Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill

I have not had the opportunity to speak in the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill debate at this stage, so I think that it is appropriate that I do so, under a number of roles I have formerly held—as a Minister responsible for the commerce portfolio and for small business, but also as a former Minister of Women’s Affairs. This issue of the minimum wage not being met for those who are in contracting arrangements is very, very common in a number of industries that women work in. I think that this bill goes a long way to addressing what has always been an anomaly, which is that once individuals are outside the parameters of the Employment Relations Act because they are not employees, they are very vulnerable to ending up in a situation where they are earning quite considerably less than the minimum wage, when we take into account all of their travelling time.

I will use the example of home-help workers, because I have a constituent who is a home-help worker and who came to me about 4 years ago with a petition she had gathered from a number of her charges—people whose private homes she went into, to look after them. The reason she had come to see me was that she had ended up that particular week facing a very horrendous bill with her petrol. So she came to see me because she had literally come to the end of her tether, in terms of what she could afford to do. Essentially, once the travelling costs had been taken off her weekly pay, she was much worse off than she had been 7 years before when she worked in a condom factory. I think there was an ironic juxtaposition between somebody who 7 years ago had been working in a condom factory—making, obviously, a very worthy contribution to that particular area—and earning considerably more than she was earning when looking after some of the most vulnerable members in our community: the elderly and those with disabilities. I thought that her case was a very important case; therefore, I assisted her to bring her petition to Parliament.

The petition was heard by the select committee and reported back to the House in due course, and changes were made to the funding arrangements for home-care workers, in two major respects. The first was a requirement by district health boards that in their contracting arrangements they had to require that the home-care industry provided for a travel policy in its contracts. So that was one very good outcome that arose from her taking that case. The other was a straight wage increase, which was funded by a major injection of funds by the previous Government into the sector, as a result of the need to address what was a major anomaly. Although she was an employee, her circumstances were such that she was paid from the minute she walked into the house until the minute she walked out, and none of the time she spent travelling from place to place was taken into account—which is essentially what brought her earnings below the minimum wage. Let us wind that back into the situation for those considered in the legislation now to be vulnerable workers, and put those workers into a contracting situation. That is even worse, because not only do they get caught out by ultimately working for under the minimum wage but they have far fewer of the protections that exist to protect employees under the Employment Relations Act.

So I think that this legislation is important legislation, and I congratulate Darien Fenton on bringing it to the House. I think that we often overlook the intention of legislation when we are looking at applying standard legislation across the board, which is what the Employment Relations Act does. Sometimes we think that people who are in individual contracts for services—rather than contracts of service—are in a stronger position and can negotiate their own conditions of those contracts, and that there is somehow a more level playing field. I think the point that Darien Fenton has made in bringing this legislation to the House is that that is not the case when we are talking about a relatively vulnerable workforce. If members want to look a bit further, I think that that point has been well made.

I start by quoting from the explanatory note of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill: “The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to extend its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for services that are remunerated at below the minimum wage.” I now share with the Committee another quote, which is from a pretty big icon: “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What was Mauri Pacific’s party policy?

I hear the Fabian Luddites across the way. The Fabians just loved to put people in little victim modes and then prey on them. The Fabians loved to prey on victims, and to make the victims think they could not do anything for themselves so they had to have the nanny State. I tell members that this country is sick and tired of the interfering way of these Fabians here, who are like the Fabians of a hundred years ago, people like John Maynard Keynes—the deviant—the Webbs, Ellis, and all those guys from back about a hundred years ago. They are where the Labour Party comes from.

Who is the quote from? The quote is from Abraham Lincoln. I would love for Darren Hughes, the new Trevor Mallard, to be able to get up in the Chamber and say what Labour members really think of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln had it right: if people try to tear down too many things, they will be left with nothing. That is what this bill does; that is exactly the purpose of this bill. The purpose, although being one of the Fabians’ mantras, concerns the minimum wage. Although the bill sounds nice, if it goes ahead it would mean that those who employ people and who pay their wages will not be interested in giving out pamphlets any more. They will not be interested, so the downstream effect will see those whom they seek to help becoming unemployed. Those whom they seek to help will not have the pamphlets to deliver any more. Whether those people have been getting $20 or $30, they will not get that any more.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What would Wilberforce say about that argument?

Oh, Wilberforce. Yeah, that is right. He is another one of Labour’s mates. Labour just loves to portray itself as the protector of the workers; the indigenous; women; and this, that, and the other, but that does not wash.

The downside of this bill is that employers will not pay what they cannot afford. That is what Mr Lincoln was on about. Employers should pay what they can afford and help out people who use the pamphlet drop as a top-up to their wages. This bill will not go through. I do not really know why we are here debating it, because we know the numbers already, so we might as well have a vote now and get rid of it. But it is good theatre.

I think that speech has to go down in history as one of the most disgraceful from a member of any party in this House. It has to be one of the most disgraceful speeches because it was completely opposed to any kind of minimum wage protection. That member’s speech was a justification for slavery. It was nothing more or less than a justification—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take great offence at that member accusing me of being supportive of one of the meanest dastardly acts on earth. I am telling you that I am offended by that comment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): This is a Chamber of robust debate. The member did not directly accuse that member of advocating or supporting slavery. The member said that if that line of logic was argued, then it could be used as a justification for slavery. We cannot have anything but robust debate. The member might be offended by the connection to that term, but the member did not say that the member directly supported slavery. The member can continue with that line of discussion.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to go against your ruling, but I am offended at the implication of what the member said. I think it is drawing a longbow to say there was no implication in what she said. She implied that what I said was a justification for slavery, and therefore the implication is that I am in support of slavery.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is a convention of the House that when the Chair has ruled, the matter is closed. The member is seeking to go over a matter that I have already ruled upon. The matter is closed. I gave some forbearance to the member to make a few other comments, because I know the member is feeling strongly about the comments made, but I have ruled on the matter. The matter is closed.

Could I just reiterate to the member that this is a difficult balance to achieve. The first thing the Speaker does after the swearing-in of members of Parliament, and after the Speaker is elected, is go to the Governor-General to get free speech. Free speech gives members the ability to say what they think and feel, and it is to be jealously guarded. On the one hand it is free speech, and on the other hand one has to protect the rights of members. If the member had said directly that that member, by name, supports slavery, etc., I would have agreed immediately with the member if the member had said that was not the case. But the member on her feet said that the arguments advanced by the member could justify, as I recall, the support of slavery. That is a point that the member is entitled to make, and to draw a connection. That does not necessarily mean the member supports slavery directly. That is a fine line, I accept. That is my ruling, and I invite the member to continue with her speech, mindful of the issue that has been raised by the Hon Tau Henare.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a different point of order. Can I get a point of clarification from you? If the implication or the accusation was that it could be taken that my speech was in support of Nazism, would that be the same as covered in your previous ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Could I firstly say to the member there is no such thing in the Standing Orders as a point of clarification. That does not exist. The member can scour the Standing Orders as long as he likes, but I have not seen it yet. But it was a good try. Firstly, there is no such thing as a point of clarification.

Secondly, the Chair does not have to rule on hypothetical things in the future. That is not the Chair’s job; it is about what was said at the time. I have discussed the matter and given my opinion. Rightly or wrongly it is my view that although the member felt aggrieved about the comments, they still fell within the ambit of free speech. When the member continues with her speech, I advise her to be sensitive about this issue.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I do quite freely say that I am sorry if the member has taken offence in that way. However—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Although I cannot point to any particular ruling, I am pretty sure that a member cannot refer to a ruling that the Chair has just given.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The honourable member is correct. Normally if offence is taken, the member is expected to withdraw and apologise. I did not require the member to withdraw and apologise, but I felt that the member was acknowledging that you had felt upset about the comments and was apologising directly to you, even though she was not required to by the Chair. I thought the member was winning his point twice, without having to win it.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Let me proceed with the argument, in that case. I heard the previous speaker say essentially that employers should be able to pay what they can afford. I hope that is a correct representation of what the previous speaker said. To say that employers must be able to pay simply what they can afford took me back to speeches that were made in defence of slavery. Speeches were made—and could be repeated today—that said employers cannot be compelled to pay wages that they cannot afford, and any institution of a minimum wage and any increase of any instituted minimum wage would offend against that.

The problem with that argument is simply that employers are not inclined, by and large, to be open with what they are able to afford. Employers have typically, in my experience in industrial relations, held very close to themselves the amount that they are able to afford in any negotiations, in order not to be outdone, in negotiations, by a union.

