Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4815] 
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first reading of this bill and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill provides that the Governor-General is able by Order in Council to make regulations prescribing the minimum rates of remuneration payable to any person working under a contract for services. Such minimum rates may be prescribed as a monetary amount or as a percentage of any other minimum rate prescribed under the regulations. 
The bill does not attempt to define the difference between independent contractors and employees. It simply sets out a process for minimum remuneration to be determined for contractors and enables that to be enforced. Contractors lack the most fundamental of protections—the right to be paid no less than what is considered socially acceptable for other workers who have the protection of the minimum wage. Minimum remuneration is a baseline protection and should apply equally to all workers regardless of whether they are in a traditional employment relationship or whether they have entered into a contract for services. This bill will provide that protection. 
The intent of the bill is not to defeat agreements being made under commercial relationships between two parties. It is not designed to restrict those who are entrepreneurs making whatever arrangements suit when contracting for services but there is a difference between workers who depend on selling their services in order to survive and entrepreneurs who invest capital and hire workers. 
Like the rest of the world New Zealand has experienced a rapidly changing labour market. The nature of the world of work has changed dramatically and will continue to change in the future. Over the past 15 years there has been a growth in non-standard employment from full-time permanent employment to part-time casual temporary and contracted jobs. Employment patterns in a range of sectors and industries have changed drastically and contract work is becoming one of the most preferred work arrangements of employers throughout the world. It is the new casualisation. As with almost all atypical work contracting is contributing to a growing disparity between the actual results of the labour market and labour laws where protections for workers are based on the traditional employment relationship. 
New Zealand has seen considerable growth in the number of self-employed as a percentage of the total workforce. Approximately 20 percent of the labour market is described as self-employed and is likely to be working under a contract for services. Who are these workers? Many immigrants opt for this kind of employment because of the difficulty in obtaining suitable waged or salaried employment. They are likely to be Maori and Pacific Islanders. New Zealand women are becoming self-employed at over twice the rate of men yet most of those businesses start smaller remain smaller and generate lower incomes. 
 Contract workers are used in both the private and public sectors in a broad range of industries. There are many reasons why firms often prefer to obtain services through means other than employment contracts such as simplified payroll and human resources administration and greater flexibility in terms of dealing with workers. For many contract workers this works well and in fact they will be earning well above the equivalent to the current minimum wage. But having no floor above which remuneration can be paid means that some companies are unfairly exploiting the competition between contractors. 
Contracting arrangements are often used for the purpose of denying rights and avoiding obligations under labour laws. Where independent and dependent contracting is used improperly the consequences for those who perform the work are losses in wages job security and working conditions. Differences in the treatment of workers on the basis of the contractual form of their work relationship can induce the stronger party usually the purchaser of labour to create less-regulated commercial relationships over more-regulated employment relationships. This creates a downward pressure on wages working conditions and living standards for other workers. 
Numerous examples of contracting are occurring in New Zealand including for example in personal care forestry construction courier services transport agriculture and telecommunications. Pamphlet and newspaper deliveries used to be the domain of young people trying to earn a few extra dollars but today parents and older people are very often contracted for these deliveries. Although some of us might think it is OK to pay young workers very little—and I am not one of them—this kind of contract work becomes a real problem when families and older workers are relying on it as a source of income. 
Contracting often comes in the guise of a commercial contract in which labour is the main service provided. Contractors work for one employer or company or even a former employer. Although the Employment Relations Authority has the ability to investigate the real nature of an employment relationship—and there is established case law on the definitions of contractors versus employees—workers can be accorded the status rights and protections of employees only if they undertake the risk and expense of challenging their employer in court. 
This bill is not about whether or not someone is an employee but whether that person should be afforded some basic protection in law. Social security health and safety protection and accident compensation are already provided to workers who are not considered employees. So what is so different about providing the protection of a minimum level of remuneration? Information on contractors and what they are paid is not available in New Zealand. I have no doubt that at the select committee there will be many complex arguments about different arrangements and they will need to be considered carefully. But this bill raises the question of whether we consider it acceptable in a First World economy like New Zealand’s to allow arrangements whereby workers can be used to work for less than a socially accepted minimum remuneration. 
