Locke Keith: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10728] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is somewhat disappointing after my colleague Sue Bradford put this bill in and after it got though the first reading and went on to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the bill has been rather gutted at that committee. It is very much a fifty-fifty sort of bill a half-hearted bill in the way it has come back from the select committee. It is very unfortunate that the Labour Party choked at the critical moment of putting it though in its original form. We had a real chance to abolish completely in minimum wage terms the injustice that has been done historically to 16 and 17-year-olds. 
There was every reason for the select committee to come out with a clear position in favour of the bill. We had legal advice given to the Attorney-General stating quite clearly that to continue this age discrimination would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that in essence the bill was illegal. Secondly the entire trade union movement—including the Council of Trade Unions—which historically the Labour Party has some association with was fully for the bill in its original form and the Labour Party has alienated the entire trade union movement by having this compromise— 
Darien Fenton 
: They want something rather than nothing. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I think there is a certain embarrassment there because those members know that that is true. The Green Party has stood alongside the trade union movement on this; the Labour Party has not. The unions are not just formally in a position; they have conducted rallies and campaigns high school students have mobilised and there have been student strikes. There have been all kinds of things supporting this bill to get rid of youth rates completely. As a result of this campaign certain industries like BP McDonald’s and Postie Plus have conceded full rates. They have got away from youth rates as a result of the campaign by unions that has run alongside the bill. 
And these unions are not giving up. Darien Fenton who spoke before me referred to the press release put out today by the National Distribution Union—a union of which I am a proud member. The National Distribution Union along with Unite! and the Council of Trade Union’s youth movement has set up a website called www.endyouthratesnow.com to help people to mobilise to get this bill through in its original form and to make sure that in its Committee stage it is improved. That youth movement those unions and others will be having a march and a rally on Saturday 11 August leaving from Britomart in Auckland at 12 noon. It would be good if some MPs went there participated in that rally and steeled themselves for the Committee stage in order to move amendments to get the bill back to its original form. 
I refer to some of the myths that surround this bill. The first is that somehow young people are low-quality labour. Nobody is saying that experience does not count for something but we all know that in a lot of areas of the economy particularly where there is some level of computerisation and information technology involved young people of 16 and 17 years of age are much more on to it—they are much quicker to learn—than are people who are say over 30. That is why young people are often chosen as casual workers in the fast food industry and in supermarkets. Employers know that they will be on to it more quickly than most of the older people. Young people are not poor quality labour. The idea that somehow profits will suffer if young people are employed on full rates is quite wrong. 
As Mark Gosche rightly pointed out 85 percent of employers do not go for youth rates. It is mainly in the fast food and retail industries where those rates apply. The reason—and Darien Fenton reinforced this as well—is the competitive pressures in those industries; it is not some basic cost structure in the industry itself. If one lot of employers goes for youth rates other employers think they have to follow suit for reasons to do with competition. 
I think it is quite wrong to say—and I am glad that Mark Gosche also said this—that young people are suddenly going to leave school early and go out and get full-time jobs at age 16 if youth rates do not apply. It is disappointing that the Government put out a press release today talking about the “possible negative impact” of an incentive for 16 and 17-year-olds to leave school early with fewer qualifications. I think Mark Gosche put the lie to that correctly in his speech. In fact we could look at it in another way. If there are no youth rates then people who are going on to say universities and institutes of technology etc. will have more from their part-time earnings to support them in their studies. They are more likely to be able to afford to continue in education not less likely. There are not too many people as I think Mark Gosche mentioned who will go out and forgo any possibility of a career and the education towards it for $450 a week on the minimum wage. 
There is the whole question of “new entrants”. This bill is called a new entrants bill; whereas as has been pointed out a lot of people at 16 are not necessarily new entrants into the workforce; they may have done odd jobs previously. There are all kinds of problems relating to the 200-hours qualification period. I thought from the debate that the 200-hours qualification period was mentioned in the bill and I am sure that a lot of people who have been listening to the radio will think that this bill contains a provision about a 200-hours qualification period before young people go on to full rates. It is nowhere in the bill; it is only in the commentary where there is a recommendation to the Minister of Labour saying: “Dear Minister of Labour you might consider this 200 hours.” 
Unfortunately Labour members seem to be arguing both ways on this. On the one hand when they are criticising Hone Harawira they tell him not to worry because the 200 hours is not mentioned in the bill; on the other hand when they are arguing to get United Future’s support or whatever they say that the 200 hours is mentioned as a strong recommendation. So it is sort of an argument both ways but I do take Darien Fenton’s point that we still have the Committee stage to come and we can still work our way through this to a better result. 
The 200 hours matter is going to be a mess. It covers any employers young people might be working for in that first 200 hours after they turn 16. If they go through a number of employers then keeping all the paperwork and being able to check it will be difficult and if there is some question mark or matters of legal cases then it is all going to be a total mess—a bureaucracy for anyone in the Department of Labour who has to check it all. It will be a nightmare for employers and everyone else—and for what purpose? As the National Distribution Union has indicated the average person will be 5 months in part-time work to achieve the hours going through different employers. It will be a mess. It is not a fair system. 
What this will lead to really—and Hone Harawira used the term “youth slavery”—is that young people will be treated as second-class citizens all for the cost of a few dollars extra from employers. Employers can afford it but young people cannot afford being without those dollars particularly at their stage of life. It is a new form of discrimination being created unnecessarily. 
There is a positive side to the bill of course which is why the Greens are supporting it. It retains a lot of what was in the original bill but this complication this rotten compromise only mucks it up. Hopefully we can end that in the Committee stage. 
Darien Fenton mentioned other countries such as Spain Greece etc. where youth rates have been abolished. Sure those countries may not be the main OECD countries in terms of gross national product but we should be following best practice. I think the Green’s aspiration is that we should be modelling best practice in our labour relations. I think that all National’s talk about how having youth rates is important for productivity and everything else rings rather hollow in fact. It is not respecting the rights of young people. 
The Greens respect the rights of young people. We should respect the 16 and 17-year-olds who are contributing—we meet them in the supermarkets day by day. We should defend their rights and we should defend the union movement and the activities that these young people have taken to achieve support for the bill. I think that it is a bill we should all support. 
Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.