Hon TAU HENAREBasically, it was a job. A job needed to be done and I pretty much did my job, as my colleague and workmate Willie Jackson will attest to. But that is beside the point. I say to my cousin the member in the chair, Darien Fenton, who is my relation on the European side of my ancestry—
No, no—it is just to say congratulations.
I want to talk about the issue of the pamphlet deliveries, where the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill will have a pretty big effect on workers. I know of a number of people who deliver these pamphlets as an extra, on top of their weekly wage. They are on the minimum basic wage, they are people who are on “Struggle Street”, as my other cousin Shane Jones likes to call it, and this income is a bit of a filler. My concern is that if this bill proceeds and is passed, their employers most probably will find it unaffordable to continue the pamphlet deliveries. If we do not have those deliveries, then that will affect the hundreds and hundreds of workers on “Struggle Street” who use pamphlet delivery as a bit of a filler for their weekly wage.
It is lovely that someone can think of a really good idea and want to put it into practice, but when we sit down and think about the bill and look at the nuts and bolts of it, I am afraid we realise that the bill will not do what the member thinks it will do. All it will do is to just drive people away and drive people into a wee bit more despair. Those on “Struggle Street”, those who use pamphlet delivery as a filler for their weekly wage, will not have that income any more. I know it is only $20, $40, or $60 a week, depending on how many pamphlets one drops off around any given suburb. But I am afraid that if we go down that track, then how will my colleagues find out where the cheapest television is sold? We get flyers and pamphlets from places like the Warehouse and Dick Smith Electronics, and we see people every week, some of them around my home out on Te Atatū peninsula, out there with their little buggy and out there with their kids, dishing out the pamphlets. My fear is that you will drive away—not you, Mr Chair.
No, you would not do that, because you drive a motorbike.
My fear is that the intent of the bill will drive people away from employing workers on a contract for service basis. It is really important that we think about the ramifications of what the member is trying to do. As far as I am concerned, the bill will drive people away and pamphlet delivery will become unaffordable. So even though the idea behind the bill is laudable, I just do not believe that this bill is the way to up the wages of pamphlet deliverers.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I stand to speak in support of Darien Fenton’s bill. It is an important bill that provides that all workers receive the socially acceptable minimum wage, and that the technical nature of their relationship—whether a contract for service rather than a contract of service—will not mean that people work for less than a level that we as a country agree is an absolute minimum. The bill is about fairness.
The bill would also put paid to an increasing practice, in named sectors of our economy, of reducing wages and undermining security and workplace rights. Those who worked on this bill worked hard to create a solution that was not onerous or hard to understand. The bill is limited to named services. The parties would agree on a reasonable time to provide for service, and the remuneration for such provision of service must equate to the minimum wage. Of course, records of hours and payments must be kept. The bill also provides for staged lifts in the minimum wage to $15 per hour.
The bill requires all parties in Parliament to indicate whether they support the minimum wage; I want to focus on this latter point. When I consider the comments to date that have been made by many members opposite, and also the anti-worker actions of this National Government, I believe that requiring political parties to state their commitment to the minimum wage, and to show the consultative processes they have undertaken if they seek to change, are critically important. I do not believe that National is committed to the minimum wage. In debating this bill a few weeks ago—a bill that actually tries to provide for a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work—we heard comments from members opposite such as “It’s too difficult.”, “Wages would be decreased.”, “People will lose their jobs.”, “People should be able to compete on low wages because that’s the nature of competition.”, “It’s just increasing regulation for the sake of it.”, and “It takes away choice.” Spurious examples were used, saying that the bill would affect plumbers or real estate agents. If members do not believe me, then they should go back and check Hansard. Those services were given as examples, but they are not covered by this bill. Members opposite have either not read the bill or are really objecting to ensuring that vulnerable workers earn at least the minimum wage.
