Connell Brian: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Connell Brian: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11557] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I note that the Act is to come into force 60 days after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I say to the Committee that business people in this country will think that that day is too soon. In fact I think they will agree that any day will be too soon. I want members of the Committee to be absolutely clear about this: this is a union-driven initiative and Mark Peck is just the errand boy. 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member knows it is totally out of order to suggest that any member is doing anything other than representing his or her own views in this Chamber and to suggest that anybody else is carrying the candle for any other organisation in this place is out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It is incorrect to suggest that a member is being directed by outside people. But in respect of the idea that he is carrying a message I have seen people elected to this place saying they are coming here to deliver a message. That is not out of order and I am surprised the member is not willing to be put up as a supporter of the trade union movement. I did not object when Mr Barker claimed that the ACT party was representing bankers. It did not seem to me to be likely and I am not aware of that connection. If Mr Peck’s comment is out of order then I wonder why Mr Barker was not pulled up for his. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Mr Prebble tries to cunningly confuse the issue. He talks about Mr Peck carrying a message. That was not the accusation made; the accusation referred to the term “errand boy”. That implies a contract of service a master-servant relationship—the person is carrying an errand on behalf of someone and is being directed by him or her. Therefore it is not about carrying a message; it is about acting under instructions. I have to say to you Madam Chair that an allegation of being under instructions and under the control and direction of someone in a master-servant relationship is totally out of order. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am going to rule on this— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Point of order— 
Jill Pettis 
: It won’t be anything new. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I am on my feet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member is not supposed to be on his feet. I have stood up and said I will rule on this. There will be silence while I am ruling. Mr Prebble is quite correct. The insinuation was not that the member was “under the direction” of someone or that he was being “directed” by someone. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? I have ruled. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It is a new point of order. I am not going to revisit what you have said. When I was standing—and I did seek a point of order before you stood up—Labour’s senior whip told me to sit down. I was asking for a point of order and she interjected. Points of order are to be taken in silence but the senior Government whip yelled out while I was standing and before you stood. I ask for your guidance and ruling on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the point of order. I was on my feet so I had asked the member to sit down too. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As a member of this Committee I take offence at another member being referred to in a derogatory way as being an errand boy. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: 
I have ruled on this. I refer members to the rulings on page 47 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have ruled on the matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: We have established that Mr Peck is an errand boy and when he took a call he dispelled any view at all that he knew something about business. He tried to defend the indefensible. He stood up and tried to say that workers were the only people in this country who were entitled to be secured creditors. The fantasy that Mr Brown tried to perpetrate in this Chamber was almost unbelievable. The theory that employers do not have to have a redundancy agreement is one thing but if they tried to run a business in this country without offering their workers such an agreement then all Mr Peck’s union buddies would come down on them like a tonne of bricks threatening to put them out of business. That is an absolute fantasy I say to Mr Brown and he should hang his head. That just does not hang together at all. 
In my opinion the Government has absolutely no right to get involved or to come between employer and employee negotiations or agreements. This legislation is the worst type of nanny State mentality I have encountered since I have been in Parliament. It demonstrates that this Government has a clear anti-business bias and has a view that employers and businesses have deep pockets they can continually trawl through for easy money and cheap votes regardless of whether they think it is right or wrong. 
The assumption is that all business is big business and has the capacity to pay regardless of its financial position. That is not the reality—[ 
Interruption 
] If that member would shut up for a moment she would also learn that that is not the reality. The reality is that businesses employing 10 employees or fewer make up 92.5 percent of all businesses in this country and those employing five employees or fewer make up 86 percent. To put it another way those businesses are not the large meatworks that are meant to be the inspiration for this type of nonsense. In reality those businesses are the small businesses the mums and dads—I say to Mr Brown—who have mortgaged their homes. They are the very people whom his party purports to stand up for and who have mortgaged their homes to take a risk to get into business. 
What will this Government do to them now? When things go bad what will it do to them? It will clobber them. That is going to win a lot of votes! Will those businesses be able to pay? Of course they will not. Mr Peck should think it through. There will be neither enough cash nor enough assets because they are small businesses. 
Let us use an example. A couple mortgage their house and raise $70000—and if I cannot get through this in the time I have left I will take another call and continue. They start in business and things go OK for a while. They employ five people. Suddenly things go awry. Their biggest customer who owes them a hundred grand does not pay and suddenly the squeeze goes on. To cut this sad story short they end up going belly up. It is a low-cost business and they have very few assets. The receivers move in and they find there is $35000 in the bank but this is owed to creditors—that is suppliers who are the very people Mr Sowry mentioned. They are the electricians and the plumbers who have done the work and are expecting payment unlike the employees who have not yet done the work. Let us think about what the definition of redundancy is. It is for loss of earnings; it is not for money that one has already earned. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rubbish! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is what one gets paid for I say to Mr Barker. One goes to work and gets a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.