Prebble Richard: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5159] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I say to Mr Peters as kindly as I can that both he and Mr Donnelly have come out of the education sector. They make the mistake of thinking that because they have been in educational training organisations they therefore know the situation that exists with regard to employers. I say to Mr Peters that the Government is making a very grave mistake in picking on 26000 out of the 250000-odd people who are in training and saying that because this particular group is employed in the private sector they are going to have their wages fixed by the Government but the Government does not of course apply that to those people who are in the training organisations that Mr Peters used to have some experience of. 
Then when we look at this particular clause I think the Government is making a mistake in removing section 9(c). For those who have not bothered to have a look at it clause 4 states: “Section 9 of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (c).” What does paragraph (c) state? It states: “Persons of any class prescribed by regulations under this Act who are employed under contracts of service under which they are required to undergo any training instruction or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified for the occupation to which the contract of service relates:”. 
Even if the Government wants to be able to apply some minimum wages to certain people in training it is making a mistake to take away the ability to have certain classes of people still being prescribed by regulation as not being covered by the minimum wage. There could well be some classes that the Government would like to exempt. I would be interested to know from the member. Is it intended to apply this to lawyers? I gave the example that lawyers at the moment have a longstanding tradition—I do not know how far back it goes but it probably runs back hundreds of years. If one wants to be a barrister one is trained as a pupil. Are they going to be prescribed or not? If they are not why do we not at least keep that ability? I have never heard of any young barrister complaining about the situation. It is just a reality that one works one’s way through. I think that clause 4 is not needed. 
The Government should still be able to keep the power by regulation even if it wants to have its centralised Government-knows-best approach. Why remove section 9(c) of the principal Act which enables the Government to decide to exempt by regulation any class of training people from being included within the minimum wage? I think the Government has done it as a drafting point. I do not think it is required. If the Minister thinks it through there is absolutely no reason we could not keep section 9(c). 
Why is the ACT party taking this view? We do it because as the Government’s own advisers have told the House this bill will cost young people their opportunity to get training. Mr Ryall is absolutely right. Who are those young people who are going to lose out? It is the very people whom Labour says it supports. Young Maori are going to miss out; young Pacific Islanders are going to miss out. It will be those people who have the most difficulty even getting into training and they will be the first out. 
But of course the Labour Party and its trade union mates have made many many speeches saying that they are in favour of full employment and are in favour of extending justice but in fact when it comes to the crunch they have always been in favour of the closed shop they have always been in favour of privilege and they do not extend those opportunities. It is one of the great shames that when we look at it the Government’s performance in education and in training is worse when it comes to Maori. Why Maori support this Government is beyond me. The Government cannot even produce any evidence that it is closing the gaps. I say that this clause is going to work against the very people whom the Government says it supports. That is not just my opinion. It cannot be dismissed by members opposite.