Labour, on the other hand, believes, first, that all workers, irrespective of the technical nature of their working relationship, must receive a socially acceptable minimum wage, and, second, that the current minimum wage is still too low—despite our best efforts after many years of no increase to the minimum wage under the former National Government. The minimum wage should be increased, in a staged manner, to $15 per hour. There is a reason for that: low wages are damaging to workers; damaging to their families, in terms of people who struggle to make ends meet; and damaging to our workplaces. Low wages—
—yes, indeed—in fact lead to low productivity. It is easier just to add more people on low wages than it is to invest in those people, to lift skill levels, and to invest in greater capital and technology in our workplaces. And that is a significant problem in this country.
Labour says that lifting wages has positive spin-offs, not only for individuals and their families but also for workplaces in our economy. Finally, I say that as a party Labour is clearly able to meet all of the provisions of the bill, and we would be able to clearly state our support for a minimum wage that applies to all workers in New Zealand.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
Just following on from the previous speech, I think that the one point the speaker made about low wages is certainly something that everyone would empathise with, but in this current economic environment I think people have to realise there is a possibility of no wages. We have very high unemployment coming in the New Zealand economy, and many people out there now have lost their jobs. So at this point in time it does not make a lot of sense that we would want to change the relationship of employer-employee and independent contractor, when the economy and the labour market are at their most vulnerable. If the Labour Party wants to make changes like this, why did it not make them when it had 9 years in Government? But it did not take on this member’s bill as a Government bill, because it realised that the bill in its current form is not sustainable and not well written. Labour members realised that even their own party would not support this bill. But now those members are coming in front of this Committee at a point in time when they are not in Government, and they are expecting the Committee to support the bill. Why did the Labour Government not make it a Government bill when it had the chance, and actually pass it?
The reason is that this bill does not stack up. There is a huge history in the Inland Revenue Department and in the Employment Court that talks about the difference between an independent contractor and an employee-employer relationship. That difference is one of the fundamental differences we have in our tax law. It is also one of the fundamental differences we have in our employment law. The nature of that relationship is there for a very simple reason, in that there can be choice in the way one engages people and companies to do work. Employee-employer relationships are typically found in larger organisations, where there is a degree of control by the employer. The independent contractor relationship is typically found where there are services contracted to be performed. Those services can range from things at the very basic level, like pamphlet delivery, to more extensive services, like those of a plumber or a builder. In all those cases there needs to be a bit of flexibility. Often someone is contracted to provide a service, and the nature of that service is that the person or organisation providing the service has some flexibility.
It is unknown to the Labour Party that some people actually want flexibility in their workplace. They want the ability to determine the time they work, the speed at which they work, and the quality of their work. It can be more than just the matter of some arbitrary rules about timing and what the minimum wage should be. But this bill takes away people’s choice. It takes away their fundamental ability to deliver services under a contract. It puts everybody under the same rules, which is what Labour members like to do—they like to put everybody in the same box so they can control them. This bill takes away that personal choice—that independence and that freedom—that we need in an economy.
People want to have that choice. People make an active choice whether to go for an employment relationship or an independent contractor relationship. People in the market have that choice; they can negotiate it in many circumstances. In other circumstances they have a choice in how they want to be remunerated. That is something we should not take away from our economy. It leads to innovation, artistic creativity, and the basic ability to achieve things that provide the best possible service, not necessarily at the hourly rate determined by this Parliament. To take away that choice takes away the flexibility and innovation in our economy, making everything the same and fundamentally contracted on the basis that this Parliament knows how to determine what a service is worth. But that is not the nature of real relationships in the real world.
I encourage members to consider that fundamental policy when they consider this legislation. This bill is not necessarily about looking after workers who need help, in the sense that they are vulnerable workers; this legislation takes away the individual choice of those in a remuneration relationship.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I am quite enjoying this debate. We are hearing, in Tau Henare and David Bennett, Tories who are really getting back to their roots. They are saying that it is the right of employers to exploit anyone who is doing a job for them in any way they like—that that is the sort of choice that should be available to all employers. In fact, in listening to Tau Henare, I drifted back 100 years or so and thought of Dickensian times. He is the sort of person who liked it that little kids went to the mill, picked up cotton, and got crushed. It was their right to be injured and killed!
