Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11548] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
There is nothing like having a new president of a political party and polling at 1 percent to get that party suddenly to decide that it is on the wrong side of the fence. I am sure that a speech like Mr Adams’ will not go unnoticed as that member tries to find his new place on the list that he is sliding down at the moment. 
Paul Adams 
:I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like to point out that we have never said we are on one side of the fence or the other. We are in the centre. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point of order is not correct. It is a debatable point. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Exactly. That is the problem that United Future has. It has never been on one side of the fence or the other. It has voted with one side and talked the other way—but do not worry because the president is sorting it out. Mr Blumsky is going to fix it and that member will be fixed along with that problem so he will not have to worry about what side of the fence he is on in the future. He was on Inky Tulloch’s side of the fence so he is history. 
This is terrible legislation. This legislation does one thing: it says to small businesses that supply large businesses that their money takes a lower priority in the case of an insolvency than the redundancy agreements of the staff who are employed in the business. To put it quite simply when the freezing works goes broke the staff will get their redundancy which has been union negotiated before the contract electrician gets the money that he is owed. So the electrician goes belly-up but the staff will get their redundancy. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Status of Redundancy Payments Bill puts payment of redundancies for workers who are working for a firm that goes bankrupt ahead of payments for other creditors. That means that the bill and this part which is part of the ordering process says to somebody who has provided goods and services to a business that is insolvent that not only will the staff who have lost their jobs in that business be paid the wages and holiday leave owing to them—and National has no problem with that—but they will be paid redundancy. National totally opposes that ordering because it will force many other small businesses to go under. 
I gave an example of this earlier in the debate where a business that I know of went into insolvency. Under this bill the staff would all get redundancy payments but all the people who had been providing services—the electricians and the people who had sent goods and were owed money—would get nothing. In many cases particularly where they are small firms and have a lot of money owed to them they will now get nothing their priority is reduced and they will go under. 
So employees will walk away with redundancy but a whole lot of other people lose their employment. That does not make economic sense. Businesses do not support this legislation at all and I do not know why this Labour Government is so hell-bent on making it as difficult as it can for business. Why is it? What is it that makes Labour politicians get up in the morning and decide: “We must do something more to put small businesses at risk. We must—” 
Hon Member 
: It’s about worker fairness. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Labour member says it is about worker fairness. Well the Labour member does not understand that there is no job for the worker without people who put their money on the line and take the risk. For those sorts of businesses this bill will stop that. 
There are a couple of other points I will make about this later on in the debate. In fact I will make one of them now; as it was such a good point I could see my colleagues were very keen to hear me out on this. The other point I want to make is that this bill like all these Labour Government bills that are anti-business will change the way businesses behave. For example if a supplier is supplying a company that it knows or hears from the rumour mill is going through a bit of a bad patch the supplier will say: “I will come and service your machine but it is cash up front otherwise I will not do it. Because if I front up and fix the machine and then you go belly-up your workers will all be paid redundancy and I will not get anything and I will go belly-up.” 
Winnie Laban thinks that is a good idea and laughs about it. She thinks it is very very funny. In her electorate there is a business that went through this process: Hills Hats. She might not know that or have been there but it went through this process. If this law had been in place that business would not be there now. It went through the insolvency and came out the other end because the creditors managed their way through it. I say to Ms Laban that this bill would have put them under. Is she aware of that? Yes she is. She is aware of that and happy to see it go ahead and vote for it—and happy to sit there and laugh about it—even though in her constituency she knows this bill would have put the business under. 
It is the same with large firms such as Lakeview Farms freezing works in Dannevirke in the member for Wairarapa’s electorate. What would this bill have done to it? Has she talked to the Everton family about it? No she has not. Has she talked to the managers of Lakeview about it? 
Georgina Beyer 
: Have they talked to me? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh they have not come to her. She says they have not talked to her so that is fine. She will ignore it. What do members think about this? She is part of the Maori caucus. Has she talked to the new Maori owners of Lakeview in Levin? 
Georgina Beyer 
: No I haven’t. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No she has not talked to them. I want to say to her that if she had— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Why would I? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Because if this bill had been in place Georgina Beyer would know that Lakeview in Dannevirke would not have got through its difficulties a couple of years ago. Is she aware of that? 
Georgina Beyer 
: I am. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: She is aware of it. So she is aware that if the bill had been in place then that business would not have got through its difficulties. So why is she voting for it? 
Georgina Beyer 
: Because I support the bill. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh she is voting for it because she supports the bill. Georgina Beyer has not talked to the owners or the managers even though it is in her electorate. She has not talked to them about the bill at all. She knows and admits in the House that if the bill had been passed the firm would not have got through its difficulties but she will vote for the bill because she supports it. Well that is fantastic logic. That is the arrogance that this Government faces. If one is Georgina Beyer MP one does not have to get down off one’s high horse and talk to some manager in Dannevirke or some owner of a freezing works that is providing a whole lot of jobs. She says that they should come to her. This is the regal approach to politics. That is the arrogance that has this Labour Government in so much trouble. She is not listening caring or worrying but doing what Helen Clark has told her to do. She says: “I support the bill so I am voting for it. I do not care about the consequences.” I want to say to those Labour members that when the next firm is insolvent—and there will be one—and it pays out its redundancy to its workers Labour members will be responsible for other firms going broke.