Fairbrother Russell: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16187] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Of course National opposes this bill. Of course National wants to get rid of any restriction on the rate of payment to vulnerable workers. Of course that is the mantra National will take to the next election. National destroyed the common law relationship between employee and employer when it brought in the Employment Contracts Act in the terrible early 1990s. National removed entirely the balancing power of unions to negotiate with an employer in order to bring in just terms and conditions. National brought in the Employment Contracts Act which saw the proliferation of contracts replacing arrangements of employment. Employers engaged in these contracts in order to avoid their responsibilities as good employers. 
If Kate Wilkinson had bothered to read the bill that she so sternly criticised she would have read clause 4 the purpose clause. What does the purpose clause state? It is not long so I will read it out for that member: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to extend its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for service which are currently remunerated at below the minimum wage.” This Act is aimed specifically at vulnerable workers. Vulnerable workers cannot employ the likes of that member to take a matter under the Contractual Mistakes Act or under any common law provision. Vulnerable workers cannot bargain because they are not employed in a position where they have any power to engage lawyers to argue such esoteric laws. 
I will give that member an example. In Wairoa there is an AFFCO freezing works that employs about 700 workers. In the lamb cuts division the company negotiated with the union a contract for payment and commenced paying the workers. But lo and behold it was discovered part-way through the contract that during negotiations the employer had made a mistake in the calculations and had offered in the agreement to pay more than it wanted to pay. So what did the company do? Did it ring the union and say “We want to talk about this.”? No it sent out a note to those vulnerable workers who start work at 5 a.m. and have lunch at 10 a.m. saying they had made a mistake and that from that week the hourly rate would be going down to what the company wanted it to be despite the fact that the union and the employer had negotiated in good faith an agreed remuneration. That type of behaviour exemplifies the need for bills such as this. 
My friend Mr Finlayson would do well to remember the motto that used to appear on the top of the old courthouses when courthouses were a matter of pride. It was I think a Justinian quote: “Jus est ars boni et aequi” which means I think “Law is the technique of justice”. So when a member stood in this House earlier and said that the law of contracts is quite simple and straightforward it is about independence it is well-settled law and we should not be interfering with well-settled law he forgot that the law and Parliament have an obligation to step in when things are not going well. What that speaker failed to recognise as did the speaker before him is that the bill under clause 6 outlines what remuneration is. All the fears and concerns that the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson raised about people having uncertainty in contracts are removed by this quite elegant definition of the word “remuneration”. Under the bill remuneration is defined as “includes any payment made under a contract for services.” The contract for services will address such things as rehearsal time for musicians thinking time for writers and pondering time for politicians. The contract for services will cover those things so the hourly rate will be determined from that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’ll be on an hourly rate very shortly. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: That loud-mouth would do well to ponder occasionally before he burps in this House. That loud-mouth who is well known for being one of the mistakes of politics would know that the vulnerable workers in life need the protection of statute given the evisceration of the workforce that followed the Employment Contracts Act. 
The right to work is a basic human right. In fact writers of labour law for the past 50 years have described the right to work. They say: “Work is about income about individual fulfilment about the constitution of one’s identity about social inclusion.” That point was made by Dr Pita Sharples in his speech. Yet the implementation of the right to work is weak. It is almost non-existent. Accompanying the human right to work are rights at work. This bill addresses rights at work. It does not apply to contractors who can negotiate on equal terms. This bill applies to those people in an employment situation that is defined by the person paying as a contract situation a “take it or leave it” arrangement and where the person works for less than the minimum wage. 
This bill brings justice into the employment market. It would never have been required if we had retained the power of the unions which were so totally abolished and diminished by the Employment Contracts Act. I want to talk briefly about the Employment Contracts Act following on from the last speaker. She is on record as saying that National would return to the employment contract days of the past. That links in with the words of her leader who has said on numerous occasions that he believes productivity should be based on an arrangement such as the old Employment Contracts Act. The unspoken script there is that the employer can screw over the worker to maximise the profit and can describe it as productivity. 
Bob Clarkson 
: There’s nothing wrong with that. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Bob Clarkson says that there is nothing wrong with that. The employer can screw over the worker. Of course that member would say that is a good mantra; of course he would. [ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare has never been an employer in his life but has been screwed over by many I guess— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. Never been an employer in my life. Wouldn’t want to. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: He has never been a worker I should say. He has never worked a day in his life. 
This bill is elegant in its simplicity. It will be amended no doubt during the Committee stage to better define vulnerable workers. It protects the least empowered in society. It means that those who have to work to feed their families those who do not live on the profits of their investments are entitled to a decent wage no matter what the person dictating the job and specifying the rate of pay says no matter what that person describes as a contract. Sure the bill blurs the line between employment contracts and employment but when we have an imbalance in the workplace we need some legislation to bring back that balance and that is precisely what law is all about. Law is about providing infrastructure that gives rights to both parties to a contract and this bill does just that. Labour supports this bill. I think it is one of the more important pieces of legislation to come before this House in recent times.