Hodgson Pete: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3919] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have had enough of those arguments from National speakers. I have had enough of the argument—as if it were a logical argument—that because the previous Labour Government did not pass this measure in its 9 long years it must be bad. Is it within the bounds of possibility that the Labour Government ever felt it had finished its work in any area? Is government of our country not a continuous process? Do circumstances not change and evolve and come to fruition? But somehow because we did not do it in 9 years of Government National thinks that that is reason to vote against it. How is that a logical proposition? Why are we told time and again by Mr Henare that somehow this legislation must go down because Labour did not do it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You know it’s nonsense. It’s just a political stunt. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have the ever-present Dr Nick Smith who calls out while I am speaking saying that it is a political stunt. It is not a political stunt because in the bad old days when there was a National Government and the minimum wage was $6.12 for an adult and a fraction of that for someone younger this legislation was not needed. The minimum wage was so low in comparison with the average wage that a pamphleteer—even a pamphleteer—would get the minimum wage for stomping around the streets. By the time the National Government fell out of office the minimum wage had increased by 87.5c over that entire 9-year period to reach the grand sum of $7 an hour. What happened then? The Labour Government lifted it over the next 9-year period not by 87.5c an hour but by 500c an hour—by $5. At that point it started to become an issue. 
Members can argue that the Labour Government should have got on to it earlier. Members can argue that it should have been perfect. But hey we are not; we were not. We did not get this done and now there is an incentive for the pamphlet-delivery business owner to make sure that the employment contract stipulates that the worker gets paid less than the minimum wage. It is much easier to pay someone less than the minimum wage when the minimum wage is $12 than when it is $7. It was the Labour Government’s action to steadily increase the minimum wage—by 50c by 75c and sometimes by $1 an hour per annum—that caused this issue to be thrown into relief. Now that it is thrown into relief why do not we as a House of Representatives decide to fix it? If we do not fix it then we will have a situation where in order to pay below the minimum wage employers will simply need to contract out. That is all they will need to do. 
I am sure National members do not believe that the minimum wage should be lowered; indeed they raised it by 50c an hour a few months ago. It was not generous enough but nonetheless it was an increase. So even National members think the minimum wage should be lifted annually—and one hopes that will continue because it did not when National was last in Government. Right at the moment that is their form yet they are failing from their speeches to plug a hole to make sure that minimum wage is paid saying it is a gimmick. For goodness’ sake! It is now a known issue so let us deal with it. It is simply dealt with. The member’s bill appears in my sighting to deal with it well. I think this legislation should receive 120 votes in favour—or 121 or however many there are of us—and not some minority vote in favour. If the majority is going to vote against this bill it means that it thinks that leaving open a known loophole is somehow ideal. It is clearly not; it is clearly wrong. So let us see whether we can get everyone in this Parliament—even Sir Roger Douglas—to vote for this legislation. It is after all something that works against poverty and Roger Douglas says every day of the week that he works against poverty. Well let us see now whether that member will put his money where his mouth is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Let’s just regulate it out of existence. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: And now the ever-jovial Nick Smith is saying that we will regulate some businesses away. But the whole idea of a minimum wage is to say that employers cannot pay slave labour wages to make a buck in this country; they have to go to a slave labour country and do it there. Nick Smith says he is against poverty but given a chance he will never vote to eliminate it.