Williamson Maurice: Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliamson Maurice: Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5745. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am happy to say from the outset that the National Party is not going to support this legislation. That is not to say that we are not sympathetic with what the intent is. It is the fact that this is one of these pieces of legislation that when you look at what was intended and what it will actually do they very very much part company.This legislation also comes under the category of the old Steve Maharey principle. There will be a lot of new members here who do not remember Steve Maharey but he was a Labour Minister and he had this wonderful saying: “Oh that’s what you say when you’re in Opposition. That’s what you say when you’re in Opposition; not what you do when you are in Government.” The Maharey principle was when you are in Opposition you do it; soon as you get into Government you say: “Oh no there’re good reasons why we don’t.” In fact this legislation is the other way round. This is sort of the Steve Maharey principle in reverse. When Labour was in Government it did not want to do this. When Labour was in Government and Darien Fenton wanted to do it Ministers on that side—including David Parker a Minister in the Labour Government—said: “Actually this is a piece of rubbish and we’re not going to have anything to do with it. Best thing you can do Darien is put it up as a member’s bill.” They made her do that hoping that it would never get drawn from the ballot—absolutely hoping against all hope that it would never get drawn from the ballot—because if they had supported it if they had thought there was merit to this if they had thought that they would have done it as a Government bill and they would have put it through.They knew right from the outset that it was rubbish and David Parker knew that and now when Labour is in Opposition here is the Steve Maharey principle: “Let’s go in and try to make out we are on the side of these people. Let’s make out that we think this is a wonderful thing to be doing.” The question that anybody out there should be asking themselves if they truly think Labour believes in this nonsense is: why the hell were you not prepared to back it when you were in Government? They were not they did not and they would not and that is a fact. [Interruption] You can have all the catcalling from the other side that you like. Labour would not do it. Labour’s Ministers would not allow it to go through as a Government bill—they would not.So officials have been telling us that this will not work that the risks dramatically outweigh the benefits of doing it and that it would not achieve the goals. In fact there are some quite perverse little fish-hooks in this legislation that might actually see a contractor if they were put on to the minimum wage have things that were adverse to their income as compared with a worker on the minimum wage who will get all sorts of weighting with regard to their holiday pay and their sick pay and so on.So we are not prepared to support the bill. As I said before there is nothing wrong with the intent. But I have to say that I am one of these members of Parliament—I am happy to put my hand up—who has got real nervousness about the idea that a minimum wage law will fix things. If that was the case we could get China to implement New Zealand’s minimum wage laws in China. What that would do is have 1.3 billion wealthy Chinese—no actually it would not; it would have about 99 percent unemployment in China because you cannot just fix wage levels without the economy actually generating jobs that are real jobs which are able to pay at that level etc. etc. So when contractors are out there working—and remember this: sometimes contractors are able to deduct a whole lot of expenses as they are doing their business. If they are contractors using equipment or vehicles they can have a totally different tax regime to a worker who is just being paid a wage and salary. So to try to say that we are going to put them on the exact same regime does not make sense.David Parker knows that. He would have got that advice when he was a Minister in Cabinet. He would have got that advice. His Cabinet would have sat—Hon David Parker: No no.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes he would have—I know him. In fact if he was asleep at the wheel that is his problem but the officials would have been telling their Ministers that stuff. I absolutely agree with the officials’ advice on this bill. This is one of those pieces of legislation where if you just on the surface of it say to some people “How about someone who goes out delivering pamphlets or who works under a different regime from waged workers—how about they get the same pay as the people who are just waged workers and getting the minimum wage?” you know on the surface of it most people would say “Oh yeah—sounds sensible.” But as soon as you and the devil in these things is always in the detail get into understanding what a contract worker is and the terms and conditions and their ability to claim certain things that the worker cannot—and by the way the worker earns some things that a contract worker does not. When you are a contract worker you are not getting sick pay and annual leave grossed into your pay and so on.There is a really good example that officials worked up for us. I am not going to try to go through it now—