Street Maryan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3881] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I think that speech has to go down in history as one of the most disgraceful from a member of any party in this House. It has to be one of the most disgraceful speeches because it was completely opposed to any kind of minimum wage protection. That member’s speech was a justification for slavery. It was nothing more or less than a justification— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take great offence at that member accusing me of being supportive of one of the meanest dastardly acts on earth. I am telling you that I am offended by that comment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a Chamber of robust debate. The member did not directly accuse that member of advocating or supporting slavery. The member said that if that line of logic was argued then it could be used as a justification for slavery. We cannot have anything but robust debate. The member might be offended by the connection to that term but the member did not say that the member directly supported slavery. The member can continue with that line of discussion. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to go against your ruling but I am offended at the implication of what the member said. I think it is drawing a longbow to say there was no implication in what she said. She implied that what I said was a justification for slavery and therefore the implication is that I am in support of slavery. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is a convention of the House that when the Chair has ruled the matter is closed. The member is seeking to go over a matter that I have already ruled upon. The matter is closed. I gave some forbearance to the member to make a few other comments because I know the member is feeling strongly about the comments made but I have ruled on the matter. The matter is closed. 
Could I just reiterate to the member that this is a difficult balance to achieve. The first thing the Speaker does after the swearing-in of members of Parliament and after the Speaker is elected is go to the Governor-General to get free speech. Free speech gives members the ability to say what they think and feel and it is to be jealously guarded. On the one hand it is free speech and on the other hand one has to protect the rights of members. If the member had said directly that that member by name supports slavery etc. I would have agreed immediately with the member if the member had said that was not the case. But the member on her feet said that the arguments advanced by the member could justify as I recall the support of slavery. That is a point that the member is entitled to make and to draw a connection. That does not necessarily mean the member supports slavery directly. That is a fine line I accept. That is my ruling and I invite the member to continue with her speech mindful of the issue that has been raised by the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a different point of order. Can I get a point of clarification from you? If the implication or the accusation was that it could be taken that my speech was in support of Nazism would that be the same as covered in your previous ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Could I firstly say to the member there is no such thing in the Standing Orders as a point of clarification. That does not exist. The member can scour the Standing Orders as long as he likes but I have not seen it yet. But it was a good try. Firstly there is no such thing as a point of clarification. 
Secondly the Chair does not have to rule on hypothetical things in the future. That is not the Chair’s job; it is about what was said at the time. I have discussed the matter and given my opinion. Rightly or wrongly it is my view that although the member felt aggrieved about the comments they still fell within the ambit of free speech. When the member continues with her speech I advise her to be sensitive about this issue. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I do quite freely say that I am sorry if the member has taken offence in that way. However— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although I cannot point to any particular ruling I am pretty sure that a member cannot refer to a ruling that the Chair has just given. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The honourable member is correct. Normally if offence is taken the member is expected to withdraw and apologise. I did not require the member to withdraw and apologise but I felt that the member was acknowledging that you had felt upset about the comments and was apologising directly to you even though she was not required to by the Chair. I thought the member was winning his point twice without having to win it. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Let me proceed with the argument in that case. I heard the previous speaker say essentially that employers should be able to pay what they can afford. I hope that is a correct representation of what the previous speaker said. To say that employers must be able to pay simply what they can afford took me back to speeches that were made in defence of slavery. Speeches were made—and could be repeated today—that said employers cannot be compelled to pay wages that they cannot afford and any institution of a minimum wage and any increase of any instituted minimum wage would offend against that. 
The problem with that argument is simply that employers are not inclined by and large to be open with what they are able to afford. Employers have typically in my experience in industrial relations held very close to themselves the amount that they are able to afford in any negotiations in order not to be outdone in negotiations by a union. 
If the previous speaker’s argument is to be followed through it could be that the owner of a cotton plantation in some former time could have said: “I could not afford to pay a minimum wage and therefore should not be obligated by legislation to do so.” The point remains. The fact also that the previous speaker chose to use Sir William Wilberforce in a way that was meant to be derogatory I think reflects first of all on his lack of understanding of history and secondly on the lack of compassion around the issue that Sir William Wilberforce is so famous for. To say that the only tenet that underpins the employment relationship should be what an employer can afford to pay negates centuries of progress. 
This bill before the Committee—and I commend Darien Fenton for bringing it to the House—is seeking to improve a situation that exists in New Zealand whereby over many years we have had a minimum wage and where under successive Labour Governments we have seen improvements to that and very recently for quite probably the first time in history we have seen a small increase by a National-led Government. However what we have here is a loophole that this bill is looking to address. Vulnerable workers particularly vulnerable workers who are contracted will not be entitled even to the Government’s miserable increase to the minimum wage that we saw enacted recently. That situation cannot be left to lie where it is. This bill seeks to amend that loophole.