This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NEW ZEALAND


Commonwealth, I am not sure many are quite so fortunate”.


Pacific Issues Debate On 18 April Hon. Hekia Parata, MP, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs, asked the House to “note the Pacific Parliamentary Forum that was held this week at Parliament and that it acknowledge the needs and aspirations of all Pacific peoples, and the contribution New Zealand can make as an integral part of the Pacific region, to enhance its relationship with all Pacific people’.


It was the first time in 20 years that Parliament had held a special debate on Pacific issues, and it occurred within the context of the Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum convened by the New Zealand Parliament from 18 to 22 April. Forum participants observing the three-hour debate included Parliamentarians from American Samoa, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Wallis and Futuna, and official representatives from Fiji, New Caledonia, and Tokelau. Many of the speeches highlighted themes of interest to the forum. “We do not know each other as well as we used to” acknowledged Mr John Hayes, MP, (National). “This meeting, I hope, will help us to get to know each other much better, because it is much easier to work with people you know and understand.” Ms Parata emphasised common ties, connections, and interests between the participants: “We are a Pacific nation. We are united by the great ocean Te Moana-nui-a- Kiwa which joins us, and that is central to our understanding of our history, culture, and world


view. Culturally, New Zealand owes much to other Pacific nations.” Te Ururoa Flavell, MP, (Maori Party) said: “Tangata Pasifika and tangata whenua


have always shared a common bond in our connections through our ancestry, our culture, and our customs. We both understand implicitly concepts that run to


the core of our being. Our land, our whenua, is the central link to our genealogical connections, as an enduring umbilical cord, pito, between yesteryear and


THIRD READING: NEW ZEALAND


The Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill


This Bill aims to get more New Zealanders aged between 16 and 19 years of age into work or training by reducing starting-out wages.


At its third reading the Minister of Labour, Hon. Simon Bridges, MP, (National) described the Bill as “part of the government’s focus to create job opportunities for young people who are finding it difficult to get work in the current economic climate”. Young people could be paid at a rate ‘set at no less than 80 per cent of the adult minimum wage’ and would be incentivised to stay longer with an employer because they “must complete six months of continuous work with an employer before they are entitled to be paid the adult rate by the employer”. He said the starting-out wage was about young people getting ‘a foot in the door”. “With a steady work history behind them, young people…will be seen as less risky for new employers to take on. “ Opposing the Bill, Mr Darien Fenton, MP, (Labour) warned that it would “create an underclass of young workers and consign them to economic marginalization”. She described the measure as: “classic National Party”. “In the face of its economic failures and its marginalization of thousands of unemployed and underemployed, it has resorted to its tried and failed policies of last century”. She said “it is our young people who are going to pay the price”.


Ms Holly Walker, MP, (Green) criticized the way the government had determined the starting-out wage as a way to address youth unemployment: “This is not evidence-based policy. It is…policy-based evidence. Having come up with the policy, it then got its officials to come up with some evidence to support it. That is no way to make policy, and…this Bill is no way to reduce youth unemployment”. She said young people were increasingly “turning away from Parliament and politics and disengaging from our political system. It is because of bills like this that they are doing that”. Mr Simon O’Connor, MP, (National) countered: “National believes in young people. If providing a slightly lower wage allows an employer to make the choice of you, a young person, over another, then, yes, this government is prepared to back you.” The Bill passed by a majority of one vote.


The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill


The Bill passed its third reading by a majority of two votes on 9 April. The Bill simplifies benefit categories and introduces new obligations for beneficiaries as part of the government’s social welfare reforms. “We are introducing social obligations to ensure that children in benefit dependent homes get quality early childhood education, are enrolled with a doctor, and get their Well Child checks, and that school-aged children are in school,” said the Minister for Social Development, Hon. Paula Bennett, MP, (National) at the second reading. The legislation also includes a requirement for job seekers to be drug-free and available for work, and stops benefits for beneficiaries with outstanding arrest warrants.


Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, MP, (National) supported the Bill, saying: “The reforms we are making today are about building confidence in the welfare system… so it can regain the work focus that it was intended to have 75 years ago.” “Long-term welfare dependency is trapping way too many people in a life of limited choices, poverty, and poor health. We are delivering on welfare reforms…expecting job seekers to be drug-free, ready, and available for work; ensuring a work-focused welfare system; stopping benefits to those with an outstanding warrant; and introducing health, education, and social obligations so children in welfare-dependent families get the best possible start in life.”


“Labour strongly opposes this Bill” said Su’a William Sio, MP, (Labour). “People think the inclusion of the words ‘Work Focus’ in the name of the Bill means that they will have jobs. The words are deceptive, as this Bill does not help to create jobs in the private sector and it does not create any jobs in the public sector. It does not raise wages or income levels for those most in need or in desperate situations. It does not provide affordable housing for those families living in garages or in crowded houses. It does not value motherhood and the role of raising children. It does not even address the issues that have been identified as barriers to work.” ‘This Bill tears up the idea of a social contract,” said Ms Jacinda Ardern, MP, (Labour).


The Bill passed by a majority of one.


The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Two | 157


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76