Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

I want to state very clearly that the National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to clause 3 and to this bill. Clause 3 is the operative feature of the bill, which will enable the Government to overrule employment and training contracts entered into by 26,000 young people and enforce a new minimum wage on those undertaking training. The National Party is opposed to that, and we base our case on other documents than the explanatory notes to this bill. The test for this bill is what will it do to training in New Zealand, what will it do for opportunities for young New Zealanders, and what will it do to business compliance costs?

Let us check each of those three features off, using the advice that the Government itself has provided to Parliament. The Government has told us that this bill will cost jobs. It has advised us that there will be an increase in benefit payments as young people currently in training go on the dole. It has mentioned that itself in its own explanatory note, so it has failed that test—this bill will cost jobs and put kids on the dole. The next issue is what the bill does for business compliance costs. The Government itself says there will be increases in ongoing compliance costs as a result of this legislation, so it fails that section as well. The third test is what the bill will do to the amount of training provided by employers in the New Zealand economy, and the advice here is that there will be a reduction in the overall level of employment-based training in New Zealand.

Three strikes—this bill should be out! It should be out because it will cost young New Zealanders their jobs; it is anti-business, anti-training, and anti the growth this country needs. My colleague Mr Shane Ardern, the MP for Taranaki-King Country, and I have moved amendments that will limit the power provided by clause 3 to allow this Government to set minimum wages and remove the trainee exemption for young people. I am asking the other parties in this Chamber to consider supporting those amendments, because we should be able to neuter the part of the bill that will cause the problem—that will cost young people their training opportunities and add business compliance costs.

The problem with this Government is that it does not realise that to get a high-performing, growing economy in this country, we have to back the productive sector. We have to back the people who are creating the jobs and the wealth this country needs. The one thing we do not need to do to those people is tie them up with added bureaucracy, complexity, and inflexible labour laws and training rules—and that is what this bill does.

The National Party in Opposition wants to be very clear with the Government: we will oppose this bill vociferously through its continuing stages in the House, and it will be repealed with the change of Government. When we get rid of this two-term, left-wing, minority Labour Government and have a Government that is prepared to back the productive sector and have pride in, and support, the New Zealand business community, this bill will go. We know from the Government’s own advice—and I notice the junior Minister from the Hutt Valley taking notes of this—that this bill will cost jobs. It will put people on the dole, and it will add to compliance costs. A lot of the people affected will be Māori, and that will open the gaps, not close them. Nanaia Mahuta should take a call to tell us why Māori should support other Māori losing their training opportunities. They should not do it, and that is why we urge them not to support this bill.

Methinks the Opposition doth protest too much. Basically, it is the old whinge, whine, grizzle, and groan. What happened when the Government adjusted the adult minimum wage? We heard that it would be the end of civilisation as we know it, and that dole queues would increase. What actually happened? Unemployment went down. Then the Government adjusted the youth minimum wage. Again, we heard that it would mean the end of civilisation, and increase the dole queues. What happened? Again the dole queues went down—to their lowest level in decades. The reason was that a progressive Government was working in partnership with business to ensure that people’s potential was realised.

This bill says that those aged between 16 and 17 who are doing more than 60 credits or more for a recognised training programme will be able to receive the official youth minimum rate, which stands at $6.80 per hour. Those members on the other side of the Chamber are saying that the 16 or 17-year-old who goes into training and does 60 credits should get less than the person who is going out and doing an ordinary old job. That argument is totally fatuous and anti-training. Those members are anti-growth and anti-business.

This bill will lead to the improvement of skills training in this country, which is what we need. Those members opposite abolished the apprenticeships system. The single biggest thing this Government has done for the Labour market is to reintroduce the apprenticeship system, whereas the previous National Government abolished apprenticeships. This bill will lead to important advantages in training. We have heard it all before from the Opposition—the crocodile tears, the whingeing, the whining, the wailing about the increase in the dole queues. What we have seen is the reverse. This is an example of a good Government doing another good thing for the progress and development of the New Zealand economy.

I must take issue with one of the comments the Minister made about how this Government has created a new apprenticeship system. As the Minister well knows, the training and qualifications of people under the Modern Apprenticeships scheme are exactly the same as under the Industry Training Act. There is no difference whatsoever. Nevertheless, that is not what I am here to talk about. I came down to the Chamber to take a call, because having listened to some of the speeches made in the debate on the first two clauses, it is pretty obvious that people are not very clear what this bill actually does. In fact, prior to this legislation there was an exemption.

Richard Prebble claims that New Zealand First is economically illiterate. The theory he espouses has already been tried in 19th century Europe, Britain, and elsewhere. The effects were clearly chronicled by Charles Dickens, Benjamin Disraeli, Elizabeth Gaskell, and all of those sorts of people. Every responsible Government should set minimum standards against the exploitation of workers, and National recognises that. The National Government set a minimum wage, and had it all through the 1990s. However, there was a loophole that affected people on training agreements. I am not talking about training such as Mr Tisch provided for his workers, but about formal training agreements under industry training organisations. Under those agreements, there was no minimum wage, but the record shows that most employers did not exploit their workers under those circumstances. They paid them minimum wages, or even more. But a small proportion of employers did exploit their workers, and was no protection for them in that circumstance. This bill provides that protection. It is not for 16 and 17-year-olds; it is for all people who are in training agreements and aiming for 60 or more credits.

I see Jill Pettis making funny gesticulations across the Chamber. It is probably better that she uses sign language than yells out, so I am quite happy for her to do that. The point is that this bill clearly recognises that there is a cost to employers in allowing people off for that training. They are therefore not required to pay the minimum wage they would pay to an adult. They are required to pay a lesser minimum wage in recognition of the fact that there is a training component in the employment they offer. However, there is at least a minimum rate to ensure that workers are not exploited. A small number of employers had been doing that in the absence of any mechanism to ensure that it did not happen.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Name one!

There was plenty of information about it, but once again I say that it was the exception rather than the rule. New Zealand First agrees with this measure, because it at least provides minimum protection for those who are caught in that loophole.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party—partly to respond to the remarks just made by Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First, but also to say that ACT will vote to support the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments. I think the case he has made against this bill is a very good one.

My colleague from New Zealand First said I had accused his party of being economically illiterate. He then cited two sources to support his economic arguments. The first was Charles Dickens. I hate to be the first to break it to the member, but Charles Dickens was a novelist, and Oliver Twist is not a true story.

💬 Hon Member: Isn’t it?

No! Shock, horror!—it is not a true story. The member’s next source as an economist was Benjamin Disraeli. I hate to break this to him as well, but Benjamin Disraeli was a Tory, and he never ever voted for a minimum wage bill. It just shows how much difficulty we have when New Zealand First has as economists a novelist and a Tory Prime Minister. I say to the member that the evidence is overwhelming, and that a great deal of research has been done on this matter.

I heard the Minister imply that the fall in unemployment numbers was because his Government had lifted the minimum wage. If Government members opposite really think that, why do they not lift it further? If they really think that lifting the minimum wage has resulted in more employment, why are they stopping at the level they are? Even the Minister in the chair, Mr Swain, does not believe that. When he reads his own bill—and presumably he has not put a false document in front of us—he knows that his own officials have said that the effect of this bill will be to destroy jobs and training opportunities.

I also make this point to the member: yes, we can say that dole numbers have fallen, but if we then look at the total number of able-bodied adults on benefits, we find that that figure is going up. We have disguised unemployment occurring under a Labour Government. The Minister shakes his head. It is a great shame that Ministers do not know that, and have to rely on the ACT party to tell them. If we look at the sickness beneficiary figures, I would have to say to the Minister that the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) has already reached New Zealand. Alternatively, we need another explanation of why people are becoming more and more ill under a Labour Government. Of course it is disguised unemployment!

I want to point out to members opposite that clause 3 is a measure of a centrally planned economy. It states: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, prescribe the minimum rates of wages payable …”, and then follows a series of classes. That is a centrally controlled economy. We are having a group of Ministers sitting in the Beehive and deciding how much money people will be paid. That is the measure that this Government is putting forward.

