Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1678] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to have a members’ day; it is the first of the new Parliament. They have been few and far between so it is really really good. 
I assure the members on the opposite side of the Chamber that they have some learning and catching up to do on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. As a new member I adopted this bill in 2005. I took it over from the Hon David Parker who became a Minister at that time. After it came out of the ballot it was introduced in July 2006 and had its first reading in August 2006. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered it at length and reported back more than a year later. If Jackie Blue had read the select committee report properly she would have seen that the votes were tied: the Labour members supported the bill and the National members did not so the numbers were tied. The bill had its second reading in May 2008. I introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that contained the majority of the amendments to the bill that are being considered today. Supplementary Order Paper 4 which has been introduced this week has only a very very small number of new amendments; the rest of it has been under consideration for nearly a year. 
A lot of work has gone into this bill. The select committee members worked hard on it apart from the National members who started with an ideological position against it. They said that we should not interfere with the commercial relationship with contractors and that people have the free choice to work for very little if they want to. Talking on the purpose clause of the bill in Part 1 I say that it is based on a very simple principle which all the submitters to the select committee agreed is right: no worker in New Zealand—no matter what their employment status—should be paid less than a socially acceptable minimum wage. I want to hear whether the members on the opposite side—the Government members—agree with that. 
The bill began with the issue of leaflet deliverers. Some of their stories are horrific. Leaflet deliverers are usually kids but also these days they are the elderly the unemployed or low-income workers who are trying to get extra income. Companies sign them up as independent contractors and pay them per delivery. The pay equates to around $1 for 100 leaflets for the first leaflet and 50c per 100 for each additional pamphlet. Sometimes there can be up to 14 different pamphlets in a day. That means that deliverers can spend hours and days delivering all of those leaflets for a pittance. I am sure that some were the National Party leaflets from the previous election. Those workers get no holiday pay no sick pay and no other rights so if the worker falls ill and cannot deliver the leaflets someone else has to do it for him or her otherwise the worker can be fired for breach of contract. What redress do such workers have? They have none. They could perhaps go to the small claims tribunal or maybe take up a legal case as an independent contractor. I am really surprised that any member of this Committee thinks that that is an acceptable situation and is not supporting every effort to do something about it. 
Since the bill was introduced—as I said it started with the issue of leaflet deliverers—many workers who are called either self-employed or independent contractors in a wide variety of occupations and industries have been in contact with me and came forward to the select committee to talk about their situations. The Supplementary Order Paper outlines some of those groups of workers: fast-food delivery workers—the ones who bring pizzas to our homes when we do not have time to cook dinner—truck drivers couriers construction workers caregivers home-care workers security guards cleaners telemarketing workers forestry workers and even the actors and musicians who work in our much-prized arts industry. They all have the same story to tell. Those workers are behind this bill. I have specific support from each group of workers in those industries. 
These workers are being subjected to exploitative working conditions because under our current laws they are not considered employees and therefore have no rights. They have none of the basic protections including entitlement to the minimum wage. That means they can be paid as little as nothing. Going back to the leaflet deliverers I tell members that some of them are getting paid 25c an hour. I have come across workers on $4 an hour. I have come across the whole nine yards of exploitation. This whole notion is based on a premise that parties to this sort of contract are treated equally and that they are on an equal footing with each other and the implication of that is that they are equal parties in the relationship. But there is no recognition in law that a worker trying to negotiate from a position of relative or complete powerlessness should have any rights. 
For too many workers there is no choice. They have to accept it. Although some workers decide to work for themselves as independent contractors many do not—they are not given a choice. For these types of workers it is a jungle out there. We are talking about the law of the jungle and it seems to me that National thinks it is all right. 
Chris Tremain 
: It’s called an independent contract. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No it is not because they do not have union rights. Why does the member not understand? He should read the bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: You tell me a small business has union rights. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am sorry but we are not talking about small business; we are talking about individual workers. It will only get worse because in this economic climate more and more vulnerable workers will be in this category as jobs become more insecure and workers resort to self-employment or contracting out in a desperate search for work. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why don’t you give up your job here and let someone else come in? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I wish the member over there would listen; he might learn something. 
I also believe that more employers will take up this option and move their workers to subcontracting arrangements to avoid the costs of employee rights as they seek to cut costs such as holiday pay public holidays sickness and bereavement leave and KiwiSaver contributions. Whether or not the members like it the problem is already here in New Zealand and it has the potential to grow if we do nothing about it. It can be taken to ludicrous extremes as it has been in many other countries or we could do something about it—if Parliament has the will. That is what this bill endeavours to do. It tries to something about it. It extends protections to workers within the labour market who have no protections to receive the minimum wage and it will reduce the temptation for undesirable workplace practices by reducing the incentive on employers to alter their existing work arrangements to contracting in order to avoid paying the minimum wage and other employer obligations. 
We in Labour take this seriously. I am proud that we do. We do not think it is fair that any worker in this country should be required to work for anything less than a socially acceptable minimum wage. But National thinks that is OK. It does not care if mums and dads lose their jobs in the recession as many will and are forced to contract themselves under this sort of arrangement for $4 an hour. Thank you.