Well, I tell the member that times have changed. I make it clear to both members that this bill was introduced during the last Labour Government. It quite properly went through a caucus process. A busy and caring Government has so much stuff on its agenda—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Well, those members will never be caring. They might be busy one day, but there is no sign of it yet. It would require quite a lot of energy, and, looking at their front bench, I do not think they will get it.
Getting back to the point, we had a bit of trouble handling everything on our agenda, especially in the labour relations area of work. We were very, very lucky that we had a number of able backbench members who took the responsibility of working up bills and getting them into the House. I compliment the member Darien Fenton on her work not only on this bill but in a number of other areas, as well. She saw that such issues might not get through the House in Government time but it was important that Parliament debate them.
In this area, and in a number of others, there was support from a party that is not in Parliament at the moment, New Zealand First. It is fair to say that, as far as some legislation was concerned, the support of Peter Brown ensured we got the votes, but I am not sure whether it improved the quality of the legislation; that occurred in a number of areas.
But it is very, very good to have a member who understands the principles of the relationship between bosses and workers. We all know that some employers are not good employers. Some employers will not give fair remuneration to their workers. I know that most members of National do not support having a minimum wage, but they do not quite have the courage of their convictions to say so. Roger Douglas has the courage of his convictions; he does not believe in having a minimum wage, and he is prepared to stand up and say so.
But when it comes to minimum conditions for people who are doing some of the lowest-paid work in the country, the Tories are willing to kick them. They know that there is not a pamphlet deliverer in the country who votes National—other than a very few who have intellectual problems and deliver pamphlets on a voluntary basis for the National Party; they are the only group of pamphlet deliverers who are likely to be National Party supporters. National members see a disadvantaged group who do not support National, and they not only kick them when they are down but strangle them at the same time. The Tau Henare approach is to get them by the throat, give them a bit of a shake, and try to get them down. In the end these pamphlet deliverers, like all good people, will win. It might take a bit of time and it might take a bit of building up, because National votes against legislation like this every time. I regret the fact that National will vote against it.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
No, you don’t. Not even you were going to vote for it. Now you’re in Opposition, it’s easy.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this
I appreciate getting the call to speak on Part 1 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill.
Mr Chairperson, can I seek your guidance, based on your long experience in this House, and ask you whether use of the term “hypocrisy” is unparliamentary. It seems to me that hypocrisy is what we have had to listen to from the previous two Labour speakers, Trevor Mallard and Carol Beaumont.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you were asked a question inappropriately. You could have intervened at that point, but I take exception to the comment that followed. The approach is clearly proscribed.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I make the point that the word itself is not prohibited. Members may use the words “hypocrite” and “hypocrisy”, but may not associate the words directly with members or parties. To accuse a member or a party of hypocrisy is out of order, but the use of the word itself, in certain contexts, is OK. The answer to the member’s question is that a member is out of order to accuse another party of hypocrisy. The member may continue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not happy about that comment being left on the record. If you are not going to ask the member to apologise, then I ask that the comment be withdrawn.
I withdraw, and I apologise for any offence I might have caused the other side.
The point needs to be made very, very strongly that this legislation was first introduced in, from memory, 2006, during those long, dark days of miserable socialism. We have almost forgotten those long, dark days, after 6 months of the positivity of a National Government. Let us not forget what it was really like.
Neither Mr Mallard nor Ms Beaumont addressed the critical issue, and I invite the member in the chair, Darien Fenton, to take a call and address it. If this issue was so important to Labour members during the previous Parliament—we have seen crocodile tears shed tonight—why did they not use their majority in this House to adopt it as Government policy and put a Government bill before this House? Why did they not do that? It is now too late for crocodile tears, and I invite the member in the chair to stand up and explain that.
