Brown Peter: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11553] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the member’s speech and I think he has very largely hit the nail on the head. I listened also to the members from the National Party and ACT. They made some valid points and I give them some credence but I would give them even more credence if they had had the strength of character—I will not say gumption—to record in the commentary of the Commerce Committee that they oppose this bill. There has been not a word of opposition to this bill from anybody. The commentary states: “We”—that is the whole select committee—“recommend that redundancy entitlements be included within the employee priority. We consider that such entitlements form part of a contractually negotiated package for employees which may have included trade-offs in relation to wages or salary.” It goes on to state: “We considered the issues raised and on reflection felt that the financial dependence of employees on their employer is greater than that of other creditors who are likely to have many sources of income. We also recommend the exclusion of company directors and controllers from the employee priority.” 
The select committee got it 100 percent right. This bill is about an employment contract in total having priority—not half of it not just wages and holiday pay but in total. Wages holiday pay and any redundancy agreement that is put in a contract will have the same priority. As Mark Peck just said—he echoed my thoughts from before—if the employer does not want to pay redundancy in such situations he or she should have the gumption not to put a redundancy provision in the contract. 
I have been an employer in a major industry and I know the feelings of working people when they are laid off. It is awful. I know that many workers in many industries are prepared to take a lower wage rise or have poorer conditions to ensure they have a redundancy package if things go bad. I heard Roger Sowry talk about creditors and I have some sympathy for creditors particularly those that are adversely affected by such circumstances. But they are in the minority. Many creditors have other ongoing business at the same time but the working people in a particular industry lose totally. Some people who have reached a rather mature age do not get any further. They have nothing. 
John Key 
: Are you supporting it? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Key that yes I am supporting it. I will stand up for the working people of this country. If somebody from this side of the Chamber is not prepared to do that then I think that is pretty shameful. In this country working people work pretty damn hard. I come from a country that has suffered from the actions and inaction of people who wanted demarcation and I am absolutely proud to be part of a country where working people are prepared to put their backs in prepared to do things and prepared to look after the employers’ interests. 
I heard the Hon Richard Prebble say that Mr Hide is looking after the taxpayer. If he really wants to look after the taxpayer he will support this bill. When people get a redundancy payment they cannot go on the dole for quite some time—in some cases Mr Peck said for 52 weeks. There is a minimum time when people who have a redundancy package cannot get the dole. That saves taxpayers’ money. This bill helps the taxpayer. 
This bill is genuine and needs to be considered properly. I suggest that the select committee did that. There is no inkling in the commentary that there was any dissent at the select committee. The National Party in particular was well represented on the select committee; its deputy leader and the Hon Maurice Williamson were on it and neither of them is a slouch when it comes to having a say and expressing his concerns. The ACT party was represented by Rodney Hide— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He was looking after the taxpayer. 
PETER BROWN 
: He was looking after the taxpayer. Is the ACT party’s support split on this? I would like to think that perhaps someone in the ACT party is thinking a little bit further about the taxpayer and about the working people of this country. This bill delivers something that I think working people are entitled to. But I repeat: if employers do not want to pay out redundancy and are nervous about having a redundancy agreement then they should not put it in a contract. They have a choice. Employers believe it or not are not a pack of fools. They know what the industry is about. They know about tough negotiating. They are not bowled over by trade unionists or by anybody else who comes into the room—they do not keel over like a feather. I know that first hand because I was one of them. For many years I was a negotiator for waterfront employers.