Horomia Parekura: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1685] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 That drivel we have just heard is what makes me afraid in this Committee discussion. That attitude is the very reason why this Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill is important. That attitude which pervades certain levels of our society I thought was well spent. That was a disgraceful rendition against workers; it was anti-worker. It was shocking. I heard Mr Peachey suggest that this bill had a whole lot of issues that were anti-employment and Paul Quinn knows very very well that his people are the ones who suffer. Tau Henare was in here pushing platitudes about why it was the previous Government’s fault. What is so wrong in trying to ensure that people have a life that is fair and equitable? What is wrong with that? 
The speech that Mr Gilmore just made was disgraceful; it is the very reason why this party on this side of the Chamber is working it out with the community. And the voters are starting to feel it—the honeymoon is nearly over—they can sense that this is the sort of extreme-right nonsense that that party stands for. 
Chris Tremain 
: Take a look at the polls. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: And Mr Tremain knows very very well the effect the 90-day bill and all of that nonsense has in Napier on those people who are in the orchards and who are delivering pamphlets. And what did the Labour Government do over the last 9 years? It ensured that there was surety and that there was collectiveness around the minimum wage. The Labour Government took it up every year by $1. When we came into Government it was $7.25; that miserable lot 9 years ago had taken it up by only 86c—86c over 9 years. What does that tell us? This is starting to be a repeat practice. What does that tell us? Those members should ask that question. 
I certainly understand about the recession and the aiding and abetting of businesses to stabilise financial patterns. But those micro-aspects in relation to workers are things we must never ever forget. To be in this Chamber and to listen to that sort of nonsense is really something I thought New Zealanders were well shot of. Where are we at in the sense of those things like $3 prescriptions and preschool management and preschool funding? That is how we do it—capping rents and ensuring that people can live within their earning capacity. What is wrong with taking the wage up? When we were in Government Maori were going into the labour market four times more quickly than anybody else and coming out of it more slowly but they will not do that with this sort of attitude and negativity. I commend Darien Fenton for having the courage to put this bill up front because there are people masking the difficulties in the recession. 
We saw that situation in the 1980s when they put up those fuzzy clouds. Everything was hard—and it is now. But when people make $1.5 million a year profit as individual dairy farmers and that carries on and they put it somewhere we know that they have done very well out of the last 9 years. A lot of businesses in this country made huge profits; let us talk about that. Mr Tremain knows that in the real estate area. They have made major profits—incredible profits. But then when they get to this stage they say they will look after the top end but never mind the workers. Shame on them! It is a shame they should even think that. It is a shame that Allan Peachey should start to come out with that sort of diatribe and suggest that this bill would divide the employment field. That is a disgrace. The labour market is a serious place but everybody should be allowed a crack at being able to participate. They should be able to pay their bills be able to feed their kids and be able to clothe their kids. What is wrong with that? 
That member should not sit there in his pink tie and suit and make out that at the end of the day everybody wants to be unemployed or that everybody wants to have small wages. That member and I know that in earning well on a $100000 - plus salary there are a lot of things we do not have to worry about too much. But there are families out there—thousands of them—who are not being recognised at this moment and who are not being supported in relation to their wage levels. What is so great about denying those people whether they are delivering pamphlets picking produce in orchards or working in factories? What is so great about that?