But, of course, Mr Chairman—as I try to speak on Part 1—the Labour Party has a major problem. Within weeks of National taking office, the minimum wage was raised. The last time the minimum wage was raised in this country was by a National Government shortly after taking office. What was the previous Labour Government doing for 9 years? Let us not go back 9 years; let us go back to just 2006, when the New Zealand electorate finally woke up and realised what a dark, grim place this country was becoming. I invite the member in the chair to answer another question I have: why is the House still spending its time—somebody less kind might say it is wasting its time—on this legislation, which has been on the floor of the House for over 3 years, is it? The electorate has spoken. The electorate has acknowledged that it was a National Government that increased the minimum wage. Perhaps the member in the chair might like to explain to New Zealand why its workers had to wait for the election of a National Government to have the minimum wage raised. National has nothing to apologise for, and it has everything to be proud of.
Members opposite use words like “Tory exploiter” and all that sort of nonsense, but nobody is listening. New Zealand has stopped listening. New Zealand does not want, does not seek, this sort of legislation. It seeks a bit of honesty from its Government, and it gets that from National.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this
I felt a bit sorry for the previous speaker, Allan Peachey, when he talked about looking back to the past. If we go back over the last period of time a National Government was in office, we see that the first 6 or 7 months were very interesting. The minimum wage was $7.05. National took it up by 38c, and when National finished its term it rounded the increase off at 50c. The previous Labour Government increased it eight times.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
National increased it, but Labour put it up eight times. It is pretty sad to sit here and listen to all those platitudes trying to deny those people who cannot earn even the minimum wage. If we balance it off and take the compounding interest of major businesses—
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
—and lift it up to the macro, I say to Mr Henare, we are talking about discounting businesses, or ensuring that they have a pathway through in the sense of finances being made available. It can all be laid on! Some employers are decent people, but at the end of the day, who cares about the working class?
The other thing that happened in National’s last term was that the unemployment rate raced up. There seems to be a photocopying session going on during the first 6 months of National’s current term, because the same things are starting to happen. We heard about superannuitants today. We know that a lot of people are losing their jobs. Do the Tories care? No. Do they care that those people cannot reach even the minimum wage? No. But every excuse—every reason and rationale—is pushed out, and discounting goes on to help National’s mates.
So why should we help the working class? Because at the end of the day, when we run over the last 32 years in this country, we see that the working class has always paid taxes. Mr and Mrs Jones have always paid taxes. They have had no discounts whatever. There have been some great union organisers who stuck to their guns.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Half of them are behind me, here. But that member over there was always having a cup of tea at the urban authority. That is what he was doing; he was not even doing his job.
Let us bring some common sense to this debate. The last Labour Government ensured, by wrapping around certain issues like 14 weeks’ maternity leave and Working for Families, that the working class was looked after. Things were made easier, and we could see things lifting up. We could see that the workers were looked after. That lot over on the other side of the Chamber do not have the courage to support this measure. They are mean-spirited.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a well-known fact that members cannot question a member’s courage in this Chamber. I ask you to ask that member to withdraw that comment.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member makes a fair point. Members in this Chamber cannot have their courage questioned. The English language has tens of thousands of words, and the member could put a similar point less directly. To question a member’s courage directly is unacceptable, and the member will withdraw.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
That member is incorrect in the advice he has just tendered.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the lesson on the great English language. In Māoridom there are actually a couple of words for it, such as “mataku”—people who are scared.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It does not matter what language one uses in this Chamber—English; another official language, Māori; or sign language—one still cannot question a member’s courage.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
There is a question about whether giving a loose translation of “scared” is, in fact, questioning someone’s courage or whether, in a particular circumstance, it is a statement of fact. I think it is interesting. Given the member who is raising the point of order, it is a real case of Once Were Warriors, is it not?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Members will settle and be serious. This is a robust debate. If someone is scared it does not necessarily mean that they lack courage. People can be scared but do something anyway. It is not a question of courage; it is about being nervous or apprehensive. I invite the member speaking to continue and to try to avoid pushing the rules.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
The great past Labour Government did a whole lot of things in relation to income-related rents, and so on.
Sandra GoudieHon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
No—they are really important to the working class.