If the previous speaker’s argument is to be followed through, it could be that the owner of a cotton plantation in some former time could have said: “I could not afford to pay a minimum wage and therefore should not be obligated by legislation to do so.” The point remains. The fact also that the previous speaker chose to use Sir William Wilberforce in a way that was meant to be derogatory, I think reflects, first of all, on his lack of understanding of history, and, secondly, on the lack of compassion around the issue that Sir William Wilberforce is so famous for. To say that the only tenet that underpins the employment relationship should be what an employer can afford to pay negates centuries of progress.

This bill before the Committee—and I commend Darien Fenton for bringing it to the House—is seeking to improve a situation that exists in New Zealand whereby over many years we have had a minimum wage and where, under successive Labour Governments, we have seen improvements to that, and very recently, for quite probably the first time in history, we have seen a small increase by a National-led Government. However, what we have here is a loophole that this bill is looking to address. Vulnerable workers, particularly vulnerable workers who are contracted, will not be entitled even to the Government’s miserable increase to the minimum wage that we saw enacted recently. That situation cannot be left to lie where it is. This bill seeks to amend that loophole.

The Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill was put up by Labour members in the last throes of their Government and was never actually taken on board as a Government bill. It is amazing that they come into the Chamber at this moment just in time to tell us that we should vote for the bill, and that to not vote for it would be unconscionable to workers and not take into account the people who are out there working hard—all those great anti-Tory lines that the Labour Party uses. Yet what did they do when they were in power, when they had the chance, and when they were sitting on the Government side of the Chamber? They did not support this bill. They did not support this bill, because even they knew it was bad law, even they knew it was unworkable, and even they knew that their colleagues at the time—New Zealand First—would not have voted for it.

That is the problem with Labour members. If they are so high and mighty and come into this Chamber to say this bill is the best thing since sliced bread, why did they not support it 9 months ago? They did not want to support it 9 months ago, because they knew it would not work. So this bill is destined for only one position in this Chamber: it is destined for failure. It did not pass the Labour test when it was put up by Labour members, so it will certainly not pass the test of this Committee at this time.

Why does it not pass the test? It is because even the Labour Party, in its heart of hearts, knows that we cannot make employees and independent contractors the same. There is a point of difference. The reason we have the ability to independently contract services is that contracting represents different kinds of work in many cases. It often represents people being in business for themselves. When people are in business for themselves, which is something Labour members would not have much idea of, they actually have to make some sacrifices. They have to go out there and do things that would not fall under the rules and regulations of an employment agreement, in order to get the business going. How many plumbers, builders, and electricians charge their clients on an hourly basis by the book? I bet members that they do not, and they certainly will not do that in this current environment, because they want to keep their jobs, they want to keep their work, and they want to make sure they give a fair deal for what they do. That is the business those people are in; it is not the business of 120 people in this Chamber sitting behind desks and chairs telling people how to run their lives. That is what people do not want and that is why they voted against Labour at the last election. That is why even the Labour members would not put up the bill. They knew it would never work.

Look at this bill now. Labour members come in here and expect us to vote for it, and then they put in amendments about increasing the minimum wage, just to try to play for it. Well, when National came into power we increased the minimum wage off our own bat; Labour did not have to tell us how to do it. The Labour Government never made a statutory increase in the minimum wage as Labour members are proposing now. Over 9 long years when the economy could actually pay for things they would not do that, but in tighter economic conditions they expect us to do it. It does not make any sense.

The relationship between this bill and the reality of commerce and of individuals’ ability to determine their own futures is non-existent. This bill does not relate to what it is like in the real world. In the real world people contract to provide services; in those contracts for services their position is to provide services, and somebody pays them to do so. That is how it works; that is how life goes. People go out and provide a service for money. If we take away the ability of people to contract, then we are taking away one of the fundamental rights of our economy, we are taking away one of the fundamental rights of our people, and the member proposing this bill will be taking away one of the fundamental human rights. It is a fundamental human right for people to better themselves, to have a choice about how they live their lives, to make a choice about how they conduct their businesses, and to make a choice about how they provide their services. It is important that we in this Parliament enable people to make that choice and deliver those services in the appropriate manner.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 4 in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to.