Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. I want to dedicate the first reading of this bill to the late Parekura Horomia. I was not able to be present on the day that Parliament paid tribute to Parekura, so promoting this bill will be my tