Smith Nick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3922] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to debate Part 2 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill because it speaks volumes about the differences between the members opposite and the members on this side of the Chamber. This is really a test about the politics of slogans versus the politics of substance. If I listen to members’ speeches opposite I hear that all we have to do is pass a law through this Parliament and we can have higher wages in New Zealand. All we need to do fellow members is pass a bill and we could have a wage of $20 an hour or $30 an hour. Why not make it $50 an hour? I would love to live in a country where every New Zealander was paid $50 an hour. The idiots opposite would have us believe that all we have to do is pass a bill to make that happen. I have to say that is hollow politics; it is the politics of slogans. It is a cheap idea that if we pass a bill with a few words we can somehow solve the problems of this nation. It is cheap it is untrue and it is the reason that members opposite were rejected at the election. 
The truth is this: if one wants to lift wages one has to lift productivity. What happened to productivity—the real heart of higher wages—over the 9 years of the previous Labour Government? The international records show that over the last 9 years New Zealand rates of productivity improvement were the lowest of any of the 23 members covered in the latest OECD report. What is even more worrying is that through the 1990s when we had a Government that was genuinely committed to raising wages—by lifting productivity; the real way—we saw big gains in productivity in New Zealand. That was a good thing. That is why members on this side of the Chamber who want a high-wage economy are not going to play cynical games with slogans but are prepared to do the hard yards of improving productivity which is really at the heart of increasing wages in our country. 
The members opposite had 9 years to do this; but not only did they have the time—let us look at what Labour said in its policy. If we really believe the speeches of the member opposite why was that legislation not in Labour’s policy at the last election? Those members are not prepared to answer that question. The reason it was not in Labour’s policy at the last election is that they do not actually believe in it. They do not believe in any of this stuff. This is just a political game. I say to members opposite that the main reason why the people of New Zealand rejected them as the Government giving Labour one of its lowest votes in 20 years is that it stopped doing things that mattered. Labour members became solely preoccupied with their own butts and the games of politics rather than the issues that matter to the people of New Zealand. The game of politics had become more important for Labour than the substance of the people whom we in this Chamber are meant to represent. 
Members opposite have asked why in future we should not guarantee ongoing increases for the levels of the minimum wage. I will tell them why: there is an issue equally important that this Parliament should be focused on today. That is the issue of employment. Every member of this Chamber should be focused on keeping New Zealanders in jobs in one of the worst recessions and economic downturns that has occurred in more than 70 years. I say to members opposite that when the Budget is read tomorrow they will see a Government that is committed to doing everything that is humanly possible to keep New Zealanders in work. I challenge members opposite to quit the slogans and concentrate on the substance. Productivity is the key to higher wages. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of Darien Fenton to add new Part 3 be agreed to.