Brown Peter: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Brown Peter: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:11942] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to that member’s contribution I have to say that he is better at a Peter Sellers type of imitation than Peter Sellers was himself. Peter Sellers issued a record some years ago now and spoke for 4 minutes saying nothing. This guy spoke for 10 minutes and effectively said nothing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What about the workers? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think the honourable member would know one even if he fell over one. 
A few years back there was a system of awards which meant that every plumber in the country was paid effectively the same. It was a minimum wage for plumbers carpenters watersiders or whoever. There were local agreements and there was some difference between areas but basically it was structured around a national award. Now there are employment contracts either collective or individual. There is a good argument and I am amazed that Government members have not picked this up to have the priority for the contract—not for part of it but the whole contract—in other words for the total redundancy package. 
So this is just a middle step in many ways because if one buys a house and there is something wrong with the kitchen one wants the carpenters or whoever to come back to fix it. If there is something wrong with the kitchen and the dining room it is not acceptable to just come back and fix the kitchen and leave the dining room ahead of someone else. So there is a good argument in contractual law to have the employment contract raised to a higher priority. But this bill provides for people who are made redundant when a company keels over in insolvency to receive a maximum of $15000. That sum is to embrace wages holiday pay and any redundancy payment the person is owed. 
I am absolutely appalled at the National Party after listening to those members’ speeches. Lindsay Tisch referred in the Committee to people being made redundant in the flood-stricken area. Does the member recall saying that? Mr Tisch argued that because a business went under as a result of the flood a person working in perhaps a local workshop who lost his or her job and maybe even his or her home should be a lower priority than a creditor supplying that workshop—possibly from Auckland or Wellington. That is what they in the National Party think is fairness. That is not the National Party I was once a member of. The National Party I was once a member of had a fair attitude to individuals—including working individuals. 
I am surprised at Paul Adams. He is prepared to support this bill and will go to his people— 
Paul Adams 
: We are not supporting this bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry—my correction. He is prepared to oppose this bill and go to the people who work in his car yard or whatever he has and say: “If there is an earthquake in Auckland and I have to make you all redundant I will pay the creditors before I pay you the redundancy agreement I have negotiated with you.” 
Paul Adams 
: You don’t understand workers. 
PETER BROWN 
: I bet that member does not have a redundancy agreement with his staff. Does he have a redundancy agreement with his staff? Will the member tell me whether he has a redundancy— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No that’s an improper question. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is an improper question the honourable member says. I would like to hear it when he makes his contribution because there is no compulsion in this bill for any employer to have a redundancy agreement with his or her people and folk over on this side of the Chamber have lost sight of that. I say to employers that if they are fearful of having to make a redundancy payout then they should not sign up to the agreement. But I also remind employers and indeed the National Party that there is no extra money from this; it is just the priority of where it is being paid out and to whom it is being paid out. 
New Zealand First if members have not concluded that already will support this bill. We believe that working people who are employees—and before the honourable Paul Adams corrects me I recognise the point I know he will challenge me on which is that self-employed people are also working people—have had a raw deal in some circumstances. So we are supportive of the priority for redundancy to a maximum level coming into legislation. 
If the National Party were so strong on it though why did it sign up to this sort of clause in the commentary to the bill that came back to the House? It states: “We recommend that redundancy entitlements be included within the employee priority.” “We” includes the National Party. This is the party that is going out on the hustings now and saying that when it comes to superannuation and social things it can keep its word. Those members cannot keep their word between a select committee and coming back to the House. Their deputy leader Gerry Brownlee was on the Commerce Committee and I am waiting for his contribution to this House to explain why he has changed his mind. I think Parliament and the public at large are entitled to know why the National Party changed its mind between the select committee process and coming back to the House. 
Indeed I welcome the chance to learn from the Hon Richard Prebble who will no doubt tell the House why Rodney Hide changed his mind. Rodney Hide supported this bill when it was in the select committee. He does not have a reputation for being slow in echoing what he believes or in sounding off on what he believes. 
Ron Mark 
: He’s a good Rangiora boy. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is a good Rangiora boy and he knows what he believes. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We think it has been a long time coming. It came before this House some years ago we opposed it and I would like to record that fact. We now know a lot more about the effects of the type of situation this bill is meant to address so in effect we have changed our minds and are supporting this bill. 
I have spoken to several small employers many of whom employ fewer than 10 people many of whom are not union members and have no redundancy agreements. There is nothing in this bill that affects them and they are not showing any concern. I have spoken to employers who employ more than 10 people and who do have union members in their workforces and they are not showing the least bit of concern. In fact the words used to me were that it is fair to raise it up the scale of priority. 
In fairness to them perhaps they would have preferred the legislation to remain as it was but when I mentioned that this move was likely to take effect they said: “It’s one of fairness Peter.”They are the words they used. So I invite Paul Adams to reflect on that because I know he is a man who likes to be fair. In this country if one does not put people first then the country will go backwards. This bill is aimed at looking after people who are quite often in dire circumstances to give them some sort of carry-over until they get their next job. 
The final point I want to make is that it is my understanding that a person who gets a redundancy package such as he or she might receive under this bill cannot get the dole until part of that payment is exhausted. In many ways this relieves the taxpayer of some financial burden albeit small. 
Paul Adams 
: Rubbish! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member shakes his head and says: “Rubbish rubbish” but if the dole is not being paid out then it is saving the taxpayer some money that can go into others areas of social concern. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We know it will be passed and we congratulate the member for bringing it to the House.