Then we have New Zealand First members saying to us that a small number of employers are exploiting their workers. Well, we have free speech. I have asked Mr Donnelly to get up and name these scoundrels. Members opposite should let us know who they are. No, they are not prepared to do that, because they have not found any. They are making it up because it sounds a good thing to say: “Oh, most employers are good, but there are some scoundrels.” Well, who are they? They are very odd scoundrels, are they not? According to this bill, they are actually providing young people with training opportunities, and yet some members say they are exploiting young people.

If we are going to pay a wage to people who are training, then why is the Government not extending that payment to university and polytechnic students? Why are Government members not saying that those students are being exploited? They are not getting paid. Why is the Government applying a double standard?

I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill, in particular clause 3. This bill makes a mockery of the saying “good things come in small packages.”, because it contains less than 200 words, yet all of them are bad. The bill is anti-business, anti-growth, and not good for New Zealand. Mr Swain, the Minister who was in the chair earlier, took a call. He was as misguided as the very bill itself. The Minister told the House that the bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. That is what he told us. He was on his feet—the only time he has been in this entire debate—and he proclaimed to the House that the bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. I have this message for the Minister. He should read the advice his Government had from his own officials, because that advice does not say that the bill will lead to an increase in employment and training. It does not say that it will build on the 26,500 young people in New Zealand who will be affected by this bill. It does not say that it will add to making this a more employer and employee-friendly market. It says there will be a fiscal cost to this legislation, and the Government will have to pay out more on the dole.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Rubbish!

Well, that is what the legislation says. The Minister should read it. It says exactly that in the explanatory note—that the fiscal position of the Government will deteriorate as a result of passing this bill. The Ministers are reading it for the first time. The explanatory note states: “The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal impact would come from increased benefit payments …”. That is not what the Minister told us when he took a call. The Minister—the former Minister of Commerce—told us—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Junior Minister from the Hutt Valley.

The “junior Minister from the Hutt Valley” told us that this bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. That is just not right. That is not what the officials have told the Minister. That is not what the officials are telling us in their own document in the Chamber tonight. The Minister told us that when they put a minimum adult rate into the provision, that somehow managed to help the economy. I hate to break it to the Minister, but I will tell him what has made the economy stronger over the last 3 or 4 years. It has not been the minimum adult wage, and it will not be the minimum wages inflicted on employers across the country because of this bill. It is for three reasons: the lower Kiwi dollar, higher global commodity prices, and good weather down on the farm. If the Government has not actually noticed, a number of those factors have reversed, and—guess what—the Minister of Finance is going around the country telling people that the picture is bleak going forward.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: He has no idea how to fix it.

He has no idea what to do about it. He did not even want to pass the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, because if members have a look at the commencement date, they will see that it was 2001. The bill is 200 words, and we have had to wait 2 years past the commencement date to even get it somewhere near the House. That is how good for New Zealand businesses it is!

This is a Government that cannot define when our economy will go back into the top half of the OECD. It cannot tell us, even though it told us for a while that it would be in the next decade. But it has reneged on that little promise. It cannot define when our country will be back up there at a civilised standard for all New Zealanders. The Government cannot define that, but it can define a minimum wage because it is so misguided in its economic policy that it thinks this bill will somehow take it to the land of milk and honey.

Well, this is not the future for the young people of New Zealand who rely on a vibrant economy and a flexible labour market. Relying on this Government to provide a labour market that will give them opportunities are 26,500 young New Zealanders—much to their peril. As a result of this bill they are losers, because by this Government’s own advice from its officials some of those people will lose their jobs. If we go around and ask them what they would rather have—the job opportunity at any rate and the opportunity to grow a career and show their skills and merit, or the opportunity to be guaranteed to earn $6.80 an hour—I think that they will take the opportunity to work, over the opportunity to earn $6.80, any day. If we look at the legislation at clause 3, and at what it is telling the Committee—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is interesting that the Government has not decided to take a call on such important legislation. Members know that it is businesses that create jobs. It is businesses that create wealth, and growth in the economy. That is where employment comes from. I would have thought that this Government—which says it is business-friendly but in fact is anti-business, anti-employer, and anti-anything that we actually get growth from—would have stood up in support of this legislation. As my colleagues have said tonight, this bill will allow, by Order in Council, a change to the minimum wage conditions of employees. That is what it says. The explanatory note goes further to state—and this is the point that John Key and Tony Ryall have made, and I want to read it out because the Minister when in the chair seemed to refute the fact that it would happen—“The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position—”

💬 Hon Rick Barker: “May”!

