Fenton Darien: Budget Debate 
Fenton Darien: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9651] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I tell listeners that the last speaker was Tau Henare the working-class hero who is now a National list member. Did he not once work for a union and did the workers not pay his wages? Yes they did and did he not sell them out? First of all he went with National as part of New Zealand First then with Mauri Pacific—do members remember that—then he was back like Lazarus rising from the dead as part of the National Party. I say to that member: “Good on you Tau.” 
It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate because Budget 2007 is forward-looking and innovative. It addresses our future and deals with the current issues of our nation. It is a Budget to be proud of. 
I have taken an interest in this debate. What has interested me has been the naivety of those newer National members across the House. I do not expect anything more of the National Party’s old guard and a lot of them are still here. Those members were responsible for the trashing of ordinary people and the low paid last time they had their hands on the levers of power. I am talking about National’s co-leader Bill English Nick Smith Murray McCully Lockwood Smith Maurice Williamson Gerry Brownlee Tony Ryall David Carter John Carter Wayne Mapp and Pansy Wong—among others. They are still there and New Zealand still bears the scars of the damage they did during the time they spent in Government. 
The newer National members like David Bennett are woefully ignorant of their party’s political history. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to David Bennett that he needs to study that history. When that member was in the boardrooms—and some of his mates were flying around as flying doctors or chasing sheep—he was absolutely ignorant of what was happening around him. Some of us were picking up the pieces of the chaos that the previous National Government had caused. Whether National members like it or not or whether David Bennett likes it or not I am here to remind everyone about the 10 years of hell under the previous National Government. Members of the Opposition have delivered sanctimonious speech after sanctimonious speech mentioning the low paid and the vulnerable. What a laugh! I will never buy that concern from that party. I do not believe that National members have learnt the lessons of history and until they learn those lessons they are doomed to repeat the mistakes. Let us make sure that never happens. 
Let us remind the House and those listening of National’s real record in respect of workers and those on low pay. I ask David Bennett to listen; he might learn something. Under the previous National Government countless jobs were casualised reduced to part-time hours and contracted out. From 1991 to 1999 growth in part-time jobs was 36 percent including jobs with hours as low as 1 hour a week. Meanwhile full-time secure jobs were axed in their tens of thousands. The numbers on benefits soared. They increased by over 100000 from 1991 to 1999. Real wages increased by only 0.1 percent a year. In the case of low-paid workers such as supermarket workers real wage rates fell by 11 percent between 1987 and 1997 for those working from Monday to Friday. Those whose work included weekends had a 33 percent real pay cut. 
Under the previous National Government unemployment averaged 7 percent and peaked at 11 percent Maori unemployment peaked at 25 percent and Pacific Island unemployment peaked at 28 percent. The minimum wage was frozen at poverty levels. The only protections that workers had were $7 an hour by the end of 1999 5 days’ sick and bereavement leave and 3 weeks’ holiday leave. That does not apply just to the 1990s. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What about the superannuitants? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. The member is right about the superannuitants. 
The cynical politicking of National members in claiming outrage on behalf of the low paid and vulnerable has been appalling in this debate. If their concerns are genuine then why has their party opposed the raft of measures that this Government has brought in since 1999 to improve the lot of the low paid? Members can take the example of the Employment Relations Act which gave low-paid workers better bargaining power by righting the power imbalance between employers and workers. Did National members vote for that? No of course they did not. The Employment Relations Act Mark II strengthened good faith and the rights of those on individual agreements. Guess what? National voted against it. An amendment to the Employment Relations Act was passed in this Parliament for the sake of vulnerable workers. That amendment stops low-paid workers from having their pay cut when their employer changes. Guess what? National voted against it. 
We have had multiple increases in the minimum wage and all of them have been opposed by the National Party. We had the renationalisation of the Accident Compensation Corporation; National opposed that. National voted against the Holidays Act and its provision for 4 weeks’ annual leave—surprise surprise! Legislation for paid parental leave and the extensions—apart from the one for the self-employed—were opposed and voted against by National. Working for Families was opposed and voted against by National. Cheaper doctors’ visits were opposed and voted against. I could go on and on all night. 
What else has National offered to this debate? We have heard a lot about Australia. I want to ask Opposition members why John Howard is trailing so badly in the polls. If his tax cuts are so magnificent why is he going to lose the next election? I will tell members why. It is because Howard’s industrial relations legislation has finished him. New Zealand workers who go over to Australia are doomed to learn a tough lesson about the realities of Tory policies in Australia. They are about to learn the hard lessons that New Zealand workers learnt under National and workers have long long memories. The National Party will find out—come election time next year—that New Zealand workers’ families have neither forgotten nor forgiven. 
The Howard Government was re-elected in 2004 on a promise of keeping interest rates at record lows. But there have been four interest rate rises and the cost of average mortgage repayments has risen by nearly $200 a month. At the same time the Federal Government’s new industrial relations laws have put downward pressure on the take-home pay of working families with wages for full-time workers actually declining since the introduction of the Work Choices industrial relations laws. Although those on the Opposition side of the House like to laud the Australian tax cuts Australian commentators are saying that the $14—on average—of tax cuts which working families will receive in the latest round is not enough for those who have been squeezed as a result of their take-home pay being reduced under the new industrial relations legislation. 
In contrast to the Labour-led Government’s contribution to skills development workforce development apprenticeship education and training has suffered 11 years of neglect under the Howard Government with Australia being the only OECD country to have cut public investment in tertiary education—by 7 percent since 1995. Other countries including New Zealand have had an average increase of 48 percent. 
So the lesson for the National Party is that all the bribes in the world will not convince voters. Just as Australian workers are not convinced to vote in support of John Howard low-paid workers will not be convinced that the National Party is suddenly on their side. The problem that National has of course is that New Zealanders get KiwiSaver which is a wonderful plank in this Budget. Workers get it. Families get it. 
Hon Member 
: Employers get it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Employers get it—they are supporting it. They support the idea of saving for the future and having a stake in New Zealand society. They think the enhancements to KiwiSaver are brilliant. The only people who do not get it are the members of the National Party. 
I have to say that some of the contributions to the debate have been bizarre such as those in respect of pay increases. KiwiSaver requires employer contributions of 4 percent by 2011. The Government will return 2 percent of that by way of tax credits. Fifty percent of workers are expected to be enrolled in KiwiSaver by 2011 so that halves again the contributions that employers have to make. That comes to 1 percent over 4 years or 0.25 percent a year. Workers might expect that sort of pay increase under National but workers under this Government are getting decent pay increases and will continue to get decent pay increases. 
I make a final point on low pay. On page 30 of the Budget speech the Minister of Finance outlines the further $3 billion investment in health. Part of that is a substantial investment to improve the services to old people and people with disabilities “including through addressing workforce issues arising from low-paid workers in DHBs and within aged residential and home based support settings”. Thank goodness this Government continues to invest in our future in the low-paid workers in sustainable growth in transforming our economy and in higher standards for all families.