Bennett Paula: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11183] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker can stand up and make allegations about what I have and have not said and she can say that I wish to see people in some regions being paid lower wages and that I do not care about people who work in stables and places like that. If that rings a bell at that particular time then that is fine. 
But let us take something that the Minister Ruth Dyson said on 25 July. She said that we need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have for thousands of workers against the possible negative impact of giving those 16 and 17-year-olds an incentive to leave school early with fewer qualifications. The Minister has introduced this Supplementary Order Paper 137 because the Government has concerns that there may be a possible negative impact because of that incentive. 
The member who spoke before me stood up and said correctly that within 4 weeks those young people will be on the adult minimum wage. How will 4 weeks counter that negative impact and stop them leaving school early? The Minister herself has identified it as an issue. She said that the Government has concerns about young people having an incentive to leave school early without full qualifications yet it admits that 200 hours can be done in 4 weeks. As such a slightly lower wage for 1 month will not be the disincentive that Labour hopes it is. 
Let us also take a comment made by the member who spoke before me who has since disappeared. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. If I had had the call and been able to respond to that member when she spoke earlier in this debate and talked about young people being on wages of $4.20 and $5 an hour then I would have pointed out that that is illegal. Those employers are breaking the law now. This Government is to put in another law and thinks that all of a sudden it will fix it. The Government thinks that if it puts in another law employers who are breaking the law and not paying the bare minimum wage now will think: “Gosh golly me! I had better obey the law.” No! We should stick with what the law is now and fix those people who are breaking it. The Government should come down hard and fast on them because people in this country have rights. 
If the unions cannot stand up and make a difference then perhaps they need to take a hard look at themselves and their values. We have heard about Progressive Enterprises. The Greens spoke about the agreement between Progressive Enterprises and the unions earlier and I say: “Good on them.” Actually there is no one here who would not say: “Good on them.” Good on Progressive Enterprises and good on the unions for putting a case forward having it listened to and then looking at their books and working out whether they could afford it. 
We can look at small businesses. One can try to turn it into a regional argument and say that Opposition members do not care but that is not true. If those small businesses are not in business then the people they employ will not have jobs. Then the only choice those young people would have would be at supermarkets and in chain jobs that go in and out and they would not have these other opportunities. 
The member who spoke before talked about stable hands and the racing industry which is quite often known for paying the minimum rate for young people when they first come in. It is a time for them to get in and show their worth. It is a time for them to muck in and for them to pick up that shovel and do the sort of dirty work that shows whether they have the mettle to make it in the long term because the job ain’t going to get any easier. In fact the job will probably get tougher at times and they will have to have the backbone to put up with it. Those employers let those kids in they let in more kids than they can afford and often they pay them the minimum wage to start with. But they give them a shot and when they have proved themselves they pay them more. 
Let us talk about some of those young people who get the minimum wage and who get bonuses. Those small businesses turn around and when things are going well for them they give their staff the cash. We can give many many examples of small businesses that turn around and when things are going a bit better that is the first thing they do. They put their hand in their own pockets and they give that cash to their staff. They turn around and give Christmas bonuses; they give a little bit more. They give it back. 
But if the Labour Government keeps going at them keeps loading on the compliance costs and decides to keep burdening our small businesses with compliance costs and regulations in the way that it does then it will make it so tough for those businesses to keep going that they will not do so and those jobs will no longer be there. That has to be of huge concern and not just to members on this side of the Chamber. 
Surely there should be some recognition for those people who go out there who take the risks and who take those young people on because they want to give them a shot. They do that because at the end of the day they know that it will show the mettle of those young people. They will end up being rewarded at a rate that is way above minimum rates and the businesses will get something back for it. That is important and that is really what shows. 
I want to raise one issue with the honourable member Sue Bradford. It is about paper girls and boys and those who go out on deliveries. I know that this issue is not completely covered in this bill but it is obviously a related issue. I personally want to put a pitch in because as a mother whose daughter went out and did deliveries into letterboxes I think that they should be paid at least double if not triple what they are paid. I also think that money should go to their parents who end up doing the deliveries most weeks. 
At the end of the day it is actually the parents who end up doing deliveries out there and I thought that if ever there was a case for something then this is it. I would quite like a petrol voucher or to be paid for the number of streets I have walked up and down delivering those brochures on behalf of my dear daughter who thought it would be a great thing to start off with but who very quickly decided it was not quite the job she thought it would be. 
Let us finish on a couple of things. One of them is Supplementary Order Paper 137 which talks about the requirement to have worked 200 hours or to have worked 3 months. I would tell Mr Williamson to take note of this—and I congratulate the honourable member sitting next to me on having been 20 years in this House. Today he is celebrating having been in this House for 20 years. 
Hon Member 
: How many hours has he done? 
Hone Harawira 
: Less than 3000. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: He is only 38; it has been quite a ride for him. 
Let us just make the point about those businesses that need a break. Those businesses are doing the best they can and they will reward their workers as soon as they can—and fairly. Let us make the point that 85 percent of the people in those businesses are paid above the minimum wage and we need to correct some of the misinformation has been going through this Committee today. 
Those 16 or 17-year-olds who are paid $4.20 or $5 an hour have bosses or employers who are breaking the law. We on this side of the Chamber would be coming down hard and fast on them and we would be making no apologies for them—no apologies at all. It people are breaking the law there are laws for us to go in hard. But those businesses that are not breaking the law need some sort of understanding and they need that break. This Government can continue to put more and more legislation on them but at the end of the day it will not have the results it needs. 
I stand here easily before the Committee and say there is no way—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh get into the year 2007 people—get into the year 2007! Labour members should move on move on. I know that they are still living in yesterday and just want to blame what is happening now on what happened in 1997 or in 1995. That is 12 years ago people 12 years ago. Those members should get into the year 2007 and see what is really happening in today’s world. Then maybe—maybe—there might actually be a game on. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(a) in clause 4 be agreed to.