Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3898] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will address Part 2 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill and again thank members for their contributions to the debate. I think everybody has enjoyed this debate. It has made it very clear where National and Labour stand in their position on this issue and for those listening I think that that has been very useful. Again I acknowledge Roger Douglas. His position has not changed for years and years; there is nothing surprising there. I also acknowledge the Maori Party which along with the Greens has consistently supported the bill. Maori Party members understand what the problem is. 
We have had some great grand quotes tonight from Tau Henare so I thought I would join him by quoting from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New Zealand was one of the first countries to sign up for the declaration. I know that National members have problems with anything to do with human rights but let me tell them what the declaration states. It states that “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family”—we must remember that this is from the 1940s so the language is not gender-neutral—“an existence worthy of human dignity”. 
Since then the United Nations and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have brought in the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda which our Government has signed up to. That same idea of decency fairness and just remuneration is also reflected in the Decent Work Agenda. The work of the ILO and others throughout the world has been to recognise that there are people who are now economically dependent on the sale of their labour. But because of the changing workforce and changing marketplace over the last 10 to 15 years they find themselves beyond the protection of the current minimum wage and other legislation. 
The ILO addressed that issue in its discussion on employment rights a couple of years ago. The report was  
The Scope of the Employment Relationship 
 and the organisation specifically addressed that issue and the fact that so many workers are now falling outside the traditional employer-employee relationship. During this debate one of my colleagues talked about the situation where as time and pressure go on employers often find ways to circumvent the employer-employee relationship. 
We now have various forms of contracting as well as casualisation and a range of non-standard work. This is a new area of work and I say to all those members on the Government side who I believe have denigrated the work done in the select committee on the bill and also done by me over many years because I am passionate about this area of work that it is a challenging area. It is something we have to think about. Other jurisdictions are thinking about it as well. Some have implemented changes to their legislation to recognise the changing employment relationships. This is an area that will not go away; it will continue to be a problem for workers who are employees in jobs where there is an alternative to an employer-employee relationship and where an employer can contract out or employ a contractor on less pay which puts pressure on our wages. 
As I speak I bear in mind National’s election promise to do something about equalising the wages between ourselves and Australia. That was an election promise. If the National Government does not address the issue then we have a problem. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It was an ambition. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That was one of National’s ambitions. I will also address Supplementary Order Paper 4 and I thank my colleague Chris Hipkins for going through some of the detail of that Supplementary Order Paper. I was going to do that but I think it is probably beyond the understanding of most of the members on the Government side. It is very technical and we put a lot of work into it. 
David Bennett 
: Put work into it? It’s three pages. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: We put an awful lot of work into making it possible. I tell David Bennett who was on the select committee to go through the report. That member went through those amendments as well but he has rejected them out of hand because of ideology. 
I will address the issue of the $15 minimum wage. Even though the recent increase in the minimum wage by the National Government was the smallest increase to the minimum wage we have had in years and years I know that the workers who would benefit from this bill would welcome it. They would be pleased to get $12.50 an hour. At the moment they are not getting $12.50 an hour; they are getting $3 or $4 an hour and in some cases as little as 25c an hour. 
John Key when he addressed the issue of the minimum wage said that not having any rise would have left the most vulnerable workers with no increases to offset the costs of living. But obviously there is a difference there: National does not think that increase should apply to all workers; it applies only to those who are called employees. That is a very safe position. It is a kind of “get out of jail free” clause whereby if a worker is not an employee then that worker does not have any rights. As I said this area needs to be addressed. 
The Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson I have to say has treated this whole bill as a joke and I deplore that. Her answer to one of my questions suggested that Kiri Te Kanawa would be on the minimum wage. Well that is ridiculous. It is a disgrace. Does the Minister not understand what the word “minimum” means? The word “minimum” means the least quantity assignable admissible or possible which is what this bill is about. With the Minister’s logic all of those well-paid people in John Key’s office would be on only the minimum wage but that is not what this bill is about. We also know that the Minister was done over in the minimum wage debate. We know that she did not want the minimum wage to go up; she wanted to keep it at $12 an hour but she was rolled. 
There was advice from several departments including Te Puni Kokiri and a letter from the Minister of Maori Affairs—good on them—asking for a $15 minimum wage to be implemented over 2 years. That is what this Supplementary Order Paper will do. But those departments were ignored. The matter has become even more urgent in this recession. It is Labour’s view that in a recession we have to look after the most vulnerable which is what this Supplementary Order Paper will do. The fact that the highest paid the top 3 percent got the biggest tax cuts or most of the tax cuts and the lowest paid got nothing makes the situation even more unfair. It is well known that the lowest-paid people and people on the minimum wage spend all of their income. They do not have discretionary income for luxuries like trips overseas and extra cars; they spend their income on essentials like fruit for the kids in their lunch packs milk and so on. 
I am also as I have said very interested in the commitment to close the wage gap with Australia. I understand that it will take an increase of 2 percent on top of ordinary wage movement for the next 10 or even 20 years for us to catch up with Australia. The Australians have a minimum wage of $18 an hour so we are already far behind. They also have legislation like this bill for dependent and independent contractors that makes sure they get decent pay and decent work. They are not expected to work for nothing. 
Labour says that in these really hard times it is the lowest paid who should take precedence. This sort of legislation is also very important in Australia if we look at what has happened in the textile clothing and footwear industries there. This sort of legislation has helped to deal with the rise of the underground and sweatshop economy in Australia. Do we want that economy growing here? It is out there; people are doing jobs outside the law. I mentioned some of the workers before but I have not had an answer from National members about how they would deal with pizza delivery workers or caregivers. I could go on; I have talked to many many workers in the course of developing this bill. I talked to many workers about their situations. This legislation has not come off the top of my head; it came about because people were saying there is a problem. 
Finally I reflect on the Minister’s comments about Kiri Te Kanawa and note that when this bill was debated while going through its second reading last year there was support from the New Zealand Actors Equity and the Musicians Union. The Actors Equity said that the poor pay and conditions of many actors are not commonly known and that because actors are classed as dependent or independent contractors they are expected to work for a whole lot less than workers who are employees. The Musicians Union said that New Zealanders celebrate New Zealand Music Month and New Zealand music but what is not on show is the poor pay of many musicians who because they are classed as dependent or independent contractors end up getting a whole lot less than the minimum wage. 
I want National members to understand that the reason why musicians actors and performance workers are included in this bill is that they requested to be included. We rely on those iconic workers when we celebrate the national identity of New Zealand. Those workers asked me specifically to include them in this bill along with all of those other sorts of workers who are not plumbers or painters. I tell Tau Henare that leaflet deliverers are just one group covered by the bill.