Fenton Darien: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fenton Darien: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1204] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to speak in this debate. I feel privileged to be part of a Government that has acted early to implement its key election promises just as it has done every election since it was first elected in 1999. This Government has already made a huge commitment to transforming our economy; to providing security and opportunity for families young and old; and to building pride in the unique national identity of New Zealanders. Our programme for this term and beyond as spelt out in our Prime Minister’s speech will ensure that this Government continues to make a real difference for the next 3 years the next 3 years after that and another 3 years—on and on. 
It has been strange to sit on this side of the House and hear the National Party lament the state of wages for New Zealand workers. I did not know the National Party was trying to be the workers’ friend; that would be a first. It certainly has not been until now and I know that workers throughout New Zealand will have difficulty believing that the leopard has changed its spots—or should I say that the lame duck has changed its quack. While we are talking about accountability I am still waiting to hear National members own up to the responsibility they bear for driving wages down when they were last in Government in the 1990s. Typically we have heard no new ideas from Dr Brash about how to increase wages or improve the economy other than the tired old prescriptions he learnt in a neo-liberal economic theory decades ago. The world has moved on I say to Dr Brash but the National Party remains stuck in the last century. 
Dr Brash talks vaguely about increasing productivity. Let us be clear about the National Party’s version of productivity—that is work harder for lower wages in unskilled dead-end jobs. That was the policy of the 1990s. There was no investment in training in skills there was the killing off of apprenticeships and the privatisation of industry training. And those members wonder why wages have slipped and we still have a critical skills shortage! Productivity under National means restructuring lay-offs and work intensification. National does not believe that workers have any interest in productivity and believes that the control of it should all be handed to business on a plate through a set of vicious work rules. 
Let us be clear: there will not be any interest among New Zealand workers in National’s approach towards improving productivity if it is to come through labour-market arrangements that favour employers so that businesses grow and the benefits trickle down. We tried that do people remember? And the benefits trickled up and flooded out of the country. John Key the wonder boy of the National Party has the same last-century views about the labour market. The last time National tried doing this with the Employment Contracts Act and other poverty-enhancing measures they embedded a low-wage mentality that still endures among some employers. 
So what is different about today’s National Party prescription? The only mantra National members can think up is the difference between Australian wages and our own. It is easy to hold up graphs but that does not tell the real story. Let us do some comparisons. Tax is not cheaper in Australia; the top tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Additional taxes include a stamp duty on a home purchase medical levies payroll taxes and accident compensation charges that are twice those of New Zealanders. Conditions for Australian workers are well ahead of ours so the cost of doing business is more expensive although—thanks to this Labour Government—we are catching up on some of those things. 
The minimum wage is equivalent to NZ$13.85 an hour and it is underpinned by a strong award system. Most workers stay on the minimum wage for only a short period of time before moving on to higher wages. Minimum sick leave is higher than ours annual leave has been at 4 weeks for years and there is a minimum 9 percent employer contribution to superannuation. There are casual loadings long-service leave and leave loadings. Why is that? What is the difference between New Zealand and Australia? It is that Australia did not introduce the Employment Contracts Act during the 1990s—surprise surprise—along with other punitive measures designed to reduce the cost of labour. Compared with increases in wages in Australia through the 1990s wage increases in New Zealand were tiny. 
That is the real reason wages are behind; it is National’s legacy and this Government is having to fix it. I want to know whether National is serious about bridging the gap between New Zealand and Australia because if it is it will support the minimum wage going up to $12 an hour and support the youth minimum wage bill going to a select committee next week. 
It will be interesting to see whether the Australian Government’s industrial relations reforms will have the desired effect of reducing wages and conditions by forcing workers into a similar situation that National did with New Zealand workers in the 1990s. That is one way of catching up with Australia I guess—where wages are driven down by draconian industrial reform. I suspect we will see a lot of workers wanting to come back to New Zealand over the next couple of years because we will look good beside John Howard’s reforms. 
This Government believes we have a responsibility to assist families young and old and workers on modest incomes. I do not know who the Opposition talks to out in the community but the families I talk to have welcomed the Working for Families initiatives and I am delighted that the confidence and supply agreements that Labour has entered into mean that low-paid workers can look forward to a minimum wage at $12 an hour by 2008 should economic conditions permit. Those same workers have had the minimum wage increased by 46 percent since Labour became the Government and the chronic low pay that many have experienced is well on the way to being addressed through this Government’s policies. 
Around 77 percent of families with dependent children will qualify for Working for Families and the dramatic effect it will have on child poverty in New Zealand is the most significant thing the Government has done to address the inequities that were exacerbated in the 1990s. It has been rather tiresome I think to sit here and listen to the National Party’s tired themes of tax cuts for the rich punishing those not so well off by making cuts in health and welfare attacking Maori and reducing workers’ rights. Tax cuts are great news if one is rich. When National cut taxes twice in the mid-1990s most of the $2 billion tax cuts or 71 percent went to the highest earners. I have no doubt that if the present Opposition were now in Government—and thank goodness it is not—we would not be debating increases for working families or introducing new policies that will improve the lives of families. We would be debating cutting holidays reducing minimum wages and reducing workers’ rights on the back of tax cuts for the rich. 
I do feel a bit sorry for the new National members. I do not want to hold you totally to blame for what happened in the 1990s but you do need to understand that what your party did— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the member should be using the word “you”. She is actually addressing you Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is right. The member should not bring the Speaker into it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I do not hold the new National members accountable for all the things that happened in the 1990s but I will hold them accountable if they do not do something about the dreadful policies that their party continues to advocate. [ 
Interruption 
] By the way can I just tell the member opposite that the South Auckland working people voted for Labour. I am sorry that she is not on this side of the Chamber but the South Auckland working people voted for this Government. She can lament all she likes but they know who is on their side.