My bill will provide minimum protection for those contractors who have little experience and no advice and who are vulnerable to exploitation. It will also put some minimal controls on the vicious practice of underbidding for contracts for services. If we are serious about improving the earnings of all New Zealanders this House cannot continue to ignore the growing group of workers who make an important contribution to our economy and our society but who are denied this most basic right in law to minimum pay. New Zealanders believe in fairness and this means ensuring some equality of treatment for workers regardless of their legal employment status. We need this most basic of protections to reflect the realities of new forms of work and to keep pace with the changing world of work in the 21st century. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It certainly is embarrassing is it not to see in the House tonight Mr Phillip Field who I guess has been press-ganged today into voting for the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. In fact I saw the whip approach him earlier. Was there a bit of a question as to how Mr Field would vote on the bill? Will he eat—I guess one might say—humble pie and curry favour? Will he speak on the bill because I would certainly be very interested in what he had to say? What is even more remarkable is that Labour would have the gall to introduce the bill at this stage. This will not help its situation of embarrassment. 
I draw the House’s attention to this particular fact in the Ingram report. I asked a question today of the Minister of Labour who is sitting in the House tonight. My question was really quite straightforward and I will read it out again just for the Minister’s benefit: “Does the Minister have any concerns that Dr Ingram was not satisfied about the authenticity of the invoices provided by Mr Field for the work at 51 Church Street and surely that means the department must investigate whether these people were in fact employees”. Do members know what her answer was? She was not concerned; she did not care that Dr Ingram questioned the authenticity of invoices. This is important because it actually goes to the very heart of work relationships. Genuine invoices such as Dr Ingram expected to see are evidence of an independent contract relationship. The authenticity of the invoices has been extensively questioned in the report and if the Minister of Labour cared to read the report—I guess she has not done so—she would know he raised the gravest of questions about the authenticity of those invoices. 
When one has to raise that question the issue becomes whether those people were employees. I have to say I believe the Department of Labour which has independent investigatory powers under both the minimum wages legislation and the Employment Relations Act should be digging deep on that issue. The validity or “authenticity”—to use Dr Ingram’s word—of those invoices goes to the very question of the relationship. If they are authentic then one might say the people are independent contractors. If they are not authentic and that is what Dr Ingram questioned— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: How did you get your PhD? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Field went on national television and said he had been completely vindicated. What an absurd statement that was to anyone who had actually read the report—he had not been vindicated. Mr Field actually had read the report; he had it with his lawyers for months in advance trying to get Dr Ingram to change his mind. Well Dr Ingram was not fooled by any of that particular nonsense and he made extremely critical findings on Mr Field. The invoices were one of the key issues. I will be watching television this Sunday night because the nature of those invoices will be raised in a television programme. 
As I say that issue goes to the very heart of the bill. A valid independent contractor relationship is in the words of Darien Fenton a contract of services. That is in contrast to a contract for services. 
Hon Members 
: For services. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is correct. The independent contract is a contract for services; the employment relationship is a contract of services. A lot of laypeople will not necessarily understand that term. The practical difference is this: does the person do the work according to the instructions of the employer? If the person does the work in accordance with the instructions of the employer then he or she is an employee. If on the other hand the person is simply doing the job—building a house painting a wall mowing a lawn—and it is left up to the individual how he or she does the work and in other words it is not directed then he or she is basically an independent contractor. It is not the case there that the law should be intervening because in truth people have choices; they have freedom. 
