Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): What pretentious nonsense. I do not know whether Mr Clayton Mitchell knows what the phrase pit bull chewing a wasp" actually means. I suggest he google it. It is actually reasonably offensive to me and also Parmjeet Parmar but that is generally in keeping with the tone of debate from you know "Bernie Sanders - lite" over there from New Zealand First. He stood up and said: "Mr Bishop's going to get up here with his rhetoric." Well that was a speech full of rhetoric. That was a speech full of highfalutin rhetoric about the minimum wage and I do want to respond to three of the points he made about the minimum wage. Firstly he said "We can't expect people on $15.25 an hour to provide for families." and that is true. That is why if you are someone who is earning at the minimum wage and you have children the Government provides Working for Families payments so that you can look after those children. It is why the Government provides social support through the $2 billion a year we provide in the accommodation supplement. He talked about high rents. That is why we have the accommodation supplement—to make sure that families can afford rental housing. It is true that there are some people out there who are earning the minimum wage. Often they are people who are students—people who are working part-time. I have worked on the minimum wage. I was a barman and was actually working below the minimum wage in the United Kingdom. Lots of people have. The point is they are often entry-level jobs. They are often the jobs you get as you move up the career ladder. There is a role for that. The second point I want to make is about the quantum of the minimum wage. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates in the developed world. Whether or not you measure that as a percentage of the median wage or as a percentage on a per capita basis the reality is we have one of the highest legislated minimum wage rates in the developed world and study after study and official advice after official piece of advice demonstrates that we have that. The third point in response to Mr Mitchell about minimum wage rates is that he just pretends that you can legislate for higher wages. That was the theme of his speech—we need higher wages. Well everybody agrees with that and actually the wage increases have been outstripping inflation rates for the last 8 years but the Government cannot just turn around and legislate to give everyone more money. This is the fantasy land economics that New Zealand First lives in. If the Government could do that we would. Mr Clayton Mitchell thinks that this is a flinty and hard-hearted Government but surely he cannot pretend that this Government is so hard-hearted that if with a wave of the magic wand with a piece of legislation or with the stroke of a pen we could just give everyone $25 an hour and give everyone on the minimum wage $30 or $50 an hour we would not do that. Of course we would but the reality is that is not how wages are worked out and actually that would come at the cost of jobs. That is why every time those members stand up and say "We need to make sure everyone gets a living wage and we need to increase minimum wage rates." they neglect the importance of actually making sure that there are sustainable jobs out there in the economy. We have increased the minimum wage rate and we have done so in a sustainable way. It has been increased every year that we have been in Government because it is important to make sure that those who are not earning a large amount of money do share in the benefits of economic growth and that is what we have ensured. So that deals with the silly speech from Mr Mitchell. Let me talk about the bill. My colleague Maurice Williamson in the first reading of this bill talked about how this bill was an example of the "Maharey principle"—the "Steve Maharey principle". I was reading back through the Hansard—because I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so I have come to this bill a little bit late—and I thought that was a really apt description of the bill. Steve Maharey was famous—and I actually cannot remember what he said it about—for saying that "There are things that you say you'll do in Opposition that you never do in Government." It is this sort of populist cheap rhetoric that—actually fairly like what we hear from Mr Mitchell—Jami-Lee Ross: "Keep Kiwibank".CHRIS BISHOP: And "keep Kiwibank" is a good example. My colleague Jami-Lee Ross names the example of the Keep Kiwibank Bill which Clayton Cosgrove introduced into Parliament and then he gave up the portfolio and landed the hospital pass to end all hospital passes over to poor old David Parker who has also got control of this bill. So I do not know what David Parker has done inside the Labour Party caucus recently but he seems to have—Tim Macindoe: He must have gone to dinner with Phil Quin. CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Yes that is right. Mr Macindoe says he must have gone to dinner with Phil Quin—gone out for kai and kōrero with Phil Quin and the right-wingers in the Labour Party caucus. We cannot possibly have dissenting views inside the gulag that is the Labour Party. Anyway this is an example of a "Maharey principle" bill because actually Labour looked at this when it was last in Government and it decided not to do it. Darian Fenton got lumped with introducing it as a member's bill where "We have got to do something for the unions so let us introduce it as a member's bill." and all the advice was: "Don't do it." Cabinet heard the advice. Clayton Cosgrove knows that that was the advice. Phil Twyford thank God was not in Cabinet back then. He was still struggling to try to win selection to get into Parliament. But those members know that the official advice was against it. They rejected it when they were in Government but then they went into Opposition and it is like a lot of bills we get from Labour members. Twice now—Phil Twyford: How many elections have you won?CHRIS BISHOP: Just wait son—just wait. They have twice—Phil Twyford: How many?CHRIS BISHOP: Well your mate up on the backbenches scarpered off so ask yourself why. They have twice now tried to reintroduce the thermal ban legislation they have twice I think tried to reintroduce the biofuels obligation and this is just another example of a retread bill reintroduced into the House by Labour. This is a classic example of the "Maharey principle". The select committee had a good look at this bill as it did in the 48th Parliament I think it was between 2005 and 2008 and on both occasions it recommended that it not pass and the majority has recommended that it not pass in these circumstances because the reality is that contractors are different from normal employees. They are costed differently. Their earnings are calculated in different ways. The structure and methods of their payments are different. They are different and they are legally distinct for a very good reason. Actually my good colleague Andrew Bayly gave an example of how the bill was sort of well-intentioned but with the way the bill is drafted it could lead to situations in which contractors are actually worse off—in some cases reasonably substantially. Parmjeet Parmar made that point as well and I notice that Maurice Williamson and other speakers in the first reading made that point as well. We are yet to hear in either the first reading debate or the second reading debate—or from Mr Clayton Mitchell in his voluminous contribution to the House—an adequate response to how the bill will actually make contractors worse off. The whole point of the bill is to make contractors better off. Actually there have been examples provided by officials—and I will not relitigate or regurgitate the examples given—that have been mentioned in the House as to how the bill will make contractors worse off not better off and we are yet to hear any adequate response to that. Actually Parliament has an obligation to legislate not just with good intentions—because too often Parliament just legislates good intentions—but for things that will work and that are actually based on evidence and this is a classic example of how this bill is not. The officials advised that the costs outweigh the benefits. The select committee came to the right conclusion that this was an unworkable bill that would not lead to the improvements for contractors like the bill aims to do so that is why National stands in opposition to it."