Beaumont Carol: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2984] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 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 the 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 it 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— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Productivity might be— 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: —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.