Heatley Phil: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11129] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill passing through Parliament at this time and I will outline the reasons for that. 
But before I do that I would like to say that we in the National Party thoroughly understand the need for redundancy payments. We appreciate the need for redundancy payments but we do believe that that is a matter between the employer and the employee and there is no reason why an employer and an employee and even an employer and multiple employees cannot reach their own conclusions when they sign a contract agreement as to how much that redundancy payment should be valued at. 
Lynne Pillay 
: They do. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They can discuss that with each other through the individual contract process and we support their doing that. Obviously I know they do it and we support that way of going about it. But for this Government to legislate right across that mutual agreement is absurd to us. Why can it not be left to the employer and the employee and why does this Government feel the need to interfere and to legislate right across that process? That is the question we ask. 
There comes a point when a relationship between an employer and an employee severs and that certainly becomes the case when an employer can no longer afford to pay the employee. The employer is not asking the employee to continue to work for no wages; the employer simply cannot pay the employee any longer and is going bankrupt. That is one point where the relationship between the employer and the employee clearly must sever. This bill extends that responsibility. The employer has obviously proven he or she cannot afford to pay the employee yet this Government expects the employer to do that very thing even though the employer has proved that he or she cannot do it. Simply that will make businesses more risk-averse. They will not want to grow. There are plenty of other reasons at the moment why they do not want to employ more people and one is the compliance costs that are incurred; this measure is just another one. Although it is not a cost unless a business goes bankrupt it is a cost in terms of the risk the business knows it is taking on. 
When we look at the details of this bill we see that it raises even more concerns. Why for example is it suggested that the cap be increased to $15000 from $6000? We heard earlier from Richard Prebble who pointed out that if we go by the average wage $6000 is roughly 2 months’ work. Why have we suddenly decided that the cap should be 5 months’ worth of work? In fact it may not even be work. In fact we know it is not work. The employees concerned are going to be paid 5 months’ worth of wages for no work at all. Why does this Government believe that an employer should pay out from money he or she does not have 5 months’ worth of salary for no work at all? Why would the Government recommend that an employer with no money at all pay out 5 months’ worth of wages for no work at all in return? That is absolutely absurd. How did the Government reach the figure of $15000? 
It is interesting too that that figure can be varied. The bill states that that cap can be adjusted to reflect overall percentage increases over the relevant adjustment period in average weekly earnings calculated by reference to the last quarterly employment survey. In other words it is tagged to the increase over time of the average wage. Surely if an individual employee’s pay increases phenomenally more than the average wage or phenomenally less than the average wage the cap on his or her redundancy payout should shift accordingly. Why choose the average? Why go for the median? Why go for mediocrity? I have no idea why this Government has chosen such an arbitrary figure and such an arbitrary way of adjusting it. 
Also the bill states that if there is an overall decrease in the average wage there will not be a decrease in the reduction; it will stay the same. In other words employers are left with a situation where the payout and the cost to them can rise over time but cannot decrease over time. In other words the risk to them can increase but not decrease. Again that seems to be an arbitrary choice by the Government. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That member’s party would pay the Gibbses but not the workforce. That is what that member’s party would do. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The chief Labour whip might twitch over there but he has no idea what is in the bill. He has made one speech I think this term. I do not want to provoke him enough such that the Prime Minister will again have to apologise on his behalf and again be embarrassed by his twitching over there. 
I am also interested to see that clause 5(7) the clause that deals with amending the seventh schedule of the principal Act deals with those who are excluded from this redundancy cap change. Interestingly if a family member of one of the directors works in the company he or she is not entitled to this privilege that this Government is giving the workers. The vast number of businesses in this country are small businesses. Many of them are family businesses whereby family members particularly children are employed to sweep the floors and to work their way from the bottom up so that they can one day run the company. Those particular people who may exert as much blood sweat and tears as any other worker in the company are not entitled to this provision in the bill. 
Why is that? Why are those who carry the weight of the business not entitled to any payout? Worse still family members related to those who carry the risk of the business are not entitled to any payout. Why is that? Why is this Government picking on small family businesses and family members who work in those businesses? I can name countless large companies and countless small family businesses where children are employed in order to learn the ropes. Yet they will get no benefit from this bill. 
The question has to be asked as to who risks the capital in these companies whether they are small or large. Who risks their savings in these businesses whether they are small or large? Who lives and breathes the businesses day in and day out—not just during the 37½ hour working week but all weekend and all night as well? Who does that? Well in the Labour Government’s mind the people who do that are the ones it is going to punish and they are the business owners. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What party is it that ensured this country had the worst industrial record? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I might have to call on the Prime Minister to apologise for “Twitch” over there. I can see his moustache twitching away. I am going to have to apologise for the member. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Can I call down the Prime Minister to apologise for the member? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When the member is told to be seated he will please be seated. The member must refer to members by their correct names. He knows that. The member will withdraw that remark. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The remark? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He did not refer to the member by his correct name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw. I will not take the time of the House to invite the Prime Minister down to the House to apologise for the chief Labour whip David Benson-Pope. It has happened once already in the last few days. What I will do is finish my speech by reminding members of who puts up the capital who takes the risk and who worries day in and day out all week. It is the business owners the ones whom the Labour Government seeks to penalise. By doing so it inadvertently penalises the very workers whom those people employ. That is why National opposes this bill.