Barker Rick: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11560] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate. Firstly let me respond to one of the points made by Brian Connell. I have to say that I found his presentation very disappointing. To claim that people who are owed wages and owed holiday pay have not earned it is just ridiculous. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I never said that people who were owed wages or holiday pay were not entitled to that. That is misleading the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. It is a debatable point. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I want to repeat the point. I listened to what Mr Connell said and I am happy to get the  
Hansard 
 out. I want to make it clear that he made it very clear to this House that people who were owed money and would benefit from this bill had not earned it. That is what he was implying and I say to Brian Connell that that is simply not correct. These people have earned it. It is money that they are owed wages they have not been paid and holiday pay they have not been paid. They have earned it and if Brian Connell wants to stand in this Chamber and say that people who have unpaid wages and outstanding holiday pay have not earned it well I am happy to argue with him at any place about that. 
As to the point that was made by United Future as to why other people should not be paid and why these people the workers should get some money—which ties in really I guess with the point that Richard Prebble is making—the fact of the matter is that when a business goes bust it is unusual for it to have sufficient money to pay everybody. That is why we have a problem; not everybody can be paid. Richard Prebble’s argument is that the line for people who are owed wages and holiday pay should be moved back as far as it can contracted as far as it can so it leaves more money for other people. 
He makes a case for the small-business person who is a small contractor but I make the point to Richard Prebble that the vast majority of money that is taken out of those situations of redundancy is to the banks. I am not particularly down on banks but I want to give him just two examples. The first one I have spoken about is Tomoana Freezing Works. The banks got every cent they were due. I have got 2000 people in my constituency who are owed money. 
Mark Peck 
: Thirty-five million. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: They are owed $35 million. That is what was owed to the people of Hastings in the area of my electorate and the banks nearly all overseas-owned got the lot. Richard Prebble says that is a bad thing. It is bad luck for the people of Hastings good luck for the banks and he supports that. He does not want to see any redress. Well I say to Richard Prebble that I am on the side of my constituents. I want my constituents in any future redundancy to get their money. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What did the banks do wrong? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The banks knew exactly what was going on in the case of Weddel Tomoana. They had a person in that head office every day. They knew all its accounts. They could have put that company under any time they wished and they did not. They decided they could not. Instead of putting any company down which they could have—AFFCO or otherwise—they in fact decided to down Weddel and my constituents lost $35 million. 
So what we are deciding here is where the balance lies. ACT wants to cut the workers back more and more. The National Party wants to cut the workers back more and more. That is their traditional ground—beating up on unions and beating up on working people. They realise; they think there are no votes for them in this but they do not care. All they are interested in is big business. They see that if the line has shifted from $6000 to $15000 in the small pool of money that is outstanding then the workers are going to get some more and some of the banks are going to get less. 
Well I have to say to them that is just tough. We are entitled to draw the line and the proposal to this House is to make it $15000 rather than $6000. As for what Paul Adams is saying about the other small-business people well there is a difference here Paul. These people have a contract. The contract says that in the event that they are laid off— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I understand that it is a convention in this Chamber that members are referred to by their correct names. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is quite correct. The member will refer to members by their correct names. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes; I am sorry. The member did not take offence but I accept the chastising from the Chair. The point I want to make is that there is a contract here. The contract says—and I give the member the example—that the workers at Tomoana Freezing Works went without a wage increase in return for redundancy agreement. 
What that member is effectively saying is that there should be no sanctity of the contract. There is a contractual agreement. Other people who enter into business arrangements with them might have a different contract of agreement. They might be unsecured. 
Paul Adams 
: What about the creditor’s contract? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
:Well if that is what they have done their business on—being unsecured—that is the way they have conducted the business. But in terms of the workers they have decided to negotiate an agreement that has a redundancy clause and I would have thought that United Future would argue in favour of the sanctity of the contract and said that where a contract exists it should be honoured.