Smith Nick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1690] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill might be good therapy for a party of downtrodden trade unionists suffering from their biggest electoral defeat for a long time but it is not good law. It is not good law. It shows that members opposite have learnt absolutely nothing from the trumping they got in the 2008 election. 
One of the things that the public have had it up to their eyeballs with is nanny State and its extra regulation. You see the fundamental view of members opposite is that people cannot make choices for themselves and that this Parliament has to regulate every possible part of everybody’s life. 
The part those members really object to is actually people being paid on contract rather than being members of a union. Those members want to be able to control every aspect of people’s lives because at core Labour does not trust people. Labour has the patronising attitude towards people at the bottom of the heap that only the Labour Party and unions can protect them. 
Take people like real estate agents who are paid on sales. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! Your mates. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who chips in Mr Clayton Cosgrove wants to— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re for protectionism there. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He destroyed them. They all voted for me in my patch. I know they did not vote for him. Real estate agents are paid on sale. They are paid when they sell a property. Labour members do not like that. Labour wants them too to be paid on an hourly rate because Labour objects to any form of performance pay. 
When I was a young man I delivered pamphlets as a university student. I learnt that one gets paid on results. I learnt that rip-off artists are out there. That is true but they are actually one of the lessons of life. I told them to stick their pamphlets where it hurt. 
What the members opposite believe is that if we regulate every nook and cranny in life we can protect people from having to make decisions for themselves. That is not the view of the Government. We are a Government that says the nanny State idealism of members opposite was rejected by voters in 2008. Members opposite actually need to realise that New Zealanders do not want this Parliament passing law to eliminate any capacity to earn on a contract basis. That is not where New Zealanders are at and it is not where New Zealand has had a proud history. 
The last point I make is that members opposite really somehow believe that the only way incomes grow is by this Parliament passing laws. It is not. The only way this nation will pay higher salaries and the only way this country will lift people out of poverty is to support enterprising businesses that actually raise living standards with higher skills innovation and all those things that make a nation successful. I say to members opposite that they are living in the past. We do not regulate for wealth. We do not regulate for economic growth. We actually have to create it and that is why members on this side of the House say that voters voted against nanny State. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I can see that this bill is good therapy. Members opposite have taken a thumping. They are feeling depressed. They need some group exercise by which they can celebrate their trade union heritage. But that is no excuse for poor law that does not actually do anything for New Zealand. 
If we are serious about helping those on the bottom end let us get on and create the legislation that will create wealth and jobs. [ 
Interruption 
] The member in the chair Darien Fenton raises the issue of accident compensation. That is very interesting because under her previous Government’s policies accident compensation levies will be driven up to 4 percent of what people earn. That is the current policy introduced under a Labour Government. Members on this side of the House ask how a uniform tax of an extra 4 percent on every worker will help the overall wealth levels of our nation.