Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3902] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 One of the other challenges that has come forward from the National Party—particularly from Mr Peachey—is that if this legislation were so important why did the Labour Government not pass it? 
Allan Peachey 
: You had 9 long years. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Mr Peachey keeps referring to the 9 long dark years of socialism. The argument I throw back is that the previous Government was doing a lot of things to make life better for workers. We did a number of things to the minimum wage. We extended the protection of the minimum wage to young workers in particular. If members opposite look at the minimum wage legislation in the reprinted statutes which I have to hand they will see the amendments. There are pages of amendments that extended the minimum wage to young people. I say that was a good thing and the next thing that we need to look at— 
Chris Tremain 
: You’re not young any more. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. I am not young enough any more. 
The next thing we need to look at is why contractors should not also have the protection of the minimum wage. I turn to Supplementary Order Paper 13 also in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton which talks about the political commitment to the minimum wage. I actually think that that is really important— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Supplementary Order Paper 13 is in the next part of the bill. We are on Part 2. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is too. That is right. I will come back to it. 
I will talk a little bit about political commitment to the minimum wage because fundamentally Part 2 is all about political commitment to the minimum wage and whether National supports the idea of a minimum wage. It is quite clear it does not but it is not honest enough to front up like the ACT Party. I give the ACT Party full credit. It does not believe in a minimum wage and says so. National is not willing to front up and say it does not think there should be a minimum wage. It is not willing to do that. It is not willing to be up front with New Zealanders and say it does not believe in a minimum wage. Why not? 
What happened to wanting to close the wage gap with Australia? Do members remember John Key standing in the Westpac stadium before the election—there was a nice little video clip—and talking about the exodus of New Zealanders to Australia because they could get paid more in Australia? The minimum wage is higher in Australia. Are we trying to catch up with them now? No we are not. The National Party is in Government now. It is one of the things those members said before the election but had no intention of sticking to once they got themselves in the BMW cars cruising around enjoying the perks of office. They are not really interested in the lower-income spectrum at the bottom of the heap. 
I ask members opposite to take a call and tell us why they do not believe that the minimum wage should be increased. They should tell us why they do not believe in it. National will vote against an amendment that would continue to increase the minimum wage until it gets to $15 an hour which is still less than the amount recommended by the International Labour Organization. National is not even willing to go to the minimum level recommended by the International Labour Organization. I think that is pretty disgraceful quite frankly. 
All low-paid workers in the country should be aware of the fact that this Government does not care about them. We will see more evidence of that tomorrow when the Budget is read because ultimately this Government is interested only in people at the highest end of the income spectrum. That is why people on the minimum wage lost their tax cuts when National came into Government—so that they could go to the chief executive of Telecom instead. That is disgraceful and I think it is disgraceful that National will vote against this bill. 
Under the last National Government the minimum wage was increased by how much? 
Grant Robertson 
: 87c. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Eighty-seven cents was the total increase in 9 years. What was it under Labour? About $6—[ 
Interruption 
] It was over $5 under Labour and that was over the same period of time. 
So it is pretty clear that if people are on a low income the Labour Party is the party for them. It is clear that National does not really care about them it is not interested in them—it does not care.