 That is the philosophical point that the member simply does not understand. How on earth Darien Fenton managed to convince her colleagues to vote for this frankly ridiculous bill truly baffles me. This week she has been the subject of an  
Investigate 
 article. On this side of the House we talk about the “stench of corruption”—it sits on the other side of the House. I ask how Darien Fenton in her union role managed to spend $240000 on her election and that of her employers. I ask that member whether that was declared in Labour Party spending. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Oh no! I guess it certainly was not. So a Labour list candidate was directing how money would be spent on a campaign then not declaring it. That is exactly the same problem we see with the Prime Minister. They are in the scheme of denial. What will they do? I guess they will be asking their mates in the New Zealand First Party to help them out by supporting some retrospective legislation. I say to the New Zealand First Party: “Don’t be fooled; don’t be sucked in.” I say to the United Future party: “Don’t be fooled; don’t be sucked in.” People who grossly exceed their spending limits ought to pay a real sanction and that is one of two things. As Dr Brash said today when a Government steals an election it ends up as has happened in many other countries resigning. 
So to have this ridiculous bill presented to us today by a member of Parliament who is guilty of what I would have to say looks like corrupt electoral practices just rankles. Apart from the complete philosophical inconsistencies that are represented by this bill this House and this country deserve better than this Government; and the sooner it goes the better. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. Firstly I congratulate Darien Fenton on having a bill drawn in the ballot. I know from my first term in Parliament that it is always quite a thrill. It would be like winning Lotto. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: In your first term? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I had two in my first term actually. One bill has gone to the select committee and is still languishing there and the other was voted against by both National and Labour. But that is another story for another day. 
I think the principle of ensuring that all people in New Zealand undertaking work receive the minimum wage is a sound one based on social justice and all New Zealanders want to ensure that—at least insofar as Parliament can ensure—people receive a minimum rate of pay for the work they do. Of course many people fall below an acceptable standard of living in any event because of addictions family problems and all sorts of other things that are part and parcel of the human condition. We can do nothing about that through legislation but we can at least say there is a basic minimum wage below which we are not prepared to see anyone fall. I think that from that point of view there is an issue the bill addresses. 
Having said that however we also acknowledge the other side of the coin and that is traditionally the situation when for example I call for tenders for people to paint my house and I get four or five prices. I look at all the people to see whether they have some general competence in painting decide to accept a price and expect my house to be painted for that price. If it ends up that the person doing the painting works twice as many hours as he or she forecast when putting the contract in place—which may mean that on an hourly basis the person gets well below the minimum wage—then under our system that is kind of tough. So the person has to be experienced enough to try to figure that out correctly and ensure a sufficient wage. 
When we consider the practicalities of trying to put in place a bill like this we may just find that it is not practicable to do so. Bearing the pluses and minuses in mind United Future has decided it will vote for this bill to go to the select committee. That will at least give people an opportunity to make submissions and for the committee to see whether the bill is sound or fundamentally flawed. In saying that I also need to signal that our support is for the first reading only and is not assured beyond that stage. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou te Whare.There has been a lot of debate in the media about whether we can afford to increase the minimum wage. Earlier this year we saw a big debate over Sue Bradford’s bill to amend the minimum wage order in order to stop employers setting low youth rates and now we have this bill to amend the Act to ensure that contractors are also covered. The questions are how much will it cost and can we afford it? In fact the real question is whether we can afford not to. The minimum wage is $10.25 an hour and the minimum youth wage is $8.20. That is simply not enough. 
Just a couple of weeks back while the House was in adjournment the Government tabled the  
Social Report 2006 
 which showed what we have been saying for yonks—that is the number of poor people in this country has nearly doubled in only 6 years. The proportion of the population with low incomes shows that 19 percent were living below the 60 percent threshold in 2004 compared with just 12 percent in 1998 and that those experiencing severe hardship had greatly increased as well. The same report also pointed out that the proportion of poor people who spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing has more than doubled in that time. 
It is not just about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that those who are suffering are those who live in Mangere and Northcote rather than in Remuera and Takapuna. In fact the New Zealand income survey shows that the average income for Maori is $471 per week compared with $598 for non-Maori—a difference of $127 per week. Maori’s history as the lowest-paid group in the workforce and the problems that result from that poverty. are the reasons why on many many occasions in this House the Maori Party has condemned low rates of pay as a form of economic violence. 
