and commitment. Older people tend to have a greater commitment to the employer and to the company. It is about a measure of lifestyle. Younger people tend to live for their pleasures dare I say it—and actually some older people do too. I have to clarify that. But younger people tend to give priority to after-hours activity as against working-hours activity and they get the balance wrong. And—I have to say this with some concern—younger people are not necessarily as reliable as older people. 
Hone Harawira 
: No no. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is true. The “William Wilberforce of the South Pacific” is challenging me. 
New Zealand First is supportive of this compromise position but if anybody has changed tonight I have to say it is the Green Party. My breath was taken away when Sue Bradford offered some compliments to New Zealand First. They were deserved because I think it is fair to say that we have put a lot of background effort into this bill and I thank the member for recognising that. But last week when the bill came before the House I heard her colleague Keith Locke describe it as a rotten compromise. By jingo I have to say that that got up my nose with the amount of work that has gone into this bill. It has turned from a rotten compromise to a reasonable thing which the proposer of the bill now applauds. 
At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we heard from a number of young people and they put their case exceedingly well. Two young women in particular came before the select committee independently and they made a great impression on me—not because of their looks; well in part because of their looks. They told us they were in supervisory roles one in a cinema and one in a hotel. There were people coming to work in those establishments who were a good deal older and who knew nothing about what was required and what have you and these young people on the youth minimum wage were training those older people. That is absolutely and totally wrong. An employer with any nous would have said: “Look I’m paying you more for what you are doing.” I have no doubt from the way these people put their case across that they were telling us the absolute truth. 
It is good to know that many employers—Kate Wilkinson told us it was 85 percent of employers—in this country are supportive of this type of legislation. That is good to know. I say to the National Party that it should get on side with the majority of New Zealanders. They should think about it if 85 percent of employers are supportive. But in particular I want to say to my colleagues in the Maori Party that for goodness’ sake they should not oppose a bill because they have got their knickers in a twist. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
PETER BROWN 
: That is what it amounts to. They are saying: “We don’t get everything we want so we’re going to oppose it.” And this is the party that went to solve the problems of Australia. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I would like to add a contribution to this debate tonight. I start by responding to Minister Dyson’s comments about the changes in unemployment rates across the country since the Labour Government’s rise to power in this country particularly her claim that amongst 18 and 19-year-olds there has been a drop of 17500 in unemployment and also that altogether there has been a reduction of 140000 people in unemployment. It was an interesting point that was made because Labour members always say they are responsible for that drop in unemployment. How they make that out I am not too sure. Did the Labour Government employ those people? 
Sue Moroney 
: Labour is responsible for the drop in unemployment. National raised unemployment. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Labour is responsible for the drop in unemployment? Employers are responsible for the drop in unemployment—employers—and that is where this Government does not understand business at all. The people who are responsible for the drop in unemployment in this country are employers. We see the same situation with a conservative Government in Australia. There has been a significant drop in unemployment over there over the same time because of employers. I ask those members to name me one thing that this Government has done in the last 6 years— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! It is Wednesday evening; I am aware of that. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —that has— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member’s speech. He is making some very good points. But I wonder whether he would take a question. Would the Government have been responsible— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member is perfectly entitled to ask the member on his feet to yield but that is up to the member himself. It is not a point of order. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The decisions around employment are made by employers and are largely driven by the economic circumstances that they find their businesses in. That is what drives unemployment. Let us take the comment about the drop in unemployment among 18 and 19-year-olds. I will give the Labour Government some credit for the drop in unemployment. The credit goes to Labour because of the rise in bureaucracy in this country—I will give them that one. 
The $20 billion increase in Government expenditure since 1999—$20 billion—has resulted in some employment that they can take some credit for. But tell me how many of those 18 and 19-year-olds has the Government employed? How many 18 and 19-year-olds have been employed by the bureaucracy? How many nurses aged 18 and 19 have been employed? How many doctors aged 18 and 19 have been employed? How many analysts at the Ministry of Economic Development are 18 and 19-year-olds? How many analysts at the Department of Statistics are 18 and 19-year-olds? Not one. So the reduction of 17500 in unemployment has nothing to do with the $20 billion increase in spending by the Government and it has everything to do with employers in this country who have driven unemployment down. 
What policies have been put in place to help the unemployment rate? Here we see a bill—not a Labour bill but a Green bill—aimed at increasing the youth rate. I turn to clause 4 “Prescription of minimum wages” and you will be pleased Mr Chairman that I am getting back to that part of the bill. Section 1 in clause 4 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council prescribe the minimum rate …”. Now how is the prescription of a minimum rate going to reduce the unemployment rate of 18 and 19-year-olds? It will not make one iota of difference because for 18 and 19-year-olds and 16 and 17-year-olds employment is all about employers who give them a job. 