It is amazing that those mean spirits do not even want to care about them. You know, it has been pouring down around most of the country today—raining and hosing down. Poor pamphlet droppers will have got soaking wet and chilled to the bone, and do those members care about that? No. There is not one stroke of warmth in their hearts. Those members are mean-spirited, especially those from Christchurch. They should care, and they should vote for this bill.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
Well, what a lot of waffle and testosterone is going on tonight; that is for sure. I am delighted to stand and speak to Part 1 of Darien Fenton’s Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill as introduced was to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 by extending its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for services that are currently remunerated at below the minimum wage. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this bill was before the last Parliament, and when I read the report it was quite chilling. Since the bill was presented, there have been many Supplementary Order Papers. There clearly was not consensus on the select committee at the time. That unfortunately says that the bill needed a complete and utter rewrite because it was completely and utterly flawed.
The select committee received a number of oral submissions, and the make-up of the committee was across all parties—all parties were represented on that committee. So there were a number of different views. When we read the select committee report, it is quite surprising to find that there was no consensus. There was absolutely no common ground, and that means the bill was flawed, it had holes in it, and it really was not workable. Quite frankly, that says volumes. The fact that four Supplementary Order Papers were lodged also says volumes. This bill is a rewrite, and it is flawed.
Even New Zealand First’s view in the select committee was telling. It said “the bill creates too many administrative grey areas which would have the potential to lead to confusion.”—end of story. Despite all the Supplementary Order Papers, it ain’t worth saving and this party will not be trying to support it at all. The last thing this Parliament should be doing is passing unnecessary and confusing legislation just for the sake of passing legislation. That is not what we are about, and members on all sides of the Chamber will agree with that.
National is concerned about this bill on a number of different levels, and we will talk further about that as we go through the Committee stage. Essentially, it takes away choice and flexibility. As my colleague David Bennett said, choice gives innovation, it brings entrepreneurship, and this bill cuts across that completely. We are concerned about a number of different avenues, and, quite frankly, the bill is not workable. A very good point was raised by one of my colleagues: if this bill was so crucial and so important, why did the previous Government not take it on as a Government bill? Again, that speaks volumes. It languished as a member’s bill, and it has languished from the previous Parliament to the current Parliament. Labour had the numbers 3 years ago to pass this bill into law, and it failed to do so. Labour did not support this member’s bill, yet it has carried on to this Parliament and again it will languish and fail. It will not get the support of the majority of members.
Members have talked about the minimum wage. Well, this National Government raised the minimum wage to $12.50 in this parliamentary session. In the first 100 days of office the Government has been very quick to act, in view of the global recession. We have done many things in our first 100 days. We have kept all the promises we said we would make. We have brought in the ReStart package to help those people who have been made redundant, and there are many companies looking at the 9-day working fortnight. I think that will be a way forward for many struggling companies that have 50 or more employees, and it is a good thing to do. We will reform the Resource Management Act. Quite frankly, New Zealand has been stifling and stagnating, and the whole economy has slowed down under the weight of that particular Act. It is too onerous. We need to change it, and that will be happening. We have given tax cuts, and they will help restart the economy. We will be going forward and we will keep going.
This bill is deeply flawed. There was no consensus or common ground at the select committee, and it cuts away choice. With all the rewrites, it is unworkable.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I am very happy to hear from my colleagues on all sides of the Chamber on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill, but I thought I had better respond to some of the quite ridiculous things we have heard both tonight and in the previous debate on Part 1. I need to put the record straight, because I am the person who sponsored this bill. I am one of the people on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I heard the submissions on the bill, and the majority of them were in favour of it. They said that the principle behind the bill is right, although the mechanism maybe needs some work.
Labour has supported the bill all the way through, as have the Greens and the Māori Party.
I tell that member to do the numbers. We had some other issues that we needed to progress, but I came into Parliament to advance issues for low-paid workers. If members look back to my maiden speech they will see that that is what I talked about. Low-paid workers are an issue that I have pursued for most of my adult working life. There is a real issue here.
