Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1679] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the purpose of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill which amends the Minimum Wage Act 1983. I think that the bill sadly is misnamed. Having listened to the member in charge of the bill Darien Fenton try to justify what frankly is unjustifiable I am even further convinced that this bill would be more honestly entitled the “Interference in the Lives of Ordinary New Zealanders Bill” or the “Let us Restrict the Ability of Some New Zealanders to Get Work Bill”. That is what this bill is all about. If members had listened carefully to the justification given by the member in charge of the bill— 
Hon David Parker 
: Don’t you believe in the minimum wage? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Listening to the interjections from members opposite I wonder whether they might like to reflect on why the Labour Party and those who advocate and support it seem totally bent on denying some New Zealanders the opportunity to work. We live in some of the most difficult employment conditions in a couple of generations largely caused by the failure of the previous Labour Government over 9 years in office. Now Labour wants to put through legislation that will further screw down the opportunities of people looking for work to enter into an agreement that has been freely arranged and openly agreed between somebody who wants a job done and somebody who is looking for a job. Let us not be under any illusions: that is what this bill is about—regulate and then regulate some more. 
Why are Labour Party members opposite who claim to care so much about workers so bent on interfering with the goodwill in relationships between people? When we talk about the purpose of this bill let us remember that those members are not talking about spending their own money—and that was the case when they were profligate in the spending of taxpayers’ money for 9 long years. 
I would have thought frankly that the Labour Party would get the message from the electorate and withdraw any legislation like this that it still has in its name. The electorate has made it abundantly clear that it does not want this sort of interference in people’s lives. 
It will not be lost on the electorate—and people are listening to this debate—that the party that increased the minimum wage is on this side of the Chamber. Boy that must really hurt the Labour members! The increase in the minimum wage came from this side of the Chamber. Now that Labour members are in Opposition they want to spend other people’s money. What is it—$13 an hour $14 an hour $15 an hour? When will that party get realistic about the desperate need of many New Zealanders for employment? 
Any legislation like this that involves spending other people’s money costs New Zealanders the opportunity to work and that is the true purpose of this bill. The true purpose of this bill is to cost some New Zealanders the opportunity to work. The other purpose of the bill of course—beyond regulating and then regulating some more—is to spend other people’s money. What is it about members opposite that they have not got the message that New Zealanders are fed up with left-wing Governments that want to spend other people’s money?