It was with that knowledge that we went into last year’s election with a bid to raise the minimum wage to $12.50 per hour because when we feed the worker we feed the whanau nurture the well-being and safety of children and offer hope for their future. Yet this is not a call from the Maori Party. In a country that likes to pride itself on its growth and its wealth it is to our enduring shame that we can even have an organisation called the Child Poverty Action Group. Yet we do. That group has also supported the call for a rise in the minimum wage in order for our poorest children’s life chances to improve. The key aim of the fast-food workers’ “Supersize my pay!” campaign is to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour. Unions have been pushing for it for years; so have the Greens. So we are in good company in supporting this bill today. 
There are many workers in forestry construction courier services transport labour hire pamphlet delivery and other such services who may be exploited through unfair contracting. So the changes proposed by Darien Fenton to ensure that contractors must be paid a minimum rate are a positive move for both youth and adult workers. But I have one word of caution for the select committee. We note the results of a major study carried out by Gail Pacheco a senior economics lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology which suggested that Maori and Pasifika will be the ones most adversely affected by a rise in the minimum wage. In her study she noted that Maori and Pasifika made up more than 20 percent of low-income workers and that if the increased minimum wage were approved it would be they who got the sack first if employers were forced to lay off staff. How sad that is but unfortunately how true as well. 
The Maori Party supports this bill because it is part of our campaign against the wages of poverty and the deprivation that poor people suffer. But we caution against any move that may further jeopardise the standing of the workers in  
bro’Town 
. Kia ora tatou. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me be clear from the outset. New Zealand First is not supporting the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill because basically we do not see a need for it. Not one person or contractor has come to us and said he or she needed Parliament’s help to get a fair deal; not one person. The contractors I have spoken to—and I have spoken to a few recently—say: We’re doing OK Peter. We don’t need your help. Don’t come and interfere. We can do it OK.” 
I listened to the member from the Maori Party who has just resumed his seat. I sympathise with him and the case he was espousing. He was talking about employees who are earning a low minimum wage. That is why New Zealand First included in its confidence and supply agreement the proposal to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour within this term of Government. 
I say to the honourable member Darien Fenton that in her letter she did not make clear the explanation of what she is trying to achieve. With due respect to the member—and I do not want to break confidences—I asked her what the bill was about and she said the select committee could sort that out. New Zealand First is not prepared to sort bills out at the select committee if we do not understand what they are trying to achieve in the first place and if we think they are to the detriment of the country as a whole. In her letter to me she writes at one point: “I note that many jurisdictions throughout the world are seeking ways to extend minimum labour protections to those not in traditional employer-employee relationships.” 
Why did she not give us some examples? Why do we have to research that to see the substance of it? We would have appreciated some examples. I will give the honourable member an example. Someone wants to paint a house and agrees on 10 hours’ work at $20 an hour and the first day is rained out. So in effect it doubles the time and obviously if the employer and employee stick to the contract rate it goes from 10 hours at $20 an hour to 20 hours at $10 an hour. Would that contractor have a claim against the owner who wants the house painted? I ask Mr Copeland whether he thinks the contractor has a claim against the householder who has engaged him to do the 10 hours’ work? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t think it’s practicable. 
PETER BROWN 
: He does not think it is practicable but he is going to vote for it. United Future members are going to vote for this bill to go to the select committee but Gordon Copeland does not think it is practicable and he does not know what the answer is. 
Paula Bennett 
: The select committee will sort it out! 
PETER BROWN 
: The unfortunate thing is that in listening to the Maori Party the Greens no doubt and the Labour Party I heard the bill is likely to go to the select committee that I will be on. The only promise I am prepared to make is that as a conscientious MP I will do my best to help sort it out. If this legislation is going to be the law of the land we have to have sound law of the land. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I’ve got full confidence in you. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member says he has full confidence. I bet he is not there. He does not even intend to be there. Will he put his name up to be on the select committee? No he will not. So he has full confidence in me. I think the member ought to have if he is voting for a job for me and is not prepared to help me out to do it. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Peter just open your mouth and let the wind blow your tongue around. 
