Soper Lesley: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Soper Lesley: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16189] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak in support of my colleague Darien Fenton’s Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I say to the House that this bill is essential. Once again Labour is the voice of the working people the vulnerable workers on an issue where minimum employment protections are very much at stake. Those protections need to be in place for all New Zealand workers. Ms Wilkinson who spoke before my colleague Russell Fairbrother knows very well that my colleague Darien Fenton has already very well signalled that there will be Supplementary Order Papers that deal with all the issues that she has tried to raise as problems—that list the occupations that exclude the painter of the house—that mean that this is workable legislation and it is. 
Are there vulnerable workers in New Zealand to whom the minimum wage protection legislation does not apply because their employment status does not fit within current legislative protections for employees and who do not get the benefit of increases to the minimum wage that this Government has now legislated for every year we have been in power? Yes there are. They are called contractors. They may be in a large range of occupations—everything from forestry to construction to the driver I was speaking with last weekend to the personal care worker to the pamphlet deliverers who work for Reachmedia and have had their salaries reduced from $2 an hour to 50c an hour. We found that out in the last few days. 
Those are the vulnerable workers known as contractors and defined by their employers as contractors who do not have any choice at all about the way in which they are employed. They are the people who are being employed and exploited on chimney sweep Victorian wages. They earn far less than anywhere close to the minimum wage—the minimum wage now or the $7 minimum wage that the National Party was so proud of in 1999. Those are the workers this Labour Party is supporting through this legislation from my colleague Darien Fenton and we are very proud to do so. 
By contrast is what we have from the wittering of the National Party their spokesperson Kate Wilkinson and every National Party speaker. They have shown a total lack of acknowledgment that there are vulnerable workers for whom we have an obligation to bring in such legislation. This is the National Party that has voted against every decent piece of employment policy we have brought in over the past 9 years. This is the National Party that has a spokesperson at the present time who sounds exactly like the Bill Birch of the 1990s. It sounds exactly as though she would like to bring back the Employment Contracts Act and if there is any suspicion about that may I point out that Mr Bill English was heard on  
Agenda 
 as recently as the 18th of this month saying: “We’ve also floated the idea in the last few years about the 90-day trial period for new employees.” 
We all know what that means in employment legislation. The bill is already in place and would be used by that party to attack every single worker every single new employee and everyone who changes his or her job. Indeed it might affect some members opposite who will not be here after the election but will be starting a job. It would affect the youngest and newest employee starting a new job. The National 90-day probation bill would affect every single worker throughout his or her career. 
Let us have a look at a few more quotes from Ms Wilkinson as recently as today’s  
Dominion Post 
: “Ms Wilkinson: ‘Workers should be able to offer their services to an employer on terms and conditions that they want.’ … But Ms Wilkinson has also indicated that National will cut into public holiday pay letting employers offer contracts with three rather than four weeks’ annual leave.” National is also considering reducing rights for workers in small businesses and I have already mentioned the 90-day probation bill. She wants to repeal— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. I am wondering whether the member knows the repercussions of misleading the House and whether she would like to reflect on what she is saying and misquoting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry that is not a point of order; it is more a point of debate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That really was not a point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member might like to read the Standing Orders and quote from them. She should put up or shut up because my colleague who was speaking was quoting from an article. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I ruled on this point of order to say that it was not a point of order but a point of debate. I ask Lesley Soper to continue. 
LESLEY SOPER 
: To quote a little more from this  
Dominion Post  
article of today: “She wants to repeal provisions that make good-faith bargaining work.” We know from her speeches that National will reduce unions’ collective bargaining rights. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker whether this is a party we can trust on industrial legislation. This is a party where the leader has such slipperiness that no vulnerable worker could trust the safety of his or her rights under such a party. Any workers listening to the National Party’s speeches need to think about the risks their employment is under. John Key the leader of that party pretends that National will not change much if elected but National members have already voted against significant employment legislation containing good things for workers. They have already voted against protecting vulnerable workers. Their true colours are showing rather bright and apparent. 
Workers have the right to decent fair pay and conditions. National does not seem to care that some pamphlet deliverers are being paid the equivalent of $3 an hour if they are lucky. The fact is that that party on the other side of the House has no awareness of or care for vulnerable workers. No matter what industry they are in as far as they are concerned vulnerable workers are fair game for the employer and any conditions the employer wants to set and they will back that up as a National Party in everything they speak on and everything they vote on in industrial legislation—and that is not good enough. 
The Supplementary Order papers that will come in at the Committee stage will improve this bill. It is good legislation. It deserves support in this House. I hope even at this stage that my colleagues in the New Zealand First Party will see their way clear to offer that support. 
I commend the bill to the House. I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill and the vulnerable workers for whom it will do good things.