Wong Pansy: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11573] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I find it quite interesting that although we are supposed to be debating the title and the commencement date Mr Mark Peck did not quite bring himself to talk about the title. I gather from his whole speech that he is exceptionally defensive and apologetic towards small business. So he should be because this bill once again demonstrates the problem of a Labour Government that does not act out of principle but tries to be all things to all people. In this legislation it tries to please employees of a business that goes bankrupt who have negotiated redundancy packages without thinking about what will happen to the employees of the creditors—the suppliers—of the business that do not get paid. When suppliers cannot get payments from businesses that are in trouble what happens to their employees? 
That further demonstrates what happens when a party like Labour is in Government. It continues not to think about principles but to act on vested interests—lobbied by the unions of one particular sector—and forgets about the employees of the suppliers that are creditors to those businesses in trouble. Who will protect them? I find it really difficult when a Labour Government introduces a bill that upsets very long-held principles and commercial practices without very good background and analysis. 
Some of my colleagues mentioned that it might be a reaction to the closure of freezing works. My we are reaching back into history! That is the problem of this Labour Government—it still operates in the 1950s and 1960s. It is still fighting the class war when right now it is the year 2004 and employers understand that their most important business assets are their people. 
The National Government’s Employment Contracts Act created a very flexible environment in which individuals could negotiate directly with their employers. Unfortunately once again we face a Labour Government that operates in the 1950s and is starting to sneakin amendments and changes to legislation that no longer reflect contemporary working conditions in New Zealand. 
 I want to briefly mention the title and make the point which National has been making for a long time that it should really reflect more closely the intention of the bill. To simply call it the “Status of Redundancy Payments Bill” does not tell a lot of people what the bill is all about. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to call it the “Changing Status of Redundancy Payments Bill” or the “Creating Further Redundancy Payments Bill”. 
When Mr Mark Peck mentioned the commencement date I wondered why the commencement clause refers to this magical figure of the 60th day. I am not too sure what is magical about the 60th day of this legislation being in force. Does it mean that it will take that amount of time to educate employers about what the Labour Government’s plan is and to inform business of these changes? Will Mr Mark Peck tell the public whether there will be a follow-up? Will there be an assessment of the consequences of this legislation? 
The Government says the bill will not change much so why is it wasting Parliament’s time changing a well-known commercial practice that has been in existence for quite a long while? The National Party will definitely vote against this legislation. It is not a party that believes in a U-turning leader.