PETER BROWN 
: I did not catch that. I imagine it is some witticism. I think Bob Clarkson should say it again because we do not hear him speak terribly often in this House and we want to know the sound of his voice. [ 
Interruption 
] It was good was it? I will read  
Hansard 
 with interest tomorrow. 
People put in contract prices for a number of reasons. Some do it to get a job that might be prestigious. Before I came into this place I was a contractor. I never had to work for the minimum wage but I would put in a price at a lower rate than normal because I wanted to be able to do that particular job. Some people put in prices because they need the work to keep them going and to feed their children and are prepared to take a risk on it. Others put in a price to keep out a competitor over a short period of time. 
If we produce a law that states that on every occasion these guys have to have their wages inflated to the minimum wage when they drop beneath it then I say we are doing a huge disservice to contractors. We might well have to sort out the engagement of contractors but this bill is not going to do that. From New Zealand First’s perspective we are going to vote against it but we will help to sort it out at the select committee. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This is a good bill and on behalf of the Green Party I would like to offer my congratulations to Darien Fenton on introducing it to the House. I am very pleased to hear that the Maori Party supports it and very disappointed to hear what Peter Brown has just said as surely as a member of New Zealand First of all the parties and as a gentleman who has talked a lot about the need to support and improve the lot of casual and low-paid workers I think it is a disgrace that he has taken the position he has. 
This bill closes another loophole in the Minimum Wage Act a loophole that sees some workers being grossly exploited and being paid less than the minimum wage provisions of the Act. This bill could be called the “Minimum Wage (Abolition of Employment Status) Discrimination Bill” and as such it is a good companion to my Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. Given the concern over recent weeks by a number of parties at the remuneration paid to individuals working on a contract for service on properties owned by a member of this House I would hope vainly I know that this bill would receive unanimous support from all parties to go to the select committee. 
It is anathema that in today’s world young people and those on contracts for service do not receive the full protection of the Minimum Wage Act. Such gross exploitation cannot be allowed to continue. My Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill will stop this gross exploitation by removing the ability arbitrarily to discriminate on the grounds of age when minimum wages are set. 
This new bill will address the gross exploitation of those workers who work under contracts for service. This includes not only the pamphlet deliverers mentioned in the explanatory note of the bill but also people such as painters builders pizza drivers security officers commission sales people and many others. It must also include homeworkers—a growing but very vulnerable group of mainly women workers who attempt to stretch the family income through taking in work such as clothing manufacture other light manufacturing computer-based work childcare and so on. The exclusion of these people from minimum wage legislation simply on the basis that they are not employees in the legal sense of the term is wrong and simply adds to the growing underclass that exists in this country. We have only to look at the recent  
New Zealand Living Standards 
 report and S 
ocial Report 2006 
 for confirmation that the gap between the well-off and the very poor is actually intensifying at the moment. 
In many cases these people on contracts may even be employees within the meaning of the law but low awareness of employment rights allows unscrupulous employers to convince them that they are contractors rather than employees. This is an increasing problem as more employers seek to escape their employment responsibilities by renaming employees as contractors. This small but growing group of employers is not only grossly exploiting those working for them but also putting better employers who play by the rules out of business by undercutting their prices. 
I would expect employer groups to strongly support this bill to protect their own members. However I was disappointed to see the other day that the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) is unfortunately once again opposing progressive employment legislation—and in fact turning its back on its own members who are law abiding on the whole—and instead siding with the exploitative employment practices of the undercutters and fly-by-nighters. With this amendment to the legislation in place there will be less temptation for workers to be called contractors when they are not or to be paid under the table rather than by proper wages taxed at source. I would think that the parties to my right would actually support that notion. 
