Field Taito Phillip: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11132] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I congratulate my parliamentary colleague Mark Peck who sponsored this bill. It has arisen out of the bitter experiences that many workers have faced as a result of redundancies. I concur with the comments made and the situations explained by colleagues on this side of the House who have represented workers up and down the country. 
From personal experience I have witnessed the trauma and suffering caused when people lose their livelihood and the impact that it has on the individual the spouse the children and the wider family. Most New Zealanders understand that aspect because they have seen redundancies happening for a few decades in New Zealand. As a result of policies adopted at times in our history they have seen the closure of factories particularly in the meat industry and other industries. They have seen workers thrown on to the scrap heap and have witnessed the suffering not only of families but also the community and in many cases some of the rural towns that those people belong to. 
I want to talk about the meat industry which prompted my colleague Mark Peck to bring forward this bill. I particularly refer to the closure of the Weddel meatworks and also remind the country of the situation in the meat industry over the past 15 to 20 years. Many meatworkers will vouch for the fact that they were not responsible for those policies but paid the price. Those workers gave many many years of dedicated commitment to their companies but were thrown on to the scrap heap as a result of restructuring and policies that were adopted at the time. I am talking about the National Party Government lead by Rob Muldoon when we were paying supplementary minimum prices for lambs that we could not sell so had to turn that meat into tallow. The only way to sell it was to sell it as soap. As a result of some of those policies certain companies could not survive when the final crunch came. The workers paid the price for those policies and it was the workers who lost their jobs and their families suffered. 
I can tell the House now that some of those workers paid the price not only with psychological problems but also probably with a shortened lifespan as a result of that redundancy situation. I remind members this afternoon that we are talking about the very serious business of redundancy that ordinary New Zealanders—Maori European Pacific Islanders and Asians—suffer as a result of any business closure or insolvency. It is only right that the House should look at the priority to be given to workers who are in that unfortunate situation and their families and children in terms of a negotiated redundancy agreement already signed and sealed and of what is owed to the workers. We are not talking about payment for no work as Mr Heatley said but recognition and compensation for the many many years of service that those workers have given to the development of that particular industry. 
New Zealanders have come to understand that redundancy compensation is legitimate and justified. This bill provides that there is some minimum safeguard to ensure that workers line up and be given some priority with other creditors and as preferential creditors in an insolvency situation. Members of this House should support that safeguard as a minimum. 
Just lately Opposition members have been talking about fairness and Mr Brash has talked about fairness. But they should put their money where their mouth is. If they are really genuine about the issue of fairness they should also think about equality. We are talking about ordinary New Zealanders of different ethnic backgrounds who suffer the situation of redundancy. They should be given some fairness in the way they are treated and given priority in relation to redundancy compensation—that is well-earned compensation for many years of service to a particular company or workplace. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. The Commerce Committee has done a good job. It looks to increasing the cap on the employee priority. Again the member for Whangarei was wrong in relation to the $15000 cap because $15000 redundancy would have to represent significant years of service. In fact if we look at the normal 6:2 situations—that is 6 weeks for the first year of service and 2 weeks—people would be very lucky to get a 6:2 redundancy agreement. That payment for many years of service is actually a pittance. It only goes towards assisting in some small way the re-establishment of a family and the individual trying to find another job. That is a very minimal amount of money for the many years of service that workers give to their workplace. The $15000 cap that has been determined and recommended by the select committee is not some outlandish figure. It is a reasonable cap. The entitlement to redundancy is not enforced by this bill. It is still up to the employer the workers and their representatives to negotiate a fair redundancy agreement. That is still open in terms of that relationship. 
It is important that the Government sets a fair framework for those negotiations and a fair law to ensure that workers get a fair deal in terms of their employment and conditions of work. Redundancy and preparation for hopefully the unlikely situation of redundancy should be established on a fair basis. I believe that this bill sets a fair framework for workers to be given some priority in the situation of redundancy. It removes the current limit of $6000 on preferential claims made by an employee in a corporate insolvency under the Companies Act and is reasonable. 
The other recommendations that the select committee made are fair. If companies are in difficulties then to some extent the bill requires them to plan properly before they announce a closure. Companies need to look at ensuring that workers are included in the equation of how a closure will occur and how an insolvency situation will be dealt with rather than the company thinking it can get away with throwing workers on to the scrap heap without giving any consideration to matters of relocation and re-establishment. In particular there must be recognition of service and the upheaval to families and the price they will pay. Often children pay the price when there is loss of livelihood by a father or mother. 
From my personal experience as a secretary of a union that was involved in the closure of a meatworks involving nearly 1500 workers in Petone some 25 years ago I was proud to be associated with people who fought a good fight in terms of protecting the level of wages and conditions of the people in the meat industry. They did not kowtow to the demands of an unreasonable employer. The price they had to pay was the closure of their factory and to fight the good fight in terms of a redundancy deal. We know that Southdown freezing works was one of the first freezing works in New Zealand to close. A deal of 6:2 was established as a redundancy standard and I am proud to say that meatworkers at Gear Meat Processing Ltd fought a redundancy battle that resulted in their getting a level of redundancy that was at least comparable to that received by the Southdown workers during their dispute over redundancy. 
I am proud of the history of the workers who have fought for and actually established standards on the issue of redundancy not only for the meat industry but for other industries throughout New Zealand and for fighting for the interests and advancement of workers’ level of payment and compensation for redundancy. With regard to these issues I am proud to be representing here not only the Labour Party but also the labour movement.