Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11550] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill which is a member’s bill in the name of Mr Peck who is a Labour member of Parliament. May I first say to the Committee that I think that this is an abuse of member’s day because it appears that what we are actually having is a Government bill put through on a member’s day. The public and those who made submissions did not expect such a silly bill to go through and if they had known that this was happening I think they would have lobbied more strongly. 
The second thing I want to say to members opposite is that we are dealing with a situation of insolvency which means there is not enough money. So somebody will miss out and what we in Parliament are deciding is who will miss out. The argument appears to be a class argument. The people who are on wages are somehow more meritorious than those who have supplied goods. I am pinching this line from Mr John Key but he made a point to me that I think is a very good one. If one thinks about it creditors who are private contractors and people who have supplied goods have done the work. He pointed out to me that by definition redundancy is work that has not been done. One is being compensated for something that has not happened and may never happen. As was pointed out by Mr Adams—and he is absolutely right—under the present law workers are guaranteed the first bite of the apple which is $6000. For a person on the average wage that is a couple of months’ income. 
 People not only get that guaranteed ahead of creditors but also if all else fails and people are unable to find jobs Parliament offers them another safety-net—welfare. But if people are contractors or suppliers of goods they have already paid that money out so they are lost. Can they go along to Work and Income and say that their businesses have gone insolvent? As Mr Adams said try putting that argument to the bank and see how sympathetic it is! 
This bill is very unfair. But in addition it is out of date. Over a third of the population now earn income not from wages but from outputs. People are in the business themselves—as owner-operators of trucks for example. They are not in the wage and salary business but this Government is suddenly saying to them that it is going to treat them very harshly. I say to Mr Peck that if he had gone back and done some research and had had a look at the number of people who have gone bankrupt as the result of another bankruptcy he would have found very few wage and salary earners. He would have found many many small businesses—second only to the Inland Revenue Department. 
Mr Peck should have done that research but he did not. He could have done something else. He could have looked at the Government’s own research because it did a study the Insolvency Law Review which was put out by the civil service. That looked at whether we should alter the priority. The Government’s own civil servants told it not to make this change. I ask Mr Peck whether he bothered to go and talk to those civil servants. Did he bother to read the report? Did he bother to find out what research they had done? No. This bill is trying to save a member who is facing redundancy in Invercargill. Instead he ought to do something about schools being made redundant. That would do something for him. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Watch out Richard! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: There is Mr Barker calling out. What is the member’s interjection? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I am just saying “Watch your back.”; Mr Hide is watching. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Mr Hide most certainly is looking after my back. He is also looking after the interests of the taxpayer. I ask Mr Barker what he will say to small businesses in Hastings that find that they will get no money from the next insolvency because he voted for this bill so that the workers can get the money. Let me make this clear to members. When one reads the bill carefully one sees that middle management—the people who made the business bankrupt and have the worst claim morally—can make a claim under this bill too.