Labour Ministers, in my time, have been enormously supportive of this bill, as have the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and, indeed, Business New Zealand, which got together with us to try to work out the bill. Unfortunately, one of the former New Zealand First members Peter Brown—bless him; he is not here any more—did not quite understand the bill and could not quite get his head around it. However, let me try to get through to some of the members on that side of the Chamber. When National members say that contractors should be free to set their price and terms of contracts, we do not disagree with them. We agree with that approach, provided that workers are not paid below the minimum wage. We are talking about $12.50 an hour. National members have gone on and on tonight about how National put up the minimum wage by 50c.
Listening to them, one might think that nothing had happened in the 9 years under Labour. What was the minimum wage when Labour became the Government? It was $7 an hour, or $4.20 an hour if the worker was under 20 years of age. It has moved a long way. I say to National members “Big deal!”. Good on them for putting up the minimum wage by 50c! We want to have a debate about the level of that wage, which is in Part 2 of the bill.
I also heard Aaron Gilmore and David Bennett—who was on the select committee—arguing that the bill affects freedom and choice. Those are really good National Party words: freedom and choice. Labour agrees that there should be freedom for the self-employed contractors to choose how and when they get paid, provided that they get a real choice about how and when they get paid. The problem is that many workers and many contractors do not have that choice. I am sure that many contractors would wish to be employees and have rights under various employment legislation, but the reality is that that is not the case.
I heard Mr Bakshi and some other members talking tonight about how one of the options is for workers to put forward a low price for their labour so they can get a job. I used to hear that argument in the 1990s from the then National Government, about how any job is better than no job. Let us have slave labour! That is called slavery. I have heard some strange interventions from National members about plumbers and painters. Those workers are not included under this bill, so let us get over that. Nor is this bill based on how fast or slow someone does a job, I say to my cousin Tau Henare. In respect of the leaflet deliverers, it is not about how fast or slow they are, or whether they are young and can run fast or whether they are old and do it slowly—it is not about that. If one reads the mechanisms that have been designed, which are in Supplementary Order Paper 4, one will see that there is a mechanism for agreeing on what is a reasonable time for doing the work, which should then be based on the minimum wage.
I heard Aaron Gilmore in the last session talking about how the self-employed are higher paid than employees. I have read that statistics report, too. It actually states that self-employed contractors are up to four times more likely to remain low earners, compared with wage and salary earners.
Let us go back to what was said by Mr Peachey and other people about the length of time this bill has taken, and to the various discussions on and insults about this bill. Members of Parliament have a right to put forward bills. It is a difficult process, but we all have a right to put forward bills. It is difficult to get bills drawn out of the ballot—we all know that; it can take a long time. A bill can take a long time in the select committee. This bill took a long time in the select committee. It took a long time to come back to the House at the various stages, and it is really unfortunate that it is back in a Parliament in which we have a National Government that does not care about workers who get paid below minimum wage.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During this debate a few comments have been made with regard to support, or lack of it, for this bill in the past. I want to table a couple of documents to clarify what was actually going on with the support of this bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
That is not a matter of order; that is a matter for debate. It has nothing to do with the process of this debate.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am sure that were the member David Bennett to table documents that showed the National Party’s history on supporting the minimum wage, they would show that it was woefully inadequate, because the National Party simply does not support those people on the lowest incomes and the most vulnerable people in our society. Listening to the National members talk about the minimum wage tonight is like going back 100 years or more. We could even be talking about the abolition of slavery, because we are hearing the same kinds of messages from the members of the National Government that were said by those in favour of slavery. The National members sit there in their position of privilege and talk about what is best for the people at the bottom of the heap. What would they know about that? We heard David Bennett—
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not readily interrupt the debate, but the member may want to reflect on what happened to the poor people under 9 years of the previous Labour Government.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
That is not a point of order. That is a debating point, and it is designed to interrupt the flow of the member’s speech—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Quite right—pretty much. That is exactly right. I ask the member not to do it again, please.
