Boscawen John: General Debate 
Boscawen John: General Debate 
[Volume:675;Page:21065] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 We have come along this afternoon and heard from the Labour Party about its concern for youth unemployment. We have heard about the lost opportunity and we have heard about the so-called disgrace. Everyone in this House knows the underlying cause for that. Without a doubt there is one single major cause. I see Mr David Carter shaking his head. It is a pity Mr Carter and his colleagues are not prepared to recognise that problem. 
There was a very close relationship between youth unemployment and unemployment in the rest of the community up until 2007. If we follow a graph of the rate of unemployment over a number of economic cycles and we compare it with the rate of youth unemployment we find that there is a very close correlation. What happened in 2007? Against the strong opposition of the National Party Labour pushed ahead with a law to abolish youth rates a law that requires employers to offer a 16 or 17-year-old exactly the same wage as an adult with the minimum wage currently being $13 an hour. What was the one impact of that? It was to be absolutely expected. The rate of youth unemployment increased dramatically. It was not because of the recession. Yes the recession contributed but the very close relationship between adult unemployment and youth unemployment at that stage diverged. It diverged for one very simple reason: it was more expensive to employ a younger person than it was previously. If an employer was faced with the opportunity of employing a 16 or 17-year-old straight out of school on the adult rate of $13 an hour or employing a person with more experience a mature person aged 25 35 or 40 at exactly the same rate what would that employer do? Well we all know the answer to that. 
Mr David Carter Minister of Agriculture who acknowledged me earlier is a farmer. He has employed people. I ask Mr Carter: if he had the choice of employing a 25 or 35-year-old on his farm at $13 an hour or a 16 or 17-year-old straight out of school whom would he employ? Well if you speak to other employers other famers you will know absolutely the answer to that—you will know absolutely the answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think especially given your other life talking about “you” employing people on “your” farm could be seen to be drawing you into the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The former Minister should know better than to debate “you” this “you” that. It is not consistent with our Standing Orders. The member should refer to the member’s farm or the Minister’s farm not “you” or “your” farm. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am very happy to refer to Mr Carter’s farm. Mr Carter like all other farmers would know that when faced with the chance of employing a 16 or 17-year-old at the same rate as an older more mature person he would take the older more mature person at any stage. 
Today we have heard two speakers from Labour express concern about youth unemployment. Well they know the solution. There is a very simple solution. It is to reinstitute youth rates. It is interesting that Jacinda Ardern this afternoon talked about the $250 million of taxpayers’ money that Labour would put into encouraging employers to take on an apprentice. What were Jacinda’s comments? She said that 12 months was how long it took an employer to recover the cost of an apprentice. That is the cost; that is the incentive. We actually have to provide an employer with an incentive to take on an apprentice and it is that exact same incentive that Labour took away when it abolished youth rates. The tragedy of this—the absolute tragedy—is that most people with common sense in this House know that. I believe that every National member knows that because National spoke out strongly against the abolition of youth rates in 2007 when it was pushed through by Labour. National had an opportunity to do something about that. It had the opportunity to reverse that law change when Sir Roger Douglas had a member’s bill before the House in 2009. What did National do? It voted down the bill. 
The ACT Party will be taking a very active part in this election. We will be using the opportunity to go out and talk to New Zealanders about the things that need to be done to turn round this economy. We are talking about the waste of a young person sitting at home on the unemployment benefit picking up $4.50 an hour while watching television. That is a waste of our young people it is a waste of their potential it is a tragedy and every single person in this House knows that we can do something about it.