This bill will throw more light on the underground economy. It will see the regularisation of employment relations that are very much in the grey area at the moment and we will all benefit by seeing a greater tax take that can fund our health education and social services. 
Before I finish I would just like to note a few concerns. Firstly the proposed new section 4A(2) in clause 7 still provides for age discrimination. The Green Party believes that age discrimination is not acceptable in either contracts of service or contracts for services. Secondly there does not appear to be any amendment to section 5 of the Minimum Wage Act to require an annual review of minimum remuneration for contractors. That might just be a drafting oversight. The real detail will come in the regulations prescribing minimum remuneration for contractors themselves. These will not be easy to draft and will not come under select committee scrutiny prior to their being promulgated. However I hope Darien will give an outline of the proposed regulations to the select committee. 
The Greens will support this bill and expect National especially to be a strong supporter of it. I also expect Darien Fenton and the Labour Party to continue to strongly support my Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill as I believe these two members’ bills belong together in helping to implement fundamental and much-needed reform of our minimum wage framework. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill and find just so many problems with it. Having read Darien Fenton’s letter about it as well I find—a little like Peter Brown—that it is just so hard to understand exactly what she is trying to accomplish. I suppose what it fundamentally comes down to for us in the National Party is that it is about freedom—freedom of choice and freedom for people to manage their own work to suit themselves. In many cases that is why people choose to contract. They choose to go under a contract. 
Let us take the example of pamphlet deliveries because that is the one example I have heard Labour use. Under that example we have people who will choose to take their time who will choose to do the job at their own will or whim who will stop and start who will call into houses and who actually like the freedom to be able to do the job without having to be under an hourly rate—or as it would be an hourly contract to someone. So they choose merely to be paid for what they deliver and they are quite happy with that arrangement. I am in agreement with that because I have yet to hear of someone who is unhappy with the arrangement after talking to them and hearing of the freedom they enjoy. 
It will be people such as older people who will find themselves out of a job because employers in that situation will think that the push from the Government is to put people on an hourly rate. So they will put them under an hourly rate but that will not be an ideal situation for many of them and they will choose not to do the job. They enjoy the freedom that comes with the work they can do. 
A classic example was a contractor I was speaking to with a very small business who was contracting to go out and do gardens and things like that. He did not sit down and think about how long it would take him to do the job; he worked out what he felt the job was worth then he put a price to it accordingly. Under this bill it seems to be the case that depending on the time it would take it could actually cost a heck of a lot more for people to get their lawns or gardens done. So how can that be fair for anyone because they will not then get the work? In the case of the person with the small business he enjoys the freedom to work when he wants to and to get the work done in the time he does it. 
Under this bill I am wondering as well how that would possibly work. Would people have to clock in for every 10 minutes they worked and clock out for when they did not then have that recorded? It is talked about that it will be legislated and investigated. Will we have labour investigators going out to look at how long jobs actually take so that we can then decide? It could all be sorted out at the select committee of course. The bill is about regulating the market even more when it is the freedom of the market that works for people. It is as simple as that really. We will be regulating because we do not wish to let those people have a choice. In many cases it really is about choice. 
The other thing concerns the reason why people choose not to go into the contracted hourly rate of an employee. More often than not when people are being paid by the hour they feel as if their time is owned. As such when I am an employee my time is owned for the period of that job and I am obliged to do the job at the pace required by my employer—and at the rate required by the employer. Again that is taking away that choice. 
I have concerns about another issue and let us use the example of someone cleaning carpets. Like the member from United Future I would go out and get different quotes for the job that is to be done but then when that job is actually done I might look at it and think that it has not been done satisfactorily. The carpet cleaner then has to go back into the house and do the job again. So the cleaner has had to do twice the time for what the service had been contracted out for in the beginning because the job had not been done effectively in the first place. So what does that mean? Because the job has taken the contractor twice as long all of a sudden he or she may be outside the minimum hourly range and as a consequence the rate has to be cut. 
