Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3914] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 New Part 3 to the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 13 is about political commitment and it seeks to make clear whether parties are committed to a minimum wage for all New Zealand workers. The reason for this new part is that as I think we have heard in the debate tonight the minimum wage has been somewhat of a political football similar to the way political parties have dealt with superannuation in the past. That is why I have taken the idea for this proposed new part from the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and have included a schedule that would list the political parties that support the provision of a minimum wage. 
I will talk about political commitment. As I said we have had a very interesting and rollicking debate and it has been very frustrating at times to sit here and not be able to respond from the chair as I would like to. But I will relay one story. As I have sat here and listened to the debate I have been thinking about a truckdriver whom I met in Papakura. In fact he came to see me to tell me his story. I think the National members should listen. He is employed as an independent contractor. He was promised $1000 a week’s worth of driving work and he thought that would be the perfect job for him and would deliver a decent income for him and his family. He signed up but for 2 months he received no work. Then he received a call to come in for training. Off he went and watched an hour long video on how to drive a truck. Again he heard nothing for weeks. He was very frustrated and worried by then; he was worrying about feeding his family. He made repeated phone calls to the principal contractor and finally got a job driving every Saturday on a contract worth less than $100 a week. He eventually got two more contracts but the three jobs altogether paid only $450 a week which is less than half of the amount he had been promised and he had to work long and sometimes dangerous hours. I know for a fact that he was also breaching his logbook rules but that was the only way he could keep this work. Finally the driver approached the principal contractor and was told that every driver who is employed in that arrangement runs an independent business and that the principal contractor had no responsibility to the workers. He told the drivers that it was up to them to do their own thing and that he had nothing to do with it. His advice was that if they did not like it they should go the disputes tribunal. 
I have sat here listening to the debate and I have been thinking about political commitment and about this truckdriver as we have gone through the evening. I have also heard some ridiculous comments in relation to McDonald’s. We heard today in question time from the Minister for Social Development and Employment something about McDonald’s. Here we are actually talking about what we call McJobs. They are not real jobs; they are McJobs. They are jobs that do not deliver fairness do not deliver a decent income and do not deliver respect. They are undignified but some people have to do them. 
Talking about political commitment I say that I have listened to the National members going on and on about why Labour did not make this change in the last 9 years. I think there has been plenty of discussion and contributions to the debate from Labour members. I put on the record and make it very clear that my Labour colleagues have strongly supported this bill all the way through. In fact the former Ministers of Labour—including the Hon Ruth Dyson who was a Minister at the time—worked very hard with me the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand to find a way to make this bill work and that is what was proposed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and voted against by National. My answer to National is not to go on and on about what Labour did not do. If those members think it is a good idea or if they want to criticise us they should do something about it and vote for the bill. I say to National members and to the people listening tonight that National has just voted against increasing the minimum wage to $13 an hour on 1 July this year $14 an hour on 1 July next year and $15 an hour on 1 July 2011. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don’t believe it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: National members have just voted against that. That was one of the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 4. The people of New Zealand now know that the National Government has no commitment to increasing the minimum wage. 
Again talking about political commitment I say that Labour was a very busy Government in its 9 years in office. It had a lot to do—it had an awful lot to do. Labour had to decide on some priorities. Our political commitments were things like the Employment Relations Act. I was not in Parliament then but I understand that that legislation was a huge fight. The National Party put up a huge fight against the Employment Relations Act. In fact it was going to be the end of the world as we knew it! As I understand it National put up a special select committee. Are we not seeing history repeating itself with the behaviour of those members at the moment? I was very involved—both before I came into Parliament and once I was here—in Part 6 of Employment Relations Amendment Act 2006 which covers vulnerable workers. That part covered the particular situation of contracted-out workers and their job security when their contract changes hands. Labour brought that legislation in and once again National fought it tooth and nail both in its original form and when it came back to the House after the courts decided that the original legislation had some holes in it. 
As my colleagues have said we increased the minimum wage again and again. National members have been trying to make a virtue out of the fact that the previous National Government increased the minimum wage by 50c. If Labour had not been in Government for the last 9 years we would have a minimum wage of $7.50. For those under 20 it would be $4.20 or $4.45. That is what it was when Labour came into Government in 1999. That is what National did. For someone who was under 20 the minimum wage was $4.20 an hour until Labour became the Government. 
We also had to change the Holidays Act to make sure that workers not only got paid holidays—that they were paid for 4 weeks’ holiday—but also could get time and a half for working on a public holiday. That provision had been stripped away thanks to the National Government in the 1990s. We had to bring in statutory sick leave and bereavement leave. We had to make sure that people had some rights unlike the workers we are trying to protect tonight. We had to do something about health and safety. We had to bring in new laws to increase the rights of workers— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Everyone groans. This Government does not believe that the health and safety of workers should be protected. We brought in KiwiSaver and so on. The list goes on and on. 
As I have said often the other thing Labour did that I am very proud of is that we increased the pay of low-paid workers particularly those who work for the State in hospitals—the cleaners the kitchen workers the orderlies—and those who work as cleaners in schools aged-care workers and so on. Did National do any of that in its 9 years in Government? No it did not. This new part is an opportunity for the National Government to vote in favour of the minimum wage and show that it has a political commitment to it so that workers in the country do not have to worry that if this Government stays in power—well it will for the next 2 years anyway—the Minimum Wage Act will be abolished and we will start to see the minimum wage go backwards as indeed it did during National’s last term in Government.