Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16177] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was a very offensive speech from the member who led the Transport and Industrial Committee through the select committee process. I felt offended by his comments about the women in our caucus—the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand was the leader of the National Party. That member should look in the mirror at his own party and see its treatment of women. Our party certainly has a proud history and in no way will we stand for those comments to be made in this House by that member. 
I think that member also made a number of comments that are plainly just not the case. He said that in a number of instances this legislation is a matter of fairness for the Labour Party. It is a matter of “fair” but not “fair” spelt the way he was talking about; it is “fear” in that that party is trying to build an element of fear amongst New Zealand’s hard-working public by saying that the National Party has a problem with workers and seeing workers get their just rewards. It is the “fear factor” that the Labour Party is known and always has been known to be campaigning on. The Labour Party will campaign saying that National will do this that or the other thing. It is trying to build fear into ordinary New Zealanders because its members know that is how they get votes. It is really a shame for a major political party to do that and for a member of that standing to talk about fairness when the real “fair” he was talking about is the fear that members of his party use to try to convince voters to vote for them. 
There is an issue out there and I do not think anyone denies that. Nobody wants to see anyone get taken advantage of. But we have some limits in our law. Some people are determined as independent contractors and some people are determined as employees. An employer-employee relationship is quite different from an independent contractor relationship. There is a whole vast body of case law that dictates what some of the differences may be. The Inland Revenue Department has spent much time defining what an independent contractor is. 
To have a two-page piece of legislation put before us by a new member of this House to try to rectify a body of law that has gone through years and years of trials and tribulations is a real sham. This is not an attempt to deal with this issue; this legislation is just part of the Labour agenda of trying to create fear in the body of voters out there. It is not legislation aimed at dealing with the issue. Labour members are going to deal with the issue through Supplementary Order Papers because they had no idea when they set up this legislation what they were dealing with. They are just flying by the seat of their pants. They are just waiting to see what is going to happen at the next level and then determine what they want to put in the legislation. 
That is simply not good enough. If this is such a big issue why has the Minister not been promoting it? Why have the unions out there not been fighting on this issue? No the unions have been campaigning for the Labour Party. They do not worry about the workers; they just want the money to campaign for the Labour Party so they can get their old mates into power. That is all they are about; it is nothing to do with what is best for the workers. We would not get a two-page piece of legislation coming up in the ninth year as a member’s bill to solve what the Government sees as one of the biggest problems for vulnerable workers. 
The process does not work that way. The legislation would be the first thing off the rank if Labour were a genuine party looking at those issues. But the Labour Party is not; it is after self-preservation. It is after using fear tactics against the ordinary punters out there to try to get them to vote for the party. That is what that party is about and that is what this legislation is about. That is all it is about. It is not about trying to define what an independent contractor is—that is what it should be doing if anything. But it is not. Labour members are just going to pass the legislation and say they have solved the problem. They will not have solved the problem because they have no idea what they are going to do about it. They are going to have to have all those Supplementary Order Papers to try to fix problems as they come up in the negotiation of this legislation through this House. 
Another thing that this political party—the Government—is talking about is that it knows best. That is its one rule—it knows best for people. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to have choice. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to have freedom. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to want to make something out of their own work. It believes that everybody can be put in a box and be told he or she is a member of an employment relationship and therefore has to join a union and have a collective and be represented by that. That is its theory; that is what it is trying to do in this legislation. This is another blatant attempt to get more people to join more unions so that Labour can have more power in this Parliament. That is what it is about. 
Labour does not look at what makes a country strong. What makes a country strong is the ability of people to follow their dreams and to achieve what they want to do. How many businesses have been started by people who have started off as independent contractors built up a business built up the number of staff they employ and built a recognised brand in our country? That is the history of New Zealand business—people getting out there and having a go by themselves. If you want to take that away you are taking away the heart of New Zealand small business you are taking away the heart of the future of New Zealand medium-sized business and you are taking away the heart of the future of New Zealand economic growth. 
But that is what that Government is all about because what has it done to economic growth? It has stifled it and it has made this country one in which it will be very difficult to get through the economic conditions that we are coming into. Legislation like this is not going to assist in that process. We are getting into a situation where people struggle to get jobs. They are going to be losing jobs over the next year. We are probably going to have 100000 people out of work before the end of this year. There is an election campaign coming up at a time when people cannot feed their families they cannot buy petrol they have high interest rates they probably have a new car and a new house and they are going to lose the second income in their household. That is the reality of what is happening out there and you want to make that harder for those people? You want to go out there and make it harder for those people to get ahead? Well good on you because there is only one result you are going to get if you do that and it is not going to be in your best interests. The reality is that we have got— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is bringing the Assistant Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You were using “you” I think. Can you not use it? Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The reality is that we are going into tough economic conditions. There will be a lot of people out of work and why would the Government want to make it any harder for New Zealanders? Why would it want to make it harder for people to earn some money? Why would a Government want to do that? There is no logical reason why a Government would want to do that especially a Government facing an election. 
Now this is the situation the Labour Party is in. It is using the fear of this legislation to try to build a voting base. Labour members will go out there and say: “The big bad National Party will not look after your rights.” Well that is wrong. The National Party is a party based on freedom of choice a party based on the ability of the individual to go out and work and achieve his or her goals but also a party based on fairness in its proper name not fear in the sense that the Labour Party is based on where it uses fear to encourage people to vote for the party. 
I say to Labour members to go out and be positive. If they want to be fair then be fair in the right sense. Give people a chance to make the most of their opportunities and give people the chance to take a risk. We need people who are risk takers we need people who are going to back themselves and we need people who are going to have an environment that enables them to back themselves and take risks. That is the debate we will have at this election. This election will be fought over a vision on this side of the House that gives people that chance. We want to back New Zealanders to go out there and make the most of themselves. Members on the other side of the House want to use this legislation to define everyone keep them in their boxes tell them what they can and cannot do and make everything crystal clear so that Labour can control them. They are after control and with that control they believe they can portray the fear that they want so they can get the votes at this election. 
I think it is a shame that the Labour Party has used such fear tactics in this election.