by Gareth Hughes
Yesterday the National Party shot down Sir Roger Douglas’ dreams of returning New Zealand back to Victorian England by saying they will not support his Members’ Bill which would have re-introduced youth rates.
It’s a rare piece of good news out of the Beehive, but let’s face it; the bill was a stupid idea to begin with.
A Treasury study in 2004, three years after the legislation removing youth rates was passed, showed increasing youth employment.
It’s kind of funny that the oldest person in parliament is trying to screw over the youth. Imagine a bill that seeks to pay older people a smaller minimum wage or Maori, or women? It would be outrageous.
However, I do have my own positive Private Members Bill which seeks to amend the Human Rights Act. Currently the HRA allows discrimination in pay based on age.
30 (2) Nothing in section 22(1)(b) of this Act shall prevent payment of a person at a lower rate than another person employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances where the lower rate is paid on the basis that the first-mentioned person has not attained a particular age, not exceeding 20 years of age.
By removing this section we also fix a contradiction in our law between the Minimum Wage Act and the Human Rights Act.
This amendment makes it harder to erode the rights of youth workers.
The last place we should see age-based pay discrimination is the Human Rights Act.
Update
A copy of my bill is available here [pdf].
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Gareth Hughes on Thu, March 18th, 2010
Tags: Human Rights act, Minimum wage, roger douglas, youth minimum wage, youth rates
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
But its a great relief we don’t have to go through the youth minimum wage debate yet again.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
I’m not in the slightest likely to suggest that a septuagenarian such as Sir Roger Douglas should be paid less than other adults to do his job.
Nope, I’m much more likely to suggest that he’s senile, repulsive, and should be shunted off to live on his investments while the rest of Parliament gets on with doing something useful…
that is, if I was in any position to suggest a course of action!
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
When your bill is introduced Gareth, keep an eye on Douglas and remember your CPR training.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Good bill.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Hi Gareth, your third paragraph is slightly confusing. The legislation referred to removed youth rates for 18 and 19 year olds; not to be confused with Sue’s 2007 legislation that (mostly) removed youth rates for 16 and 17 year olds.
In all other respects, cheers
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greenfly: If we’re worried about discrimination against youth, it doesn’t really set a good precedent to implicitly discriminate against seniors with comments about their health. <..>
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m regretting my comments about Mr Douglas now, Ari.
It was heartless of me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Yah!Less young people able to compete against my for my job….thanks retarded socialists. ;-0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see David Farrar’s is pushing the tired old line that this will have a negative impact on youth employment – a line that the Treasury study Gareth linked to refutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So much for aspirational National being urban liberal – he wants 16 and 17 year olds out of school (barely educated in global terms) and into below minimum wage jobs. How are these people going to fund us in our retirement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s also a little weird how he claims it’s about getting 16-17 year old teens living with parents into (first) part-time jobs, when he cites the number of teens unemployed (they have to be available for full-time work to be registered) to back up his argument.
What is going on here, is some on the right are using the global recession to attack minimum wage regulation and citing the rising numbers of teens unemployed as a proof there needs to be a lower wage for them.
The real goal is to create the impression of a link between minimum wage levels and unemployment levels – and they are exploiting the impact of this recession on employment levels to do so. The end goal appears to be to prevent a further rise in the minimum wage – which explains the rise from 12.5 to 12.75 (just tredding water) and the government ignoring the Douglas bill.
It’s just a ruse to counter the $15 an hour campaign.
In the USA – there was the increase in the MW from $5.15 to $7.50 an hour (decided on in May 2007 after many years of a freeze). The right there have been using this line of argument there – seeking a lower youth wage under 20 ($5) as part of a strategy to hold the main level at $7.50 (so it falls in real terms against inflation).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)