Matt McCarten: Ugly policies dressed up as quake support

It was no problem to flick $1.8 billion to South Canterbury Finance shareholders. Photo / Sarah Ivey

The Christchurch earthquake has quite rightly dominated our thoughts over the past fortnight - and will for some time yet. Other stories have paled into insignificance.

John Key did a pretty good early job on the crisis and other party leaders have taken a non-partisan approach, as they should.

Unfortunately, though, we're starting to see an ugly side of this Government as they marshal support for some of their unpopular pre-earthquake policies by dressing them up as necessary to raise sufficient money to rebuild Christchurch.

Saying that Family Support may have to be cut back, or that student loans will need to incur interest rates, or that we need to privatise to raise money for rebuilding is grotesque.

New Zealanders are already willing to pay directly to do whatever is necessary to help and would be quite happy to forgo the tax cuts Key introduced last October.

In three years it'd raise more than enough to pay for the complete reconstruction. Manipulating New Zealanders' goodwill to shove through their unpopular policies will blow up in their faces.

Given this cynicism, we need to be vigilant about other stories from before the earthquake that have dropped off the radar.

Remember the thousands of disability support staff who were required to stay overnight in community houses to look for the disabled without pay? They won their case.

Now the Government is considering a change to the Minimum Wage Act so that these workers not be paid when working and the back pay the court ruled they are owed is also in jeopardy. Somehow the working poor are to get the shaft without anyone noticing.

It started with disability support worker Phil Dickson, who went to the Service and Food Workers Union saying it wasn't fair he was only paid a $34 allowance for staying on his employer's premises overnight to be on-call for the five residents with intellectual disabilities. Dickson had to remain on his employer's premises for more than 150 hours a fortnight as part of his employment conditions. His allowance averaged $3.77 an hour.

His union agreed and, with the support of the Public Service Association, he filed his case four years ago. The Employment Relations Authority, the Employment Court and now the Court of Appeal have all supported Dickson's argument that he should be paid the minimum wage for this period.

The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that he was "working" because of his heavy responsibilities, the constraints placed on his freedom and the benefits of his role for the employer.

The court rejected the employer's arguments that work only occurred where there was mental or physical exertion. The court said that if it accepted the employer's argument then it would give licence for employers to deduct the pay of shop assistants when they were waiting for customers, meat workers when they were waiting for stock and call-centre workers when they were waiting for calls.

The Department of Labour tried to persuade the Employment Court to rule against this case and the Attorney-General tried it in the Court of Appeal. Having lost in the courts, Minister of Health Tony Ryall has now threatened to amend the Minimum Wage Act to avoid paying up to $500 million in back pay.

According to the Government, it's an outrageous amount to pay low-paid workers. But it was no problem for them to flick $1.8 billion to a few hundred South Canterbury Finance shareholders.

More workers are now reliant on the Minimum Wage Act and the Holidays Act, which are probably the only two remaining pieces of legislation that protect minimum socially acceptable standards for workers. Yet this anti-worker Government is happy to change to law at a whim to get an employer off the hook. Remember the hobbits?

It's important we keep an eye on what this Government may try to slip through while our hearts and thoughts are with Christchurch.