Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1406] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My goal in putting forward this legislation is simply to get rid of the current legal discrimination that sees young 16 and 17-year-old workers paid less than people doing exactly the same job solely because of their age. There was a time in the history of this country which lasted for generations when Maori were paid a lot less than Pakeha for doing the same work purely because they were Maori. Nor were tangata whenua entitled to unemployment benefits but that is another story. There was also a time which also endured for generations when most women were paid a lot less than men who were doing identical work simply because they were women. 
These days I imagine that all of us in this House look back in disbelief that such primitive attitudes were so acceptable and accepted. Yet we still have a situation in which the legal minimum wage for young workers is set permanently at a lower rate than for workers 18 years and over. At the moment the minimum pay for 16 and 17-year-olds is $7.60 an hour. That will go up to a princely $8.20 at the end of March. The minimum pay for everyone 18 and over is $9.50 an hour which is due to rise to $10.25. All those pay rates are far too low. The national average earnings in our country in December 2005 equalled $21.29 an hour. The Australian minimum wage is currently set at nearly NZ$14 an hour. 
If we compare the $21.29 or even the A$14 with our minimum rates it should be easy enough to see why workers on the youth minimum rate of $7.60 or not much more might feel somewhat aggrieved. After all those young workers are carrying out real jobs that need doing. The work is not make-believe and it is not training. They have to meet a job description and all their employers’ expectations in just the same way as do their colleagues aged 18 and over. Jobs at the local petrol station supermarket fast-food outlet shopping mall cinema complex farm or a multitude of other places are not there for fun or for training. Those jobs are for real. If anyone doubts me they should take a quiet closer look next time they are being served or helped by a young worker. 
There seems to be a myth embedded in some older people’s consciousness that if one is young one is not worth as much. Yet how real is that myth? We are actually at our physical and mental prime when we are in our mid-teens. I hate to say that being the age I am now. For much of human history that was the age at which we started having and supporting our children and going to war for our tribe or nation. Most young people have minds that are sharp and bodies that are quick and strong at that age and they are more than capable of performing to a very high standard especially in the so-called entry-level jobs. I believe that many businesses take on workers in that age group because they bring greater mental alertness and/or a high physical capacity to the job—a higher capacity than would older workers in say their 40s 50 or 60s— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Or 70s. 
SUE BRADFORD 
:—or even their 70s; I agree with Mr Clarkson. Employers are not hiring young workers out of the kindness of their hearts; they are taking them on because they are as valuable to them as any other employees. 
The argument is often made that young workers deserve to be paid less because they are new to the workforce and need lots of training. I would like to refute that on several grounds. Firstly in this day and age many young people have already been at work since they were 14 or 15 and they have considerable experience in the workplace and even in the same job by the time they reach 16. Secondly even where that does not apply any worker no matter what their age needs training and orientation when they start a new job. All employers know that and in this day and age I am sure that most of them are more than adequately equipped to bring new employees up to speed in as timely and supportive a way as possible. Thirdly during the last few months as I have been working on bringing this bill to the House I have been surprised to discover just how many 16 and 17-year-old workers are not just at entry-level positions but are in fact in roles like supervisors or shift managers. These are people who might have been working for 2 or 3 years at a job and who have been promoted to positions where they are managing and training other staff—a number of whom may well be on substantially higher wages. Is that fair? Does that make sense? Not at all. 
Another argument used by those who staunchly believe young workers are literally worth less is that getting rid of minimum wage discrimination will mean employers will be reluctant to take on people in that age group thereby adding to youth unemployment. Now if I thought that was a reasonable expectation it is unlikely that I would be pushing this issue as hard as I am. There is no question that young people suffered disproportionately from unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s and I would hate to see us go back to the kinds of unemployment levels we had then. In fact I take note of research like that carried out by Treasury and published in a 2004 report that shows quite clearly that raising minimum wages for young people does not create or cause unemployment for young people. That is a myth. Many other factors cause unemployment to rise but that is not one of them. 
The Mayors Task Force for Jobs—which has done and will continue to do such wonderful work in the area of youth unemployment—said in a submission to Minister Ruth Dyson in late 2005 that minimum wage increases for 16 and 17-year-olds of 81 percent since 1999 “have not resulted in constraints on job creation or fewer opportunities for young people.” Instead what higher pay rates actually do is increase worker productivity—a happy and reasonably well-paid worker will almost always be a more productive employee—and at the same time boost the amount of money going back into the low end of the New Zealand economy thus helping to keep other workers in jobs too. 
Already a good number of employers have policies not to pay less than the adult minimum wage to their 16 and 17-year-old staff. I take this opportunity to commend them for the respect they are paying to the worth and quality of their young employees and I hope their fellow employers who have a less progressive attitude might take a closer look at the benefits those companies are achieving through a more enlightened approach. At a rough estimate there are around 10000 or more 16 and 17-year-olds in the workforce at present. The costs those young people face are no different from those confronting 18 30 50 or 70-year-olds. Food clothing and transport are just as expensive. There are no discounts for being young when young people go to the supermarket checkout or petrol station counter. Often young workers are still at school and helping to feed and clothe themselves and their families because the income coming into the wider whanau is simply not enough. 
Many young people are working long hours after school and on weekends just for reasons of survival. Teachers and principals express concern about the way in which that is affecting the ability of students to do their best at school. If those young workers were being paid more they would not feel obliged to work such long hours at a time when getting the best possible education should be at the top of their career agendas. We live in a country where wages for many are far too low and where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Those of us with a commitment to social and economic justice should be doing everything we can as MPs to boost minimum incomes and to close the aching gap between those who are paid a lot less than what they are worth and those who are paid plenty. 
I understand that my bill tonight has the support of a number of parties in this House and I would like to thank Labour the Maori Party New Zealand First and United Future in advance for what I understand will be their support. It is great that we will be able to have the debate in the select committee and enjoy the opportunity to hear points of view from all sides of this issue in the months ahead. Should National and ACT choose to support the bill I would be delighted. I realise that some members—even some in the supportive parties—may not be convinced by my arguments here tonight but I believe that when they hear the voices of young people affected by the issue and of those who work with them they will become more certain about just how iniquitous it is to be paid less on the grounds of age alone. 
I would like to finish by paying tribute to the unions and workers who have rallied picketed and marched over the last couple of months and who are out there rallying and picketing tonight in support of this bill and of a higher minimum wage for all workers in this country. They are the real heroes of this struggle and I hope that before long we will be celebrating a small but vital victory in the long march towards genuine pay equity for all workers in this country not just some.