Sio Su'a William: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3890] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I thank the member of the Maori Party Rahui Katene who spoke in support of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work and effort that my colleague Darien Fenton has put into the bill. It is an important topic as many communities throughout this country of ours and particularly my neighbourhood are seeing the effects and impact of the recession. The new schedule 2 of the Minimum Wage Amendment Act on Supplementary Order Paper 4 lists a range of jobs that people are doing out of desperation at this point in time.  
I have difficulty listening to some members from the other side of the Chamber because they are on one track in terms of the arguments they are presenting. One member asked why the bill had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government. I tell the member that it was introduced under the Labour Government in 2006. People need to know that that Labour Government was a minority Government. At the end of the discussion on that bill it was unable to pass through the House because of objection from not only the National Party but also other members who are no longer in this House. 
Nathan Guy 
: New Zealand First? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes that is right. 
Allan Peachey 
: Say it! New Zealand First—your coalition partner. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I heard Mr Peachey a wonderful member who believes that he should have been the Minister of Education. I also believe that he should have been. He said that the electorate has spoken. I suspect that comment has to do with the feeling National members have that now that they have won the election they can do anything they want. I ask members of the public who are listening whether this is the kind of Government they expected. In the 5 months that those members have been in Government—they went on holiday for the other month—they have shown some arrogance. They have shown that they are prepared to push things through without allowing people to have their say. 
I think that if National members looked into their heart of hearts they would recognise that this issue is about the protection of vulnerable workers vulnerable people during a vulnerable period of our history. The International Labour Organization has a saying it has promoted for years that poverty anywhere threatens wealth everywhere. I will repeat it just in case members on the other side of the Chamber could not hear me: poverty anywhere threatens wealth everywhere. Those members are unable to see the big picture. This is not about shedding crocodile tears; this is about being genuinely and sincerely concerned about the state of affairs that many of our communities are experiencing. 
In Mangere as of March 1098 people were unemployed of which 381 were between the ages of 18 and 24. A bigger group of 717 were between the ages of 25 and 64. If those workers were in a contractual relationship for services—as listed in new schedule 2—then they would be in a vulnerable position in negotiating a fair wage because they do not have this minimum protection. It might be OK for young people to say to their employer that they will deliver the leaflets or pamphlets for $25 a month; they can say “Stuff you!” to the employer and do something else because they will be looked after by their parents. But elderly folks with children to look after and a mortgage have some concerns. We should remember the 6300 local government staff in the Auckland region who are already threatened with redundancy and do not know what their future is. This is why this bill is quite important. It provides some basic protection for workers who through no fault of their own—maybe out of desperation because of these difficult times—need some protection in order to get a fair deal for the work they do. 
I say to members on the other side of the Chamber that there are questions they need to answer. Firstly is there a need to protect vulnerable workers? Members on this side say yes. Secondly do New Zealanders of all heritages want jobs at this time? The answer is yes. Thirdly do New Zealand workers in these sorts of job situations want a fair wage? Again the answer is yes. Unless members on the other side say no to those questions then I have to question their arrogance in continuing to say that this bill is a bad bill. It is a good bill. It provides protection for people who need protection in these difficult times. 
People will be watching the Government tomorrow—Budget day—to see whether it is prepared to provide jobs with incomes that can sustain workers and their families. I say let us wait and see. Our expectation of this Government is that it will not deliver on that—going by the answers it delivered to questions asked earlier today in respect of promises that it has potentially broken. It is disgusting. If I were a National member I would consider quitting the National Party now. I see my friend Mr Bakshi on the other side; he should quit the National Party now. Tau Henare who should have been the Minister of Maori Affairs should quit the National Party and join the Maori Party in order to give some support to the people who want protection in this day and age. Thank you.