White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a privilege to take a call on this particular bill the Fair Pay Agreements Bill because I worked as an employment lawyer for 25 years. So I first want to acknowledge the pain that Minister Whaitiri talked about. That pain is something I saw repeatedly in my career. I saw those rundown towns. I saw the dependence on the State from people who were actually working. I saw the stress that it caused. I saw the hopelessness that it caused. I saw the mental health issues it caused. I saw the alcoholism it caused. I saw all the problems that are caused by just not being able to make ends meet. That is an undignified thing and it is absolutely a shame in this country that we were ever in that position and we are actually having to build our way out of it.The whole point of this legislation is to focus on our most—most—vulnerable. So when Erica Stanford is perplexed by the public interest test I would urge those listening to this to have a look at that test because it protects those who have little bargaining power those who have low pay those who have long hours those who have no career path. It gives them better pay more bargaining power better hours and a career path. That's what Government is for to protect people like that. That's our job and I'd ask Erica Stanford amongst others to look at it because she is talking often about the protection of migrants. So she has those protections in mind and we need to actually join the dots here people. We need to make sure everyone in this country earns a decent living. So I'm not actually that worried if we actually have to meet the cost of migrant labour in our own hometowns. I'd like them to be earning the same amount. I think that's a really good start.One of the things that I talked about the other day when I was talking about this debate was a woman who had haunted me. It's really hard when you're a lawyer because you can't tell many of the war stories. The best ones are of course secret. But it was a situation where the woman was on such low pay that it was just above the minimum. She was in her sixties and she had worn herself out because she was a caregiver and you lift people. The answer for that was to frustrate her contract: no one's fault she goes small payout. And I never felt right about it. I was dealing with a lawyer on the other side who earned probably $600000 and for him I suspect it was a game. I suspect it was quite fun to knock that woman around and to get the lowest possible price for his client. I don't think that's a funny story. I think it's utterly disgusting that that happened in our country.I also had a case with a beautiful union called the Amalgamated Workers Union and it was for the workers up at Golden Bay Cement. In that case it was about people who actually fought for a career path. They bargained for it and they got that career path and then the employer said Oh you can't have that because only the union members get it. So you can't have it because that would be discrimination." Well we took that case all the way through the courts system and a full court found that that was not a problem and that they had bargained for it and it was important. But I still remember the evidence in that case about how important that career path was because that career path meant that those workers could go from lifting concrete lifting bags to something that was actually going to be sustainable through their entire career. That's an incredibly important thing if you're in the working class—that you can keep working.I have never forgotten that but I've also always contrasted the two stories. One person was a female she was isolated she was in a different situation; the others had collectivised they were working together. What this actually will do is mean that the worker that I was talking about—the caregiver—has a hope can actually be protected can actually be given at least a minimum. That's all it does. It actually doesn't take away great flexibility. You can always argue for more. You can always bargain for more. These are the minimum standards. And actually what it does is give also an employer who does the right thing the chance not to be undercut by somebody who's prepared to cut wages or terms and conditions or career paths. It actually levels the playing field and for me feels like an incredibly important piece of the puzzle.I want to just move to something really sad that happened to me this week. I found out that a person who volunteered for me who was my friend Peter Barrett had died suddenly. Peter was a lovely guy who had a lot of very strong values. He had opened a business with his partner who had actually come in as a migrant and she had been working as a masseuse and they'd opened this beautiful spa. He pays the living wage. He was very clear that that was one of the things they wanted to do. You can see the situation here was one where his partner would have come in on very low wages and actually now she was in a business working with her partner and they were paying the living wage to their workers. Well why would it be fair that someone else somewhere down the road could open a spa and actually pay workers less? Why wouldn't we want there to be a minimum standard for those workers? Because it's not very much. It's not asking the sun the moon and the stars. Actually if you don't pay people properly who do you think pays? This is one for the National Party: who has been paying? The taxpayer has. We have been subsidising those workers over and over again.We have to put food in schools and that's because we need food in schools under our current economy. And I am proud we do it but one day I want it to be a situation in New Zealand where wages for everyone are dignified where everyone stands on their own two feet and that is a society I want to live in. And that is a stark contrast between the National Party and the Labour Party today—that we understand that; that we understand where we're going. Now it is true that it is worth remembering that there are epiphanies in this place. That Mr Bolger the Prime Minister of this country for some time actually was the person who was the author of the report. He's the architect of this report. And what he said which is true is that we work longer hours in this country and we are less productive than most OECD countries. So he crafted this which has turned into this bill and it is a bill that actually is all about fair wages it's about sharing benefits and it's about higher productivity. So I commend this bill to the House."