Barker Rick: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11554] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Curiously I did the original draft of the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill. I say to Mr Prebble that the people of Tukituki—which was then the seat of Hastings—know full well about this bill. I told them some time ago that I would move this bill and I am really proud to see that my mate Mark Peck is bringing it to a conclusion—something that I could not do. The very reason that this bill exists is the closure of the Tomoana Freezing Works. The Tomoana Freezing Works is a very interesting example of an insolvency. I want to correct one thing that Mr Prebble has got very wrong. The workers at the Tomoana Freezing Works were offered a wage increase one year but they said that they did not want a wage increase and would prefer a redundancy agreement. They had some discussions with the boss and in the end forewent a wage increase in return for a redundancy agreement. They paid for their redundancy agreement year after year and they lost it because of a piece of Tory legislation written by the National Party for its mates. National wrote legislation to cut out the redundancy payment that workers could get so that creditors—the National Party’s mates: big business and big banks—could get more in an insolvency situation. 
It is a well-known fact in Hastings that the workers at the Tomoana Freezing Works lost thousands of dollars in wages holiday pay and all the rest that was owed to them. Yet the company that financed the freezing works Weddel received all its money. The banks received every cent owed to them; they lost not one cent. Mr Prebble will say that this bill is bad legislation because it would give money to workers and deny it to small legitimate business. The truth of the matter—and Mr Prebble knows this—is that the people who win the most in insolvency situations are the big banks. All the major trading banks in New Zealand were owed money by Weddel and all those banks received their money in full. The only people who did not receive their money were the workers. They were restricted because a piece of Tory legislation stated that they could be paid no more than $6000. I think that is terribly wrong and we will change it. 
I congratulate Mark Peck and the Commerce Committee on their excellent report which states that the maximum for preferential claims now will be $15000. I would have liked that figure to be higher than it is because if people are owed money by way of wages then they have made their contribution. They have cut the throats of all those sheep have dressed them have broken them down have put them through the freezers and the product has been sold. Someone has benefited from that. The people who have not benefited are the people who made it happen: the workers. In my view they are entitled to be paid for their labours. I think it is a shameful position for anybody in this Chamber to say that people who have done the work are not entitled to be paid their wages. I will argue against that anywhere. Mr Prebble is welcome to come to Hastings on any occasion and we will have a debate about it. I will get together the 1600 or 2000 workers who were at the Tomoana Freezing Works and Mr Prebble can get up and say to them that the banks deserved all the money they received and that the workers deserved nothing—and in fact that the $6000 the workers received was too much. That is his position. 
I say to Mr Prebble that the 2000 workers who were at the Tomoana Freezing Works do not believe that for one moment. He is trying to visit poverty upon people like them. He does not care about their lifestyle. I saw much poverty as a result of the closure of the Tomoana Freezing Works. What happened to people’s lives was shattering. Richard Prebble does not care about that as long as the banks have their money because the banks support the ACT party. As far as I am concerned the Labour Party is here for ordinary New Zealanders. We are here for everybody. We want to make sure that people get a fair deal and that is why we support this bill. 
I was really pleased that Peter Brown gave the speech that he did—I thought it was fantastic. It showed that he is concerned about ordinary New Zealanders and wants to make sure that their conditions are protected. This issue is not about the vested interest of the banks. If the National Party continues on that path then I say good luck to it. It will need the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill—and so will Mr Prebble with ACT at 1 percent in the polls and falling. Mr Prebble’s main supporter Rodney Hide told the Chamber people should vote for National because ACT does not need any more support—it is happy to go below 1 percent. I say to ACT that it will need the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill at some time in the future. Redundancy payments in this place are around 3 months’ pay—that is it; members cannot get any more. I say “good on you” to the ACT party and that it should keep to that line of argument. It shows that the ACT party is a narrow sectional-interest party.