I want to finish my speech tonight by talking about McDonalds Supermarket an employer in Taradale. I ask the Green members how clause 4 “Prescription of minimum wages” will help that employer employ more 16 and 17-year-olds. That employer has helped to increase employment in this country. It has employed 16 and 17-year-olds and it has given them a work ethic that they can take with them throughout their lives based on a wage that that supermarket can afford. I was one of the guys who was lucky enough to get a job in that supermarket early in my career and that gave me a work ethic. Over many many years employers such as that company have employed young people given them a start and given them a future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 At this point of the debate in the Committee stage we are really getting to the crux of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I think that the member who has just resumed his seat should perhaps cross the floor because in fact he argued against his own party’s position. His colleagues were maintaining that increasing the minimum rate for 16 and 17-year-olds would affect employment figures. That member did a good job of convincing—I hope—his colleagues and certainly the rest of the Committee that the evidence is there: increasing the minimum rate does not affect the employment rate or the unemployment rate. That is not what this bill is about. 
This bill is not about affecting employment or unemployment rates; this bill is about getting a level playing field for 16 and 17-year-olds. When 16 and 17-year-olds are contributing in a workplace to the same level as any other person irrespective of what their age may be they will not be discriminated against by virtue of the Minimum Wage Act. That is what this bill is about. 
I think that the member who just resumed his seat completely missed that point. He thought he was coming down here to debate who had done better in terms of unemployment rates—National or Labour. I do not think we need to debate that. I think everyone in the country is absolutely aware that under Labour—under its policy settings under its support for business under its support for workers and under all the policies that it has brought in—there is no doubt that unemployment has fallen dramatically and drastically. 
This bill is really putting the cat among the pigeons and not just for the National Party. The National Party is really exposing its hand here. Its members have campaigned in the past on the issue of being worried about low pay in this country and worried about New Zealanders who take their skills and fortunes over to places like Australia. They talk about that regularly and routinely. But when they get an opportunity to do something in this House to improve low pay in this country what do they do? We can check their voting record. Every single time they get an opportunity to improve low pay in a structural way they vote against it. That is what the record of National is. So next time those members roll that little bumper sticker slogan out at election time check the voting record. 
I will move on and respond to the Maori Party position. Hone Harawira earlier in this debate talked about the very experienced union people on this side of the Chamber and made some observations. Thank goodness that the Maori Party is not a union responsible for taking wage claims forward. At this point in the debate the Maori Party members are saying—and my colleague Darien Fenton used this example before as well—that if a union goes to an employer for a claim for a 10 percent wage increase and the employer says: “Well good argument folks but we can’t quite do that. We’ll give you 8 percent instead.” the Maori Party if it were the union would say: “No thanks very much. We’ll take nothing; we’ll take zero.” That is the position that the Maori Party is taking at present. 
I think that the Maori Party is probably standing on principle but it is not thinking about the practicalities of this. The impact of voting against this Supplementary Order Paper is the maintenance of the status quo. The status quo means that 17 and 18-year-olds will not get this increase in the minimum wage until their 18th birthday. This Supplementary Order Paper makes significantly more progress than that. 
I know that Paula Bennett sneers at people who work as stable hands and people who live in small towns but I want to use the example of many young people in an industry that I am familiar with who work as stable hands in the horse racing industry. Supplementary Order Paper 137 states that after 200 hours of employment 16 and 17-year-olds will receive the adult rate. That will take about 4 weeks of working in a horse racing stable for a 16-year-old—they generally work about 50 hours a week—to be on the adult rate. That is the sort of improvement that has been proposed here. The Maori Party would have that 16-year-old wait 2 years and not get the adult minimum rate until 18. I really encourage that party to think about the practicalities of the position it is putting forward on that basis. This is good progress it is world leading. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker can stand up and make allegations about what I have and have not said and she can say that I wish to see people in some regions being paid lower wages and that I do not care about people who work in stables and places like that. If that rings a bell at that particular time then that is fine. 
But let us take something that the Minister Ruth Dyson said on 25 July. She said that we need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have for thousands of workers against the possible negative impact of giving those 16 and 17-year-olds an incentive to leave school early with fewer qualifications. The Minister has introduced this Supplementary Order Paper 137 because the Government has concerns that there may be a possible negative impact because of that incentive. 
The member who spoke before me stood up and said correctly that within 4 weeks those young people will be on the adult minimum wage. How will 4 weeks counter that negative impact and stop them leaving school early? The Minister herself has identified it as an issue. She said that the Government has concerns about young people having an incentive to leave school early without full qualifications yet it admits that 200 hours can be done in 4 weeks. As such a slightly lower wage for 1 month will not be the disincentive that Labour hopes it is. 
Let us also take a comment made by the member who spoke before me who has since disappeared. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. If I had had the call and been able to respond to that member when she spoke earlier in this debate and talked about young people being on wages of $4.20 and $5 an hour then I would have pointed out that that is illegal. Those employers are breaking the law now. This Government is to put in another law and thinks that all of a sudden it will fix it. The Government thinks that if it puts in another law employers who are breaking the law and not paying the bare minimum wage now will think: “Gosh golly me! I had better obey the law.” No! We should stick with what the law is now and fix those people who are breaking it. The Government should come down hard and fast on them because people in this country have rights. 