I will tell that member what happened under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government. In the “dark days of socialism” that Allan Peachey referred to, people got jobs under Labour, and people knew that their rights at work were protected under Labour. Neither jobs nor the protection of workers’ rights are guaranteed under this National Government. Workers are not guaranteed those at all, because this National Government does not believe that people should get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The National Government particularly does not believe that contractors should get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
David Bennett talked earlier about the fact that people are losing their jobs. He suggested that they should be grateful just to have a job at all. That is the position of this National Government: people on the lowest incomes should simply be grateful to get the breadcrumbs, and to have any kind of income at all. I think it is disgraceful to hear that coming from the National Government. I think that the people on the lowest pay should be entitled to at least the minimum wage, and we in the Labour Party think that the minimum wage should be going up.
I know that David Bennett talked about the important differences between being an independent contractor and choosing to be in an employee relationship. But the National Government, of course, is much more familiar with the independent contractors at the very, very high end of the wage market, such as the purchase advisers earning $1,500 or more a day who are contracted to provide National’s Ministers with information and advice on where to cut next. National members are interested in the people at that end of the contractor market; they are not interested in the people who deliver the newspaper, who do not get even the minimum wage. Those people are earning as low as about $2 an hour, which is absolutely disgraceful.
Part 1 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill talks about the bill’s purpose. It extends the minimum wage to those working under a contract for services. Who might be covered by that? It is people working in building and construction services who are doing labour-only jobs.
I invite National members to go to a building site and tell two workers, one of whom is working on contract and one of whom is working as an employee, why the contractor should be paid less than the employee. The Government’s opposition to this bill effectively says that that is OK. This bill extends the same provisions to people working in cleaning services. We know that a number of cleaning contractors are currently rorting the system and paying people below the minimum wage by putting them on contracts, instead of employing them as employees.
When confronted with that, National members talk about choice, but choice for whom? It is choice for the employers. The employers can tell workers that they can take a contract at below the minimum wage, or they can have no job at all. Those workers do not have a choice about whether they want to be contractors or employees. It is simply a choice of a job below the minimum wage or nothing at all.
Courier services are another profession that will be covered by this bill. The Leader of the House will be very pleased to know that food catering services will also be covered. The pizza delivery boy will be entitled to the minimum wage if this bill is passed, and I am sure the Government would support that. People working in newspaper and pamphlet delivery services, who are probably among the most likely to have been exploited under the current loophole in the law, will be covered by the minimum wage if this bill is passed.
Of course, the provisions will not extend to volunteer newspaper deliverers like the Exclusive Brethren volunteers who delivered National Party pamphlets, so Government members can rest assured that they will not have to worry about that.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I am delighted to take a call in the Committee stage of this debate on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I was so keen to take a call that I actually turned down drinks to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the ascension of Margaret Thatcher to power in the United Kingdom. The forty-ninth Parliament has been a pretty civilised place. On the one hand, we have a Government with a strong mandate, and on the other, an Opposition that opposes, as a good Opposition should, while the Government gets on with passing legislation.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
I will get on to her in a minute. Most of the debate has been without too much controversy, has it not? The Opposition teases us for having bills on the Order Paper that are theirs. We tease them for those bills languishing for the last 9 years, but, pretty much, it has been a tame affair.
So it is fascinating that it has taken a member’s bill for the gloves to really come off. In the second reading, in particular, the gloves really did come off for colleagues on this side of the House, and, boy, the attack has been pretty full-on. But what is really interesting is that it has not been the members born with silver spoons whom members opposite attack, the ones from Remuera, Fendalton, or Maori Hill. It is not the so-called “hollow men”. The sharpest claws are actually out for the Tau Henares, the Aaron Gilmores, the Nikki Kayes, and even, perhaps, the Mike Woodhouses—that is whom they go for. They do not say it in so many words, but the hackles rise every time National caucus members rise to talk on this bill, and on why this bill is bad for low-income workers, young workers, employers, and an economy that is already labouring under the weight of low productivity.