It can be the same in the case of pamphlet deliveries if we want to use that example. Occasionally a job is not done properly so the contractor is told to go back and do it again how to do it and everything else. Because contractors are not doing jobs effectively in the designated times they agreed to themselves and because they are having to do jobs twice when they have not been done properly we will have labour inspectors coming along and having a look at that. It is just absolutely ridiculous. I cannot see how it will possibly work and it is for that reason that National will most definitely be voting against it. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 What an extraordinary exposé of right-wing pure ideology from that member. It is just extraordinary to steal language words like “freedom” and then put them alongside the right for people to be paid $1 an hour $2 an hour $3 an hour or anything other than the minimum wage of $10.25 and call that freedom. What a disgrace to a civilised society that member is! She should hang her head in shame and never come to this House and repeat that sort of ideological nonsense. It is just a total outrage. 
For people who are the most vulnerable in our society to not be entitled to a minimum wage in a civilised society in New Zealand in 2006 is just a disgrace. That member purports to understand what it is like for people who are in low-paid jobs people who are struggling. That member who brings out her tissues has crocodile tears appearing because she had such a hard road to pave before her grand entry into this House. Then she comes into the House and says that people should have the freedom to work for less than the minimum wage. Well if people want the freedom to be like that member then I think we have a responsibility to save them from that fate. Anybody in New Zealand should be saved from the fate of being like that member; her speech was just a disgrace. 
I want to congratulate Darien Fenton. She has been in this House for less than 12 months and has produced a member’s bill that addresses a very fundamental flaw in our employment relations legislation in that we do not have a minimum wage provision for those who are working under a contract for service. They may be vulnerable they may not be very wise they may decide to cut all sorts of corners in order to get a contract so not only will this bill give those contractors legislative provision under the minimum wage legislation but it will also ensure that we have fair competition when we are looking at the contracts we provide for. 
So the bill seeks to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 in order to extend the minimum wage provisions to apply to payments under a contract for service. It is important in a civilised society as New Zealand prides itself on being that we should not have people who are able because they need to undercut another competitor to do a contract for something that may be doing them or their subcontractors no good at all. It is very ironic that Dr Mapp raised the matter of that legislative gap in the House prior to the adjournment and again today. Dr Mapp identified that it was a flaw in employment relations legislation but now with such an extraordinary attitude has come into this House and attacked the very legislation designed to fix the flaw he identified. It is no wonder that member is regarded by employers and employees up and down the country as having no integrity when it comes to matters of honesty openness and genuineness in ensuring that what one says in the House and what one says outside are consistent. I am delighted to support this bill and I look forward to its progress through the House. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I see that the member for Nelson the Hon Dr Nick Smith has come into the Chamber. I understood very clearly that he was suspended from the House or was asked to withdraw from the House this afternoon for the remainder of the sitting day because of his behaviour so I am very surprised to see him in here right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been advised that he is out of the House until 10 o’clock so I ask him to leave. Members will please be seated until the member leaves. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling Madam Assistant Speaker. The member’s bill that we are about to debate is in Dr Nick Smith’s name. I ask that leave be granted for him to make his 10-minute speech. It is his bill; it has been drawn out of the ballot and he has put much time and effort into it. I ask for your reconsideration to enable him to speak for his 10 minutes and following that to leave the House then to return for his 5-minute right of reply. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: First another member can move the bill but what I would say to the National Party whip is that the member’s behaviour was grossly disorderly and he was lucky to get away with just having to leave the House. So the request is not granted by me. Does the member wish to put it as leave? 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for Dr Nick Smith to be allowed to return to the House to take a 10-minute call on the bill in his name and for him to make a 5-minute reply at the end of that debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter is dealt with Dr Mapp. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I do not often take points of order but I do wish to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. I will not tolerate any further discussion on this issue. [ 
Interruption 
] The member assures me that it is a new point of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be well aware of the practice of Speakers to do reconsiderations in circumstances like this. I have been in the House a number of years and I have certainly seen Speakers do that. I put it to you Madam Assistant Speaker that it would be appropriate to follow the precedents of other Speakers in these kinds of circumstances. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is lucky to remain here because he is contesting my ruling. I have already ruled on the matter. It is not a precedent; matters are dealt with as they are seen by Speakers. As I said before this member was lucky to get away with just being asked to leave the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member contesting my ruling? 
