Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2985] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Just following on from the previous speech I think that the one point the speaker made about low wages is certainly something that everyone would empathise with but in this current economic environment I think people have to realise there is a possibility of no wages. We have very high unemployment coming in the New Zealand economy and many people out there now have lost their jobs. So at this point in time it does not make a lot of sense that we would want to change the relationship of employer-employee and independent contractor when the economy and the labour market are at their most vulnerable. If the Labour Party wants to make changes like this why did it not make them when it had 9 years in Government? But it did not take on this member’s bill as a Government bill because it realised that the bill in its current form is not sustainable and not well written. Labour members realised that even their own party would not support this bill. But now those members are coming in front of this Committee at a point in time when they are not in Government and they are expecting the Committee to support the bill. Why did the Labour Government not make it a Government bill when it had the chance and actually pass it? 
The reason is that this bill does not stack up. There is a huge history in the Inland Revenue Department and in the Employment Court that talks about the difference between an independent contractor and an employee-employer relationship. That difference is one of the fundamental differences we have in our tax law. It is also one of the fundamental differences we have in our employment law. The nature of that relationship is there for a very simple reason in that there can be choice in the way one engages people and companies to do work. Employee-employer relationships are typically found in larger organisations where there is a degree of control by the employer. The independent contractor relationship is typically found where there are services contracted to be performed. Those services can range from things at the very basic level like pamphlet delivery to more extensive services like those of a plumber or a builder. In all those cases there needs to be a bit of flexibility. Often someone is contracted to provide a service and the nature of that service is that the person or organisation providing the service has some flexibility. 
It is unknown to the Labour Party that some people actually want flexibility in their workplace. They want the ability to determine the time they work the speed at which they work and the quality of their work. It can be more than just the matter of some arbitrary rules about timing and what the minimum wage should be. But this bill takes away people’s choice. It takes away their fundamental ability to deliver services under a contract. It puts everybody under the same rules which is what Labour members like to do—they like to put everybody in the same box so they can control them. This bill takes away that personal choice—that independence and that freedom—that we need in an economy. 
People want to have that choice. People make an active choice whether to go for an employment relationship or an independent contractor relationship. People in the market have that choice; they can negotiate it in many circumstances. In other circumstances they have a choice in how they want to be remunerated. That is something we should not take away from our economy. It leads to innovation artistic creativity and the basic ability to achieve things that provide the best possible service not necessarily at the hourly rate determined by this Parliament. To take away that choice takes away the flexibility and innovation in our economy making everything the same and fundamentally contracted on the basis that this Parliament knows how to determine what a service is worth. But that is not the nature of real relationships in the real world. 
I encourage members to consider that fundamental policy when they consider this legislation. This bill is not necessarily about looking after workers who need help in the sense that they are vulnerable workers; this legislation takes away the individual choice of those in a remuneration relationship.