I ask why members opposite are so affronted by these members, because these members are not the ones with silver spoons in their mouths. They are not the ones who have had the privilege or the head start that members opposite believe somehow disadvantages others. The members I name had to work damned hard to achieve the success that they have had academically, in business, in their communities, and, eventually, in this House. The Opposition might even see those members as traitors to their own upbringings. Some of them have even come from Labour backgrounds. Some of the Opposition members who have spoken in support of this bill—not all of them, but a few—really object to that sort of so-called “class hopping”.
I will now do something that few, if any, National members have done in this House. I will quote the left-wing commentator Chris Trotter to make a point.
Hon Tony RyallMICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Oh, good; well, it is something members will be used to. I think Mr Trotter might have had something of an epiphany since the last election when he wrote an opinion piece on aspiration. This is what he said. I think members opposite should listen very carefully.
He said: “Are we socialists, in our drive for an absolute equality of outcomes, really willing to descend to the level of a certain species of crab which will, when collected in a bucket, seize and haul back into the doomed mass any individual that attempts to escape its fate by climbing out? … Is that why so many other New Zealanders raised in state houses voted against Helen Clark’s Labour-led government [in the last election]? Because, somehow, they had got it into their heads that she would be happier if they never left them? Never climbed out of the bucket? Or, God forbid, that Labour’s social-democratic state was actually about seizing them in its claws and dragging them back down into it?”.
That is really the essence of this bill, is it not? This is what the bill is all about. It is about keeping people down. I am very happy to support a Government that aspires for all its people, that passes policies and laws that will encourage people to aspire to do better, that provides a safety net—a generous minimum wage, which was recently introduced—and then gives them the tools to aspire to do better. That is what this Labour Opposition objects to. Like crabs in a bucket, it hauls them back to the doomed masses. I think if Labour members really, really believed in the bill, it would have been on the previous Labour Government’s agenda. It had 9 years to pass it, and now that Labour members know the bill will not get passed, they are all standing up and crying for it.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
I ask Mr Brownlee to please not allow that member to speak ever again. That speech was disappointing. I also say to Mr Bennett that it was disgraceful when he made the comments about flexibility of wages. How do we make that happen? How do we enable flexible wages to be paid? Do we pay workers $2 one day, then $10 another day? How do we do it? And what happens to the bills that the workers have to pay? Do they get flexibility in their bills?
National keeps on missing the point with regard to the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. The bill is about protecting vulnerable workers. It is not just about people who are delivering leaflets and pamphlets. If National members read Supplementary Order Paper 4 in the name of Darien Fenton and new schedule 2 in the substituted schedule on it, they will see that it outlines all the vulnerable workers that this bill aims to protect. I will list some of them for National members’ benefit: building and construction services, cleaning services, courier services, food catering services, fast-food delivery services, personal home-care support to an individual in the individual’s dwellinghouse, public entertainment services, the manufacture of clothing, footwear, or textiles, telemarketing services, market research services, licensed security guard services, services in the forestry industry, and truck-driving services. The workers in those sectors are the ones that this bill aims to protect. It is an important bill, but the members on the other side of the Chamber simply seem to miss that.
Leaflet and newspaper delivery and pizza delivery used to be performed predominantly by young people who were trying to earn a few extra bucks, but today families and older people are very often contracted to make those deliveries. In the difficult recessionary times we are now experiencing, more and more families will be forced to supplement their incomes by doing exactly this kind of work. Without the protection of the minimum wage, they are left with their own strength to negotiate whatever wage they can with their employers. Although working on a contractual arrangement works well for some workers, for many workers that is not the case. I refer specifically to Pacific workers, Māori workers, youth workers, migrant people, workers who have a disability—whether it be physical, emotional, or otherwise—and women who have contracts to ensure that they have flexibility of hours so they can have the time to take care of their young children. They will also be affected and will not have protection unless this bill is passed.
Those particular groups within our communities should be of concern to all of us. If we are concerned about their welfare, then we can see that the protection this bill offers to vulnerable workers is crucial for maintaining their human dignity.