This is what it says; I am reading it word for word. The member cannot say “No.” I am reading what it says.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: It says “may”.

I tell the Minister I am reading what the officials have got here. It then goes on to say—and members should take note of this because this is important; I have underlined it in my notes because that is how important it is—“The fiscal impact would come from increased benefit payments that may occur as a result of potential job losses over time. It is, therefore, unclear what the overall fiscal impact would be.” Simply, what this bill will do is move people away from training opportunities and they will go on to unemployment queues—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Scrap heaps!

—on to scrap heaps. They will be left. There is no place for initiative. We have young people out there who are prepared to have a go. They are prepared to knock on the doors, and employers are prepared to give them a go. They will say “Yes—”

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: You’ve done it.

They have done it. I have done it myself. I have been prepared to give people a go. At the end of the day, though, there must be a cost benefit to this, so I am prepared to give people a go, just as are hundreds of other employers around the country. There are 250,000 small business employers out there employing fewer than 5 people. That is where the market is. They are prepared to give young people a go. But the important thing is that if I am going to take somebody on, there has to be a return. I am making an investment in those people. I am prepared to put them through a training course. For example, if I am a retailer, I may put them on a Kiwi Host course so that they understand what customer service is about in the business. I am prepared to give them those opportunities; at the same time, I know that that investment in their future will pay off, and I will be able to recoup that, because they will be able to add value to the business and make my business grow. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that at all. It is anti those opportunities to take on people.

Who would want to take on staff in this current environment? I have mentioned before in previous debates that with compliance costs that businesses are having to face today, there is no incentive. We are now seeing so many businesses that are retrenching. Business confidence in the latest surveys is at a 15-year low. Look at what was on television tonight with power prices. Goodness gracious, who wants to be in business when we have a Government that does not understand the basis of doing business, does not understand where the wealth comes from, where the growth comes from, and at the same time it wants to bring in those minimum conditions that are anti-business, anti-employers, and anti - young people? The worst part is that young people are affected by this legislation. It is those 26,000 young people who are looking to us for an opportunity to give them a start. Those are the ones that will be on the scrap heap. Those are the ones that we should be nurturing and looking after, because they are the future.

The bill states—and the Minister disagreed with that—that it will increase benefit payments, and the fiscal impact will come from increased benefit payments. If that means more people will go on a benefit, then there is something radically wrong with legislation that allows that to happen to our young folk. National will not be supporting this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9, United Future 8, Progressive 2.

New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Shane Ardern to clause 3 be agreed to:

to amend new section 4(1) by omitting the words after the word “payable”, and substituting the words “to workers defined in order of reference to the age of workers excluding those undergoing training or instruction”.

The National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to the proposals in clause 4, as we are opposed to this bill in general. The Minimum Wage Amendment Bill will remove the exemption that young people on training have from the youth minimum wage. The reason that they are exempted is that part of their remuneration is the training they are receiving from their employers. The Government’s own advisers, and in turn the Government itself, have advised the Parliament, through the explanatory note to the bill, that there will be an impact on the Government’s finances as a result of this bill by dint of the fact that a number of young people will lose their jobs and move on to the unemployment benefit. The Government has further advised that the amount of training that will be provided by employers in the economy will reduce, and we have been advised further that there will be added compliance costs.

Clause 4 removes those previous categories of workers to whom the Act did not apply. In the past the minimum wage never applied to apprentices who were employed under the Apprenticeship Act. It never applied to people who were being employed as apprentices under the Maori Housing Amendment Act, under the Railways Corporation, the Defence Act, the Post Office, or the State services, nor to anybody else who was under a contract for training instruction or examination, or to the inmates of any charitable institution. With this bill we are removing all those exemptions. The National Party says that this will cost young people their jobs. We know that about 26,000 young New Zealanders are affected by those agreements, and the concern the National Party Opposition has is that not only will we cost a number of young people their jobs, we will also deny the opportunity for more young people to enter into those sorts of training contracts.

