Robertson Grant: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3892] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It has been an entertaining evening of political philosophy from the member who has just resumed his seat Tau Henare. We had some linguistic lessons from Mr Peachey but the political philosophy lessons from Mr Henare were remarkable—remarkable in their ignorance and remarkable in their ability to draw in all kinds of irrelevant material when there is a very simple question around Part 2 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. Do we think New Zealanders deserve a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Members on the other side of the Chamber might like to answer that very simple question. Do New Zealanders deserve a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? This bill aims to achieve just that. 
We have had all kinds of comments from across the Chamber in this debate about people’s choice. Dr Graham Scott is a contractor and has a choice. He can charge the National Government $2000 a day for Budget purchase advice. He charges $2000 a day. That is outrageous. He does not need the protection of this kind of bill; the people whom this bill sets out to protect are vulnerable workers who are not getting the minimum wage and who need some kind of statutory support. 
The new clause 7 introduced by Darien Fenton on Supplementary Order Paper 4 mentions prescription of minimum remuneration and the new schedule 2 lists who should get that remuneration. Let us look at some of those people. They work in building and construction services cleaning services courier services food catering services and fast-food delivery services. They are not people who earn $2000 a day. They are people who deserve the right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Under the current law that is not necessarily happening. I congratulate Darien Fenton on her proposed new clause 7 and on the parts of her Supplementary Order Paper that would increase the minimum wage over time. 
It is difficult for me to sit here and be lectured by Mr Henare on the minimum wage and on who increased it. In the 9 years of National Government in the 1990s it increased the minimum wage. How much do we think it increased the minimum wage by in 9 years? It increased it by 87c. Under Helen Clark’s Labour Government the minimum wage increased every single year. Every single year the minimum wage went up. Members on this side of the Chamber can stand proudly and say they support increasing the minimum wage. That is why I support the new clause from Darien Fenton. On the other side of the Chamber there has been no commitment to the minimum wage. 
If we listen to the speeches that have been given during this debate we see it is quite clear that the philosophical views of members on that side of the Chamber are against the minimum wage. I actually congratulate Sir Roger Douglas because at least he is honest enough to get up and say that he does not believe in the minimum wage and that he thinks it is bad for the economy. I totally disagree with him but on the other side of the Chamber crocodile tears are being shed. National members quite clearly do not believe in the minimum wage. They do not believe in setting this kind of fairness and benchmark. Instead we hear their claim that they have increased the minimum wage by 50c this time round. Under the previous National Government it increased by 87c in 9 years. That was in the 1990s when the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand increased as a result of the Employment Contracts Act and the kinds of initiatives the National Government thinks is right. The Government is not interested in providing the kinds of wages that allow people to live with dignity. We have seen that time and time again from National and we see it again from this Government. We know that it does not support increasing the minimum wage in the way this bill intends. 
Today is a very interesting day; it is the day before the Budget and the day before we see what this Government will prescribe. Does it care about jobs? Does it care about the minimum wage? No. Today in the general debate all we heard about was boy racers. It is an important issue for sure but on the day before the Budget we should be hearing from National about what it prescribes to keep people in work. I have just heard that another 70 jobs have gone at the Accident Compensation Corporation. The total number of jobs lost in the public sector is pushing over a thousand and it is this National Government that is getting rid of them. It does not care about keeping people in work; it is putting people out of work. It is not interested in increasing the minimum wage.