Brown Peter: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4820] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me be clear from the outset. New Zealand First is not supporting the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill because basically we do not see a need for it. Not one person or contractor has come to us and said he or she needed Parliament’s help to get a fair deal; not one person. The contractors I have spoken to—and I have spoken to a few recently—say: We’re doing OK Peter. We don’t need your help. Don’t come and interfere. We can do it OK.” 
I listened to the member from the Maori Party who has just resumed his seat. I sympathise with him and the case he was espousing. He was talking about employees who are earning a low minimum wage. That is why New Zealand First included in its confidence and supply agreement the proposal to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour within this term of Government. 
I say to the honourable member Darien Fenton that in her letter she did not make clear the explanation of what she is trying to achieve. With due respect to the member—and I do not want to break confidences—I asked her what the bill was about and she said the select committee could sort that out. New Zealand First is not prepared to sort bills out at the select committee if we do not understand what they are trying to achieve in the first place and if we think they are to the detriment of the country as a whole. In her letter to me she writes at one point: “I note that many jurisdictions throughout the world are seeking ways to extend minimum labour protections to those not in traditional employer-employee relationships.” 
Why did she not give us some examples? Why do we have to research that to see the substance of it? We would have appreciated some examples. I will give the honourable member an example. Someone wants to paint a house and agrees on 10 hours’ work at $20 an hour and the first day is rained out. So in effect it doubles the time and obviously if the employer and employee stick to the contract rate it goes from 10 hours at $20 an hour to 20 hours at $10 an hour. Would that contractor have a claim against the owner who wants the house painted? I ask Mr Copeland whether he thinks the contractor has a claim against the householder who has engaged him to do the 10 hours’ work? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t think it’s practicable. 
PETER BROWN 
: He does not think it is practicable but he is going to vote for it. United Future members are going to vote for this bill to go to the select committee but Gordon Copeland does not think it is practicable and he does not know what the answer is. 
Paula Bennett 
: The select committee will sort it out! 
PETER BROWN 
: The unfortunate thing is that in listening to the Maori Party the Greens no doubt and the Labour Party I heard the bill is likely to go to the select committee that I will be on. The only promise I am prepared to make is that as a conscientious MP I will do my best to help sort it out. If this legislation is going to be the law of the land we have to have sound law of the land. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I’ve got full confidence in you. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member says he has full confidence. I bet he is not there. He does not even intend to be there. Will he put his name up to be on the select committee? No he will not. So he has full confidence in me. I think the member ought to have if he is voting for a job for me and is not prepared to help me out to do it. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Peter just open your mouth and let the wind blow your tongue around. 
PETER BROWN 
: I did not catch that. I imagine it is some witticism. I think Bob Clarkson should say it again because we do not hear him speak terribly often in this House and we want to know the sound of his voice. [ 
Interruption 
] It was good was it? I will read  
Hansard 
 with interest tomorrow. 
People put in contract prices for a number of reasons. Some do it to get a job that might be prestigious. Before I came into this place I was a contractor. I never had to work for the minimum wage but I would put in a price at a lower rate than normal because I wanted to be able to do that particular job. Some people put in prices because they need the work to keep them going and to feed their children and are prepared to take a risk on it. Others put in a price to keep out a competitor over a short period of time. 
If we produce a law that states that on every occasion these guys have to have their wages inflated to the minimum wage when they drop beneath it then I say we are doing a huge disservice to contractors. We might well have to sort out the engagement of contractors but this bill is not going to do that. From New Zealand First’s perspective we are going to vote against it but we will help to sort it out at the select committee.