Calder Cam: Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11916. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr CAM CALDER (National):It is an enormous pleasure to have this opportunity to take a relatively short call on this Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill which Sue Moroney our colleague across the Chamber has brought to the House. It is a member’s bill in the name of SueMoroney set down for the first reading and we are picking up the baton as we have had a number of speeches on this issue before.I regret to say to my colleague across the House that it is unfortunately not a bill of principle. And why is this? Well there are a few reasons.Andrew Little: Because you hate workers.Dr CAM CALDER: What was that? I am a horny-handed son of toil myself Mr Little. I just ask this question: if this is so important why did Labour not do anything about it in its 9 years? Why was that? Why was that? OK Labour did introduce the Employment Relations Act 2000. This was a major overhaul the Employment Relations Act of the labour legislation in New Zealand. It was also the first major piece of legislation introduced by the last Labour Government and it was touted at the time as a great reform—and to be fair it was a great reform for the labour sector. It was meant to cure all the supposed inequality in bargaining power between employers and employees. Yet at no point—at no point—did Labour members talk about redundancy requirements. I do not recall them talking about redundancy before. They never mentioned it. Why was that? It was because they knew it was too much of a burden upon our businesses.But let us look at what a previous Labour Government Minister has said about the labour market and in fact the Employment Relations Act which the Clark Labour Government passed. You might remember this gentleman’s name. Phil Goff said: “The Labour Government has moved away from the type of interventionism that saw our economy become less adaptive less competitive more debt-ridden and bureaucratised and that saw our living standards fall over time and employment rise.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote that?Dr CAM CALDER: It was Phil Goff actually—Phil Goff. “It is a Government that has sought more market influence and efficiency going forward.” So that is what Phil said—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!Dr CAM CALDER: That is what Mr Phil Goff the Hon Phil Goff said. That is what he said.We are committed as a Government to creating jobs and fostering economic growth. Statutory redundancy provisions we believe act as a barrier to employers taking on new staff because we believe that redundancy entitlements generally are a matter for employees and employers to bargain for in an employment agreement that is relative to their industry and the size of their business. Small and medium sized businesses may be disadvantaged and are unlikely to be able to cope with significant redundancy payments.It is worthwhile considering just what some of these costs to business would be. At the current minimum wage of $13.75 per hour an employer would be required to pay a full-time 40-hours-per-week employee who had worked for 1 year $2200 gross.Simon O’Connor: How much?Dr CAM CALDER: $2200 gross. That will increase by an additional $1100 a year every year the employee remains. So it is not insignificant. The male median hourly earnings figure is $22 an hour. That is $3250 gross after 1 year and a maximum of $22000. So it is not insignificant. Employees as we said have the opportunity to bargain for redundancy payments that they think are appropriate.We introduced theReStart package in 2008 which provides for workers made redundant and focuses on helping them back into work. We are focused on getting people into work not placing more burdens on employers. When the previous Government looked at the issue in the Public Advisory Group on Restructuring and Redundancy report 14 of the 22 submitters supported the status quo. In other wordsthey did not want change. What were some of the downsides to statutory redundancy provisions noted by the public advisory group? They were one disincentives to hire more staff; two reduced wages; three more temporary and contract workers; and four additional stress on businesses that are struggling already resulting in further job losses and actually putting business viability at risk. Thank you.