Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11551] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I thank members who have contributed to the debate so far because they have raised a number of issues that set some clear delineated points between the parties. Again I thank Peter Brown for the work that New Zealand First has done in coming to its position on this bill and for supporting the bill tonight. 
I want to go through one or two of the arguments that have been put up. First of all there were the arguments from Mr Adams about sole traders and about the position of contractors and the conditions they face as and when difficulties arise. I say to the Committee that the Government has addressed that matter at least in part. There may be other work still to be done that I am not privy to but I do know that the Construction Contracts Act—which recently passed through the House and if I am not mistaken was opposed by the Opposition—dealt with the issue of what happens to subcontractors when a contract gets into trouble. Essentially that legislation attempted to deal with that particular issue upfront before it became an issue at the end of the day. In other words contractors would be able—[ 
Interruption 
]; if the member will let me finish—to be paid throughout the process and to get progress payments for the work they were doing. That was done in response to the very real and tragic circumstances many contractors have faced when they have taken on work as subcontractors on major sites. 
I want to come to the issue of sole traders and independent contractors. I remember when we debated the Employment Relations Bill there was huge debate on the other side of the House about including anything at all about independent contractors in the industrial relations legislation. One of the things about this legislation is that it does not attempt to address the issue of small businesses that are facing problems; it is unashamedly to do with employees. The current Government does support the principle of pari passu which Richard Prebble knows well. In other words it means that like creditors should be treated equally. In this case we are dealing with employees. We are dealing with workers who have the least ability to mitigate their losses in a situation like this. The legislation will apply only to those who as I said earlier tonight have negotiated redundancy agreements into their employment agreements—and in the process of doing so have probably given something away to get that consideration. 
I would hazard a guess that most people who work in mum and dad’s coffee bar or in a business with two or three employees do not have redundancy deals. If the business goes belly up they take their chances like everybody does at the Work and Income office and—hopefully—find a new job. But we are dealing with industries in which there is the possibility of sunrise and sunset. We have talked about the freezing industry. I am pleased to tell the Committee tonight that in my electorate people are talking about building a new freezing works. This bill will not put them off doing that. They will go ahead with it and so they should. 
I want to deal with the issue Roger Sowry brought up. In 10 minutes of debate the only issue he brought up was that of compliance costs. I just want to remind him that today it was revealed that the World Bank survey shows New Zealand to be one of the most favourable regimes in which business can operate. Indeed in spite of the rhetoric of the Opposition we have a very business-friendly regime and this legislation most certainly will not cause any employers to have sleepless nights. It is true to say that in the submission process we heard from the Business Roundtable and Business New Zealand which were opposed to the bill—surprise surprise—but what we did not hear was any grumbling at all from other businesses that may or may not be affected by the legislation. 
I finish on one point which was made by Peter Brown in one of his contributions the last time we debated this bill. If employers do not want a redundancy deal they should not enter into one. But if employers enter into one they should be prepared to pay because that is what it is about; it is about agreements between employees and their employers. That is what it is about. It is not about a Government saying what the obligations should be. 
This bill deals with the unhappy situation that occurs when a business finally goes under. Nobody wants to see that but neither does anybody want to see what happens to workers when they get thrown on the scrap heap. I know that Rick Barker and others on this side of the Chamber have had to deal with what happens to people when they lose their employment through no fault of their own and have to try to pay the mortgage and look after their families. In addition those workers face very long stand-downs. When I was involved with the Ocean Beach freezing works redundancy I had to deal with tradespeople who had stand-downs of 52 weeks before they could get any income. Had they not received a redundancy package along the way—which by the way they agreed to take in a couple of hits in order to assist the company to get out of its difficulties—they would not have been able to meet their commitments at all. 
Not one major business has come to see me to tell me not to go ahead with this bill. They understand the Peter Brown principle: if they are going to have a deal they are going to honour it.