Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4041] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank colleagues for a very interesting insight into the Standing Orders. I do not think that Labour Government members will be surprised to hear that the ACT party will be opposing this bill. But I do want to say this: I think that the member in charge of this bill Mr Mark Peck is one of Parliament’s better parliamentarians. It was good to see him sit in this House listen very intently to what Mr Roger Sowry had to say and actually take it on board. I think that we have had a rare moment in this House. I always like members’ day and today there have been three excellent speeches following Mark Peck’s speech from Roger Sowry Dail Jones and Paul Adams. I have learnt something from every speech about this vexed issue. I was also very conscious that we had in Mr Peck someone who was listening to the concerns of members and taking those concerns on board. I found the concerns raised by those speakers to be overpowering and overwhelming. 
I hope that Mr Peck does not mind me saying this but when I went across the Chamber and asked him whether this was his bill originally he said it had been in Rick Barker’s name. I knew that this was not Mark Peck’s bill from the start because when one reads it one sees that it has a political statement in the commentary at the front of it. It states that a terrible thing happened with the Weddel meatworks closure back in 1994 and it goes on to state that the Minister of Agriculture was predicting more closures of meatworks. That is a political statement. Mr Peck recognised it as such and said it was a reference to the former National Minister not to the Minister in this Government. Yes he agrees with that. What we have here is a bit of fun in Parliament dating from the time when Mr Barker was in Opposition. The bill has wound its way through the ballot and now Mr Peck the parliamentarian has had to take it over. 
Following on from the previous three speakers I have some questions for Mr Peck. He might not be able to answer them immediately but I want him to consider them when this legislation is going through the Commerce Committee. First what is the cost of this bill? What will this bill cost New Zealand? Will it cost nothing a little bit or a lot? I do not think we know the answer to that. We have no idea what this bill will cost because we cannot perceive its full impact. It will not cost taxpayers anything but in reshaping the parties who carry the risk in the event of a business collapse there will certainly be costs. The cost will not just relate to the shifting of preference from one creditor to another; it will be a cost in terms of changed and potentially damaging behaviour. When Mr Peck as chair of the Commerce Committee considers this bill I ask him to give hard consideration to what the economic costs will be to New Zealand. 
Second I ask him who will pay those costs. I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know who will pay for the cost of this bill. What we do know is that workers’ redundancy payments are to shift up the list of creditors when there is a collapse. But who loses out? If workers who were to have lost out will now receive a redundancy payment someone else has to lose. I ask Mr Peck not to treat this legislation as a free lunch for working people—much as our hearts might go out to them. Who will actually front up and make the payment? I heard Jill Pettis and Damien O’Connor call out that I do not have a heart and that might be true. However I ask them to consider whether they have a head. If they have heads could they apply them to answering the question of who will pay? It appears to me that Mr Peck thinks this legislation is somehow a free lunch. But someone will pay. 
I now ask Mr Peck to consider my third question: what will be the ripple effect of this bill on the economy?