We think this is symptomatic of the fact that this is a Government that does not understand business and does not appreciate the pressures on those running business; nor does it appreciate what drives job growth in the economy. What drives job growth in the economy is flexible labour markets and strong consumer demand, lower interest rates, and lower taxes. Those are the prescriptions that the economic recovery that we saw in the country in the early 2000s has been based on. It has been based on sound economic policies that were put in place by the previous Government, and this Government has to realise that bit by bit it has been unpicking the formula that has been delivering the goods for this economy.

I say to this Government that there is always a time lag with economic policy and legislation, and the costs of the decisions that this Government has made, tying up the labour market with added flexibility, and setting much higher minimum wages than is necessary, will be visited upon the economy over the next 3 or 4 years. There is always a time lag, and the costs will be visited upon the economy in the next 3 or 4 years. It will be the responsibility of the incoming National Government to tidy up the mess that this Government is giving New Zealand by simply hamstringing the New Zealand economy, the producers, the people whom we rely on to generate wealth in this country.

This Government is undermining every opportunity for that, and it is undermining the opportunity for young people to get jobs. We know that that is the truth, because the Government has told us that in its own explanatory note on the bill, and that is why the National Party has strongly opposed this bill from day one. We know that it will cost jobs. A number of those 26,000 young New Zealanders will lose their jobs as a result of this bill, and we know that because the Government has told us. The Government has told us that some of those 26,000 young New Zealanders will lose their jobs and go on the dole. This Government has told us that more young people will lose that opportunity

On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support clause 4. Firstly, it is consistent with the thrust and intention of the other clauses in the bill. Secondly, as one who has recently come from employment, and recently been involved in a number of both industry training organisations and other training opportunities, I say to my colleagues on my right that this is not the opportunity, this is not the right way to conduct the economic debates that they intend to conduct or are conducting. This is a sane, sensible, equitable way of giving balance both to the employer and to the employee, in the training sense. We support this clause.

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 26,000 out of the 250,000-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 Māori 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 Māori. Why Māori 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.

I rise on behalf of National to continue to oppose this hapless legislation. Clause 4 talks about the people in this country to whom employers will apply a minimum wage. They are young people, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are in apprenticeship schemes across the country.

Why is the Labour Government pushing through this legislation? It is not because it is right to do so; the Government’s own advisers have told the Government that this legislation is wrong. The Government’s own advisers have told the Government that this legislation will lead to a reduction in employment for very young New Zealanders. The Government’s own advisers have told it this legislation will fiscally cost it more money. So Government members are not enacting this legislation because it is right. They are not doing it because they have a lot of evidence that one day this legislation may be right. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the officials could not actually produce a lot of evidence, because they had not done a lot of empirical research on what the results of this legislation would be. They just knew it would be wrong. That is why they wrote that up in the commentary on the bill—they just knew that, fundamentally, it would add to unemployment and add to the Government’s fiscal costs. So Government members did not proceed with this legislation because they knew it was right. They did it, and they are doing it, for one reason alone: they hold an ideological view that this legislation will be right.

Well, I have a message for the Labour Government: it should go back and look to see when the number of people on apprenticeships started rising in this country. It was in 1992, when the Employment Contracts Act was passed by the previous National Government and flexibility started coming back. Government members are shaking their heads, but they should go and look at the numbers. Since I have been in this House, I do not know how many Labour members have been on their feet, telling us what a wonderful job they have done by having more people in apprenticeships across New Zealand. We have heard speech after speech—and they have been right. The number of apprenticeships has been rising, but not because there has been a minimum wage. The Government’s own advisers tell it there will now be fewer apprenticeships, and would have been fewer apprenticeships if the previous Government had had legislation like this in place.

In 1992, when flexibility was introduced right across the labour market, New Zealanders of all ages, of all educational backgrounds, and in all areas of employment had a better opportunity of gaining employment. What this Government is doing will reverse that. So I do not think I want to hear any more Government members on their feet in the weeks ahead telling us why there will be an increase in the number of apprenticeships. There will be no such increase. The Government’s own advisers are telling us that, because they know there will not be an increase.