Phil Heatley 
: No I have further information Madam Assistant Speaker that I think you need to be privy to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I will not countenance any further discussion. 
Phil Heatley 
: But it is not contesting your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I will not countenance any further discussion on this issue. It has been decided. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First I thank the various parties—the Maori Party the Greens United Future and of course the Labour Party—for their contributions and their support. I do appreciate very much their understanding that this is a situation of workers’ rights regardless of the legal form the work takes. I also appreciate the parties that are prepared to consider this as a genuine concern not a political football. 
I take the opportunity to say to Dr Mapp that if he wants to talk to me about the financial report of the Service and Food Workers Union I have it here. I am very happy to help him read a balance sheet because I do not think  
Investigate 
 is able to do it and I do not think that he is able to do it either. I am very happy to do that outside of the House if the member would like to do so. 
The starting point of the bill is that this is a dimension of labour regulation that should be extended to all workers who are economically dependent on the sale of their capacity to work. As Peter Brown mentioned I did say that many countries now accept that the traditional concept of an employee no longer provides a satisfactory basis for delineating the scope of labour law. If Mr Brown had asked me I would have been very happy to provide him with the research I have done. I have worked on this issue for many many years going right back to 1998 at the International Labour Organization conference when it looked at the issue around the scope of employment and labour legislation. In Britain for example the concept of a worker corresponding with what we call a dependent contractor is now part of the law. It is an attempt to shift the boundary of labour protection to self-employed workers who are not genuinely in business on their own account. 
There is no worry about those who are doing well but there is a worry about those who are not. I would like to let Dr Mapp know about correspondence I have had recently from somebody in his own electorate who applied for a job where paper runners of all ages were being sought but specifying students at-home parents and retired people. On phoning this person was told that the pay rate for delivering 100 to 125 newspapers is between $3 and $5 for each run and that the workers have to provide their own trundlers etc. Is that acceptable? I do not think so. 
There is widespread agreement that the traditional legal categories which are also current in New Zealand—and there are many many names for them such as employee independent contractor dependent contractor contract for services labour subcontractor labour-only contractor etc.—no longer fit with the economic and social reality of today’s work relations. This is a challenge for all of us and this bill represents a very small step towards dissolving the distinction in rights between employees and the self-employed—or contractors—for the purposes of minimum labour protection. 
I do not understand the National Party’s reluctance to extend rights to the self-employed who are contracting for services. I recall its criticism of this Government for not providing in a hurry paid parental leave to the self-employed. I am sure it would not want to remove accident compensation health and safety rights and social insurance from them either. So what is the difference in providing the very basic protection of minimum remuneration in law? 
 The rationale for this bill is fairness and social justice. Fairness requires that similarly situated individuals be treated equally—that is people who are depending on the sale of their labour should be treated similarly regardless of the form the transaction takes. The social justice argument is that all workers should be protected against harms and risks that are broadly seen as being unacceptable. Minimum wage or remuneration is one of the things our society and all parties have seen as a necessary floor below which people should not be required to provide their labour. There is no more justification for permitting discrimination in terms of minimum wage or remuneration against any worker who provides services personally regardless of the contractual arrangement under which the service is provided than there is for permitting racial or sexual discrimination against any worker. 
The point of this bill is not to facilitate workers who are contractors to reach the very hard goal of proving they are employees; it is to provide for a minimum entitlement of remuneration regardless of their legal status. New Zealanders believe in fairness and justice; they believe that people should be treated equally. That is what this bill is about. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a first time. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.