Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
[Volume:645;Page:14627] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As my friend and colleague Moana Mackey has just told the House this is a very very strange time in New Zealand politics because we have a Leader of the Opposition who will say anything to get elected. His comment about wages dropping is instructive. Let us look at the record. In February 2008 Mr Key was telling the House that National would lift the wages and conditions of New Zealanders. It sounds all very nice and cuddly but what do we know? He told a business audience in Northland in December 2007 that National would love to see wages drop. As Moana Mackey and other speakers on this side of the House have said it is just another case of John Key telling people what he thinks they want to hear selecting his audience and then tailoring the message. 
But New Zealanders want the truth and we should look at what the truth would be if National were in power and had the ability to set the industrial relations agenda. What would we have? What would we have based on the record of that lot’s achievement in the 1990s? We would have lower wages. That is clearly the case. That lot would lower wages the moment they got their hands on the levers and that is why Labour is determined that that should not happen. Those members reduced workers’ rights— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: That’s a lie. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like Mr Coleman to withdraw and apologise for his comment. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I noticed that it was all right for the Hon Phil Goff to talk about lies and people not telling the truth so I thought that was the new standard we were adopting for this general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. To refer to anyone as a liar is totally out of order and it will not be tolerated. The member will desist. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked that the member withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I have made a ruling on it. The member will desist. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As I was saying before I was interrupted by that unparliamentary comment National would not only lower wages but also reduce workers’ rights. Again the record from the 1990s demonstrates this. 
What else would National members do? As Moana Mackey said they would freeze the minimum wage and scrap the youth minimum wage. They would oppose every measure that we supported by the Green Party and in cooperation with Green members and others have tried to introduce in this Parliament to ensure that workers’ rights are addressed in this country. 
What else? Tradable holidays was the last policy up on the block. That would have allowed people to sell off their holidays for a few more dollars a week and as Moana Mackey said it would have allowed employers to sack new workers in their first 90 days. Gee that would be a great way to attract talent from offshore would it not? We could guarantee people security of tenure and jobs in New Zealand they might work for 89 days and then they might get the sack after having moved here. 
We know that John Key is an advocate of flexible labour markets and he says that under National we should expect quite significant changes to the Employment Relations Act. He says that there was nothing wrong with the employment legislation of the 1990s the Employment Contracts Act which is what it was when National left office in 1999. When National’s hapless industrial relations spokesperson Kate Wilkinson—who is actually a very nice person—gets rolled out to speak at industrial relations conferences around the country like she was this morning at the BrightStar conference in Auckland all she can do is talk in platitudes because she has been instructed just like the other members opposite not to give detail or policies. National members know that people do not like their policies so they will just not tell them what their policies are. 
National members hope that they can make nice noises steal a few Labour policies and sleepwalk to victory. I tell members opposite that that will not happen. That will not happen this time because New Zealanders will see through that ruse. They will not be fooled by being led into some sort of false sense of security. They will see through the agenda that really lies behind what members opposite want to do. 
If we contrast that slippery agenda that attempt not to give any detail and that desire to just say to whatever audience one is talking to what it wants to hear with Labour’s record in Government we can start to understand the good things that this country has experienced over the last 9 years. Real incomes in New Zealand have increased by 25 percent—25 percent—since 2000. The wage gap between Australia and New Zealand which members opposite love to talk about doubled under National in the 1990s. That gap has not widened under Labour. 
Members opposite can talk down the economy as much as they like but people who look at these figures and analyse them know that the record of the members opposite from the time that their party was in Government was when the rot set in. It is this Government that sought to fix up the problem—377000 more jobs record low employment at 3.4 percent increases being made to the minimum wage eight times in 8 years paid parental leave 4 weeks’ annual leave Working for Families and fairer employment laws. It is members on this side who have the vision for prosperity and fairness in this country not the members who sit on the other side of the House.