Parker David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Parker David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:436] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 This part of the legislation is being presented as being for the benefit of employees. The Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has said that this part is in the interests of employees and that it is being done for their benefit. I want to discuss that proposition because it seems to me to be a ludicrous suggestion that is mere cant designed to hide the agenda of the National Government. This is truly for the benefit of employers and for those whom National does not want to offend. It hits not all employees but only the least powerful ones. This is like the National Government saying that a lower minimum wage is better for low-paid workers. It is the same sort of logic—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not hear that I am sorry Dr Cullen. It is like the idea of lower minimum wages for the benefit of low-paid workers. It is that same sort of nonsense being visited again on the least able to advocate for their own interests.  
If National thought this was for the benefit of employees why has it not made it compulsory for high-paid employees? It is effectively compulsory for low-paid workers because they are not in a position to contract out of this; they effectively have to take what they are given because they are not powerful people. They are not highly skilled; they do not have the ability to go to their employer and say: “There’s only a few of me around. You’ve got to employ me. I’m not going to put up with that condition.” Low-skilled workers do not have that same power; they are forced to take the conditions that are being offered by the employer and that includes the ability now to sack them within 90 days.  
If that is good for low-paid workers effectively on a compulsory basis because they do not have the ability to contract out of it why is it not compulsory for high-paid people? This is clearly for the benefit of employers. We should take away this nonsense that it is somehow for the benefit of the vulnerable. It is not for the benefit of the vulnerable; it is for the benefit of employers. It is not even for the benefit of all employers; it is effectively for the benefit of bad employers. But National is happy to scratch that itch. It is happy to try to keep those people happy but it is not willing to be honest about what this is which is that it is compulsory for the most vulnerable workers. National is not willing to visit that compulsion on the people who would vote for the National Party. I am talking about higher-paid people who are in a position to contract out of it and will contract out of it. No it is not forced upon them; it is forced only upon the vulnerable.  
To hear the Minister trying to dress this up as being for the benefit of the people who are being abused by this change to the legislation is detestable. I really do think that in terms of logic it does stand up there in the same way as the old National habit of never increasing the minimum wage. How often did National increase the minimum wage during 1990s? Once. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: By 87c. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. It increased it by 87c over that long period and low-paid workers went back in real terms. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We did it by $5 over 9 years. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. There was a $5 increase in the minimum wage during the tenure of the Labour-led Government. That is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. Under Labour all people went forward. Their terms and conditions of employment were improved and that included the vulnerable and also the better-off. Under this legislation which the Minister has the temerity to pretend is for the benefit of low-paid workers the low-paid workers are the ones who suffer. It is not for their benefit. National is not willing to admit that it is effectively compulsory for low-paid workers who are not able to advocate their position. National is not willing to follow through on that same principle and make it compulsory for higher-paid workers—which would also be wrong. But the reason National members are not willing to make that principle clear is that those people are National voters they think. They do not want to offend them but they are willing to offend and undermine the interests of the most vulnerable in our society—the lowest paid.