Pillay Lynne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3887] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I particularly want to congratulate my very good friend Darien Fenton on bringing this bill to the House. I just want to say that the speech I have just heard was one of the worst speeches—apart from Tau Henare’s speech earlier—that I have heard in this House. The previous speaker Michael Woodhouse is someone whom the National Party will put their arms around saying “You are exactly the sort of new member we want. You are exactly the sort of person we want in our party.” 
I will talk about the arguments put up by the Government. We have had some members saying that we are somehow imposing the minimum wage on highly paid independent contractors. What nonsense! Then we had speakers like the previous speaker who say Labour should have done this before. I will spend some time talking about why this bill is so necessary now. When Labour came into Government the minimum wage was just over $7 an hour. The youth rates were about 3 or 4 bucks an hour. So employers did not need to rort the system with independent contractors. The levels were so low under the previous National Government that they worked. But when Labour came in it brought in the Employment Relations Act. It brought in time and a half on public holidays. It brought in 4 weeks’ annual leave. It enhanced rights for workers. They were very good things. I say in this House that unscrupulous employers then wondered how they could avoid paying the exorbitant rate of $12.50 an hour to a worker who puts in a few hours of work a day. That was just too high. It had been really great under the previous National Government—it had been only 7 bucks an hour. It went up only a few cents in 9 years. Then with a Labour Government that raised the rate to $12 it was just too hard. My goodness along with the Greens’ Sue Bradford’s bill and Labour’s full support for that that was the rate for young people. It was far too high so those employers decided to employ more independent contractors because they have no rights. That really worked for those employers. 
I think Mr Woodhouse is my height. That is what we have in common. We are around the same height. When we are standing talking in the House members cannot see so much of us. And the member has a big voice and that is great but what he is saying is absolutely offensive. 
There is a real need for this bill because the only time that it is really used that it needs to be brought into effect so that people are paid the minimum rate is nine times out of 10 where there is a rort being used so that it is depriving workers of a living wage. I think it is absolutely abhorrent in this day and age in a country like New Zealand which has many many things to be proud of to see workers going out and doing an honest day’s work and at the end of the day coming home and when you knock it down—to take the pizza-selling example that Darien Fenton used—maybe bringing home 3 or 4 bucks an hour. 
The members on the other side argue that we would impose a low rate on highly paid contractors—which is just ludicrous—or that there is no reason for the bill. The advocates for the 90-day trial period legislation even argue that the bill would somehow disadvantage disabled people or young people in finding employment. What a patronising appalling thing to say that people who are young or who have a disability should be employed on 3 or 4 bucks an hour because it gives them the opportunity to work! I think that is an insult to them. If we look at the term “independent contractors” we see that some can earn more in an hour than the weekly minimum wage. Congratulations to them. Those people do not need the assistance of this bill but people who are vulnerable exploited or are not in a position to have bargaining power do need this. It is a small price to pay.