Bennett David: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the chance to speak on this bill the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge Labour MP David Clark for his speech in regard to this bill. I have known this member since he joined Parliament. He is a good member of this Parliament a good representative of his area and a good Labour MP. But on this bill I am afraid that we have to agree to disagree because I think there are some fundamental economic and policy differences that you will see between the main political parties as this debate emerges. 
I think the first thing I want to do is just acknowledge many of the points that were made in that speech. I do not think anybody disagrees with the issues around opportunities for our young people especially for children growing up in environments that are difficult. We want those children to have food on the table we want them to have shoes on their feet and we want them to be able to enjoy the aspects of New Zealand life. But to do that we have to earn our way in the world. It is not a matter of our legislating in this House for what we consider to be a minimum wage in the sense of increasing it to a level that will actually achieve that purpose. The real way to achieve that purpose is by delivering a strong economy that grows wages that grows opportunities and that grows business so that people get rewards for their hard work and can deliver services to and meet the needs of their families. So we do not disagree with the ideals but we do disagree with how we will achieve that. That is one thing that I think is important. 
When we look at some of the points that were made in that speech it is important to look at what he actually talked about. David Clark talked about how people were feeling the pinch at the moment. Well there is a world recession going on. The world is in trouble financially. This is not a time when we are making hay around the world. 
Dr David Clark 
: How’s Australia? How about our trading partners? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Clark now talks about Australia. Well go have a look at its mining sector the golden part of the Australian economy; it is in trouble. Go have a look at its domestic economy which is in even bigger trouble. You hear the Opposition talk about Australia having minimum wages and saying that is what differs and why New Zealanders go there. The New Zealanders going to Australia are not going for the minimum wages. They are qualified New Zealanders who are going into higher-paid jobs in the mining sector and things like that. They are not going for the minimum wage like the Labour Party said. 
The other thing is that people are feeling the pinch because of the world recession and New Zealand has that complicated by the rebuild of Christchurch. We need to look after our economy—growing it—because that is the real answer for our people going forward. 
I look at the thing that was talked about of the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment. Mr Clark said that it was not clear-cut. So how then can the Labour Party say that if it increases the minimum wage there will be no effect on unemployment? The real risk is that there will be an effect on unemployment and the official advice that we have received is that this could lead to up to 5500 jobs being lost. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: 5500 jobs. That is 5500 families that do not have the income to provide for their children that do not have the ability to provide the food on the table and that do not have the ability to provide the shoes on those children’s feet. And that is what would come if this Labour bill went through. 
Metiria Turei 
: That is wrong! Wrong! Wrong! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This is the Green Party saying it is wrong. Well that is the Green Party which has about as much idea of economic policy as— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members on the cross benches should be aware that it is convention not to interject because it has an effect on the microphone of the member who is speaking. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Clark talked about growing inequalities and said that this bill is a way of avoiding growing inequalities. He talked about groups that were perceived as being disadvantaged in the community. And there are groups that are highly represented in those lower-income statistics. But those lower-income groups will be the exact ones to be hurt by this bill because they will not be enjoying a wage of $15 an hour as Mr Clark perceives; they will potentially be losing their jobs. That will then put them in a situation where they do not have the ability to even deliver the services to their families that they do now. So the disadvantaged whom Mr Clark talks about will actually be more disadvantaged under this bill because this bill hurts those people. It hurts those people because it puts them at greater risk. Those people are more likely to lose their jobs if the minimum wage increases. That is the reality of commerce. 
This is all about some kind of redistribution of income by the Labour Party. Mr Clark spoke many times during his speech about the need to redistribute income. Parliament should not redistribute income through the setting of costs on business. That does not redistribute income. If anything it makes it hard to operate a business. When it is hard to operate a business that means it is difficult to employ people and that means it is difficult to pay higher wages to people. Redistribution happens through our tax system; it does not happen through the way that we manage the costs of a business. If we want to go and redistribute the income of businesses by looking at their cost structures rather than their profits then that is a totally different method of accounting from the one that has been employed in the past and it has not been employed in the past because it will hurt businesses and will therefore hurt the most vulnerable people who have been talked about by the Opposition. 
This bill is not good for the people whom the Labour Party purports to represent. It is not good for the people whom it says that this bill will look after. In fact this bill hurts those very people at the bottom of the heap. It hurts those people on low incomes it hurts those people who are marginalised it hurts the vulnerable and it hurts those who are struggling to get decent wages and a decent life ahead. 
Then what do you say? What do you do? What is the answer if this bill is not the answer? And there is an answer. There is clear economic policy out there that tells you how to raise wages and therefore deliver for your communities. It is through the provision of good education it is through the provision of infrastructure it is through the provision of the good and best rules for businesses to operate it is through the provision of opportunities for business to expand and export and it is through ambition and hard work. That comes through a tax system that incentivises education hard work and ambition. Those things are the things that the National Party is promoting. 
The National Party is delivering in education. The National Party is delivering in infrastructure. The National Party is delivering a good environment for businesses to operate in. The National Party is delivering low interest rates for businesses to go and invest in capital equipment. The National Party is making this economy the best it can be in these very difficult times. The National Party is actually providing the environment to look after those most vulnerable people. That is what we are doing in Government. The Opposition will not do that. It purports to have an answer but it will do the opposite of that. It will hurt those people most at risk. That is why the National Party cannot support this bill. It is bad economics it is bad for our people and it is especially bad for those people whom this bill purports to help. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted.