Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2992] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am sure that were the member David Bennett to table documents that showed the National Party’s history on supporting the minimum wage they would show that it was woefully inadequate because the National Party simply does not support those people on the lowest incomes and the most vulnerable people in our society. Listening to the National members talk about the minimum wage tonight is like going back 100 years or more. We could even be talking about the abolition of slavery because we are hearing the same kinds of messages from the members of the National Government that were said by those in favour of slavery. The National members sit there in their position of privilege and talk about what is best for the people at the bottom of the heap. What would they know about that? We heard David Bennett— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not readily interrupt the debate but the member may want to reflect on what happened to the poor people under 9 years of the previous Labour Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. That is a debating point and it is designed to interrupt the flow of the member’s speech— 
Hon Member 
: Pretty much. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Quite right—pretty much. That is exactly right. I ask the member not to do it again please. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I will tell that member what happened under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government. In the “dark days of socialism” that Allan Peachey referred to people got jobs under Labour and people knew that their rights at work were protected under Labour. Neither jobs nor the protection of workers’ rights are guaranteed under this National Government. Workers are not guaranteed those at all because this National Government does not believe that people should get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The National Government particularly does not believe that contractors should get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. 
David Bennett talked earlier about the fact that people are losing their jobs. He suggested that they should be grateful just to have a job at all. That is the position of this National Government: people on the lowest incomes should simply be grateful to get the breadcrumbs and to have any kind of income at all. I think it is disgraceful to hear that coming from the National Government. I think that the people on the lowest pay should be entitled to at least the minimum wage and we in the Labour Party think that the minimum wage should be going up. 
I know that David Bennett talked about the important differences between being an independent contractor and choosing to be in an employee relationship. But the National Government of course is much more familiar with the independent contractors at the very very high end of the wage market such as the purchase advisers earning $1500 or more a day who are contracted to provide National’s Ministers with information and advice on where to cut next. National members are interested in the people at that end of the contractor market; they are not interested in the people who deliver the newspaper who do not get even the minimum wage. Those people are earning as low as about $2 an hour which is absolutely disgraceful. 
Part 1 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill talks about the bill’s purpose. It extends the minimum wage to those working under a contract for services. Who might be covered by that? It is people working in building and construction services who are doing labour-only jobs. 
I invite National members to go to a building site and tell two workers one of whom is working on contract and one of whom is working as an employee why the contractor should be paid less than the employee. The Government’s opposition to this bill effectively says that that is OK. This bill extends the same provisions to people working in cleaning services. We know that a number of cleaning contractors are currently rorting the system and paying people below the minimum wage by putting them on contracts instead of employing them as employees. 
When confronted with that National members talk about choice but choice for whom? It is choice for the employers. The employers can tell workers that they can take a contract at below the minimum wage or they can have no job at all. Those workers do not have a choice about whether they want to be contractors or employees. It is simply a choice of a job below the minimum wage or nothing at all. 
Courier services are another profession that will be covered by this bill. The Leader of the House will be very pleased to know that food catering services will also be covered. The pizza delivery boy will be entitled to the minimum wage if this bill is passed and I am sure the Government would support that. People working in newspaper and pamphlet delivery services who are probably among the most likely to have been exploited under the current loophole in the law will be covered by the minimum wage if this bill is passed. 
Of course the provisions will not extend to volunteer newspaper deliverers like the Exclusive Brethren volunteers who delivered National Party pamphlets so Government members can rest assured that they will not have to worry about that.