If the unions cannot stand up and make a difference then perhaps they need to take a hard look at themselves and their values. We have heard about Progressive Enterprises. The Greens spoke about the agreement between Progressive Enterprises and the unions earlier and I say: “Good on them.” Actually there is no one here who would not say: “Good on them.” Good on Progressive Enterprises and good on the unions for putting a case forward having it listened to and then looking at their books and working out whether they could afford it. 
We can look at small businesses. One can try to turn it into a regional argument and say that Opposition members do not care but that is not true. If those small businesses are not in business then the people they employ will not have jobs. Then the only choice those young people would have would be at supermarkets and in chain jobs that go in and out and they would not have these other opportunities. 
The member who spoke before talked about stable hands and the racing industry which is quite often known for paying the minimum rate for young people when they first come in. It is a time for them to get in and show their worth. It is a time for them to muck in and for them to pick up that shovel and do the sort of dirty work that shows whether they have the mettle to make it in the long term because the job ain’t going to get any easier. In fact the job will probably get tougher at times and they will have to have the backbone to put up with it. Those employers let those kids in they let in more kids than they can afford and often they pay them the minimum wage to start with. But they give them a shot and when they have proved themselves they pay them more. 
Let us talk about some of those young people who get the minimum wage and who get bonuses. Those small businesses turn around and when things are going well for them they give their staff the cash. We can give many many examples of small businesses that turn around and when things are going a bit better that is the first thing they do. They put their hand in their own pockets and they give that cash to their staff. They turn around and give Christmas bonuses; they give a little bit more. They give it back. 
But if the Labour Government keeps going at them keeps loading on the compliance costs and decides to keep burdening our small businesses with compliance costs and regulations in the way that it does then it will make it so tough for those businesses to keep going that they will not do so and those jobs will no longer be there. That has to be of huge concern and not just to members on this side of the Chamber. 
Surely there should be some recognition for those people who go out there who take the risks and who take those young people on because they want to give them a shot. They do that because at the end of the day they know that it will show the mettle of those young people. They will end up being rewarded at a rate that is way above minimum rates and the businesses will get something back for it. That is important and that is really what shows. 
I want to raise one issue with the honourable member Sue Bradford. It is about paper girls and boys and those who go out on deliveries. I know that this issue is not completely covered in this bill but it is obviously a related issue. I personally want to put a pitch in because as a mother whose daughter went out and did deliveries into letterboxes I think that they should be paid at least double if not triple what they are paid. I also think that money should go to their parents who end up doing the deliveries most weeks. 
At the end of the day it is actually the parents who end up doing deliveries out there and I thought that if ever there was a case for something then this is it. I would quite like a petrol voucher or to be paid for the number of streets I have walked up and down delivering those brochures on behalf of my dear daughter who thought it would be a great thing to start off with but who very quickly decided it was not quite the job she thought it would be. 
Let us finish on a couple of things. One of them is Supplementary Order Paper 137 which talks about the requirement to have worked 200 hours or to have worked 3 months. I would tell Mr Williamson to take note of this—and I congratulate the honourable member sitting next to me on having been 20 years in this House. Today he is celebrating having been in this House for 20 years. 
Hon Member 
: How many hours has he done? 
Hone Harawira 
: Less than 3000. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: He is only 38; it has been quite a ride for him. 
Let us just make the point about those businesses that need a break. Those businesses are doing the best they can and they will reward their workers as soon as they can—and fairly. Let us make the point that 85 percent of the people in those businesses are paid above the minimum wage and we need to correct some of the misinformation has been going through this Committee today. 
Those 16 or 17-year-olds who are paid $4.20 or $5 an hour have bosses or employers who are breaking the law. We on this side of the Chamber would be coming down hard and fast on them and we would be making no apologies for them—no apologies at all. It people are breaking the law there are laws for us to go in hard. But those businesses that are not breaking the law need some sort of understanding and they need that break. This Government can continue to put more and more legislation on them but at the end of the day it will not have the results it needs. 
I stand here easily before the Committee and say there is no way—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh get into the year 2007 people—get into the year 2007! Labour members should move on move on. I know that they are still living in yesterday and just want to blame what is happening now on what happened in 1997 or in 1995. That is 12 years ago people 12 years ago. Those members should get into the year 2007 and see what is really happening in today’s world. Then maybe—maybe—there might actually be a game on. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(a) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(b) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(3) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance on this. My understanding of the way that the Standing Orders work is that when a member’s bill is going through this House then anybody else can put amendments to it but that person must be putting them forward as a member of the House. So it should be that Ruth Dyson is putting amendments forward as a member. You have been calling these amendments in the name of the honourable Minister Mr Chairperson and I do not believe that a Minister can in the form of a Minister be putting amendments to a member’s bill. It must be in the form of the Hon Ruth Dyson as a member of this House. I would like some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that and he is absolutely right. The member is putting the amendments through but as I understand it not as the Minister. The Minister is not in charge of the bill.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(4) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.