This legislation will apply to very young New Zealanders—to 16 and 17-year-olds. One thing we know about 16 and 17-year-olds is that they are leaving school without a full education through to year 13, or what was the seventh form in my day. They are leaving school without the equivalent of School Certificate—the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—very possibly. They are certainly not leaving with University Entrance or with a bursary. They would not have had time to do that, so they are leaving school without the full set of educational skills in their toolbox. They are leaving without those skills. They are taking a statistical risk, against all advice given by the Department of Labour in this country, and by agencies in every country in the world, that the probability is that they will be paid less and that their chances of gaining employment will be less than if they had gained higher educational qualifications. Their only hope for employment is to gain some skills that will provide them with a chance to convince future employers that they are good at a job. That is their only hope.

What does this legislation tell us? It tells us that it is more important that those young people are guaranteed to receive $6.80 an hour than to have the chance to get a job. I say that that is completely wrong. If I was a 16-year-old New Zealander leaving school without the full educational skill-set in my toolbox, I would not care whether I was receiving $6.60, $6.70, or $6.80 an hour. What I would want is to know that I would have the opportunity to be able to earn a good wage in the years to come, because I would know I did not have the educational skills to fall back on.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4. I know that this will come as a surprise to the Government! The reason is that it repeals section 9(c) of the principal Act, which deals with people who are in training. That is what clause 4 does. I would like either of the Ministers in the Chamber, but particularly the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, who I know has a genuine concern for young New Zealanders in the workforce, to take a call and explain to us why he believes that passing this legislation here tonight, in the dead of night, is going to help young New Zealanders.

The Government’s own advisers have said that the proposed change may have a small impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal position would come from increased benefit payments that may occur from passing this legislation. That, to me, says there are going to be more young New Zealanders on an unemployment benefit than there are now. Maybe the Minister can clear this up for me, but that is how I read it. That is what is says in this legislation we are looking at. I would like the Minister, or some of the Labour members across the Chamber, to take a call and explain to us why that will not happen. All the evidence to the select committee, and all those who spoke on behalf of the 26,000 New Zealanders who will be affected by this, said that that will be the outcome. There will be fewer people in training, fewer people in employment, fewer people in the productive sector, and fewer people given an opportunity to go forward and be productive New Zealanders—not more. Yet, as the Hon Richard Prebble said, the very vulnerable people whom the Labour Party purports to represent and look after are those who will be the most adversely affected by what is being proposed here tonight.

It is beyond the comprehension, I think, of wider society, which may be taking an interest in this legislation, that a Labour socialist Government would do this—a Labour socialist Government that is predominantly occupied by former trade unionists and people who are supposedly going to look after those people. That fact was never brought home more clearly to me than when I was walking down to the Chamber tonight with the Hon Matt Robson. There is not a member in this House who is more philosophically at odds with me than the Hon Matt Robson, but he is not a bad guy; he is quite a nice guy.

💬 John Key: Keith Locke?

Oh, Keith Locke is probably an exception. The member is right. I take that point. There is one member who goes further than Matt Robson; I accept that. Matt Robson and I do not agree on much, but he is quite a nice guy. What a sorry sight he was, coming down to the House tonight—and he was one of two. That is how the socialists treat their own. When one looks at this legislation, one can see how that happens. Who would want to be protected by this lot? That is what they do to the people whom they purport to protect. They go about the country talking to businesses and spinning the spin—the Prime Minister is an expert at this. They talk to businesses about how they are pro-growth—

💬 John Key: With her allies in France.

That is exactly right. She has been overseas, drumming up business with the French, and selling dairy products in France. I agree with that; my colleague is absolutely right. She is meeting the coalition of the European unwilling. As we speak tonight, the Prime Minister is drumming up dairy business with the French.

Here we are with a Prime Minister who purports to represent the business sector of this country, after having been told by the majority of businesses that this legislation will be detrimental to growth, and detrimental to young people and training. We should pause for a moment and consider that. My colleague touched on a very good point: the number of people who have come into industry training through employment, because they have been given an opportunity via a very minimum entry point, has increased amazingly.

I move, That the question be now put.