Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10719] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting debate this afternoon and I think that Mr Hide has identified the core problem with the New Zealand economy—that is productivity. The latest productivity figures for the economy actually show that things are going backwards. That is the reason why we are not doing as well as Australia. Our productivity is lower than Australia’s. There are a variety of reasons and Mr Hide identified two of them. He identified— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s still growing! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The economy is growing but productivity is not—that is the difference. 
The issues that were identified were technology and capital. There is actually a third reason as well which is skills. That is built around education. It is clear that in Australia more is spent on tertiary education of all kinds than in New Zealand; a greater percentage of its GDP goes on tertiary education than in New Zealand. That is one of the reasons why John Key’s recent speech on trades and skills focused on building skills particularly for those people who might otherwise miss out. If the Government wants to know why New Zealanders are listening to John Key it is precisely because he is solution-focused. He has practical solutions for real problems and education is at the heart of it. 
Why do I stress this point in relation to this bill so much? It is because National is concerned that the bill is effectively a perverse incentive. We want young people to stay at school or alternatively at least to be in trade training—to build their skills and to make them more productive members of the community. That is where in some respects I would have to say that both Mr Hide at one end of the spectrum and indeed Mr Harawira at the other end of the spectrum miss the point. Of course there is a need for minimum rules around employment. National has no difficulty with that. We have always accepted that. We have never supported the position of employment at will. I know that many people will argue for that. That is not our position. That will be perfectly clear and indeed has been clear over the years in the nature of the employment legislation we put to the public for adjustment. [ 
Interruption 
] As the Minister interjecting well knows right through the 1990s there was always minimum wage legislation. That was protected throughout that period and it is an important point to put on record. 
However we do not believe that this bill is the correct way forward. The first reason is the perverse incentive and I want to focus on that point just a little bit more. As I said we want people either in school or in trade training. By lifting the minimum wage for effectively 16 and 17-year-olds—members should remember we are talking about those 2 years only—we actually provide an incentive for some young people to make a choice to leave school and go to work. We say that that is a bad choice. We do not want that perverse kind of incentive in the system. We are not talking after all about the university student or the person doing a 5-year trade training course; we are talking about vulnerable young people for whom it is most critical to build their skills. 
I say to Mr Harawira in particular that the National Party’s approach which was certainly clear from my 90-day probationary employment bill was to provide the opportunity for young people to get ahead—to get out of unemployment and dependency and essentially into work. That will be a core part of our employment legislation going forward. I remind the Maori Party that I listened very carefully to its concerns at the time and I prepared I believe a carefully thought-through Supplementary Order Paper for the Parliament at the time which was supplied to those members in advance so that in a sense the concerns they raised would have been fully covered. I have to say to members opposite and to Judy Turner as well that that was intended to be a moderate measure. I have to remind the House that New Zealand is the only country in the OECD that does not have probation periods. That is a far cry I say to the Maori Party from the era of Lord Wilberforce. So let us not take absurd analogies to ridiculous extensions. 
The second reason that we are not supporting the bill is the deterrent effect it will have on employers. I heard many of the submissions. Naturally enough most of the young people—not all but the vast majority—came along and said they wanted the bill. I guess that is understandable. They were in effect the lobbyists for the measure and people will always want the immediate advantage that they see. In contrast virtually every employer—although I will not go so far as to say every employer because some had a different view—said: “Hang on a minute this bill poses a risk.” The risk is this. Common sense tells us that 16 and 17-year-olds are building experience not just in the workforce but in life in general—in maturity in understanding the adult world’s expectations and so forth. It does not happen overnight. The whole point of having this introductory phase into work when one is 16 and 17 is to get a chance to get that first job for those people who make that choice—as unwise as it is for many of them. 
Many of the employers were very clear in saying that if they had to pay the full wage they would go for an older person. They said that it is not just the technical job skills that are required in that first 6 months; it is all the other things that a person acquires as he or she gets a little older—that is maturity judgment reliability and so forth. All of those things play their part. They may not be job-specific as such but they nevertheless bear on the value of a person in the workforce. Many of the employers said that if this bill is introduced it will actually reduce the opportunities for those young people to be able to get a job. 
One of our own members Mr Bob Clarkson made this point very clearly. He said he wanted to give people a chance. He also said during the debate on my 90-day bill that he wants to give people a chance but he needs incentives to be able to do that. He needs to be able to give people a go. The legislative environment has to be able to favour that in order for employers to give that incentive. He is saying to the Government and to the Green Party that as well intentioned as these measures might be it will be a deterrent for him to do precisely that. Is he going to take a risk on someone who has perhaps a difficult background in terms of minor lawbreaking and the like? Is he going to take that risk? He said he probably would not but my 90-day bill would have given employers a chance to do precisely that; it provided the leverage up into the workforce that those people need. 
It is the same principle here. National is taking a principled approach to this. We believe in moderate reasonable employment legislation—in that sense we differ from our colleagues in the ACT party—but similarly we do not go to the other end of the spectrum as represented by some of the other speeches given today. There is a sensible middle way around these things and National supports those middle ways.