Woodhouse Michael: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3916] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on new Part 3 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I was quite keen to sit and watch this bill be consigned to the dustbin as it deserves to be and as even the members on the other side of the Chamber think it should be. However I did feel compelled to haul my lanky frame out of the chair once I had read new Part 3. I thought that a couple of weeks ago there was a real affront to the parliamentary process when members on the Opposition side introduced something in the region of 8000 separate amendments to legislation. I thought some of them were real doozies. But frankly this new Part 3 absolutely takes the cake. I cannot believe what I am reading. 
According to new section 15 inserted by clause 12 on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of Darien Fenton a leader of a political party that is represented in Parliament is required to notify the Minister in writing of his or her party’s agreement with this legislation. I find that to be extraordinary. If the member seriously thinks that any party in this Chamber would conscientiously object to any Act even though he or she did not support it frankly I am in despair at that member’s attitude to this Parliament. The dodgy democracy that she thinks is going on here is more akin to the situation in a place like Kazakhstan or Burma. Frankly she insults those places by tabling this sort of Supplementary Order Paper. It absolutely is of such a woeful quality that I am under no illusions about why the people of this country exercised the freedom of choice that Mr Lees-Galloway talked about when he took a call on Part 2 and threw the Labour Party out of power. 
The simple fact is that the highest minimum wage in this country’s history was passed by a National Government. The discussion about whether National supports a minimum wage has been had. The argument is over. The question is whether that member has such a lack of trust such a lack of faith in our parliamentary democracy that we need this kind of nonsense to be introduced even in this bill. Frankly I despair at that. I make no apology for what I and my colleagues on the Government side of the Chamber firmly believe in and have stated in this debate. It is a commitment to fairness and equity in employment a commitment to aspiration a commitment to productivity and a commitment to unwind the red tape that was progressively wrapped around the employers of this country after the 9 years of the previous Labour Government. This bill will do none of those things for the most vulnerable workers whom this member is trying to help. It will do none of those things. It is well intentioned but ideologically and fundamentally flawed. 
The member for Dunedin North in attempting to answer the question about why his party did not introduce this legislation after having had 9 years of opportunity to do so hit the nail on the head. He said this issue is about a couple of unscrupulous pamphlet-delivering employers and Mr Hipkins’ pizza delivery man. The fact that we have spent so much time on debating a bill to save those vulnerable workers when we have perfectly good employment relations legislation in place and a minimum wage underscores the reasons why the previous Labour Government did not introduce this bill when it had the opportunity to do so. Labour members do not believe in this bill and I hope they do not believe in the nonsense on Supplementary Order Paper 13. I look forward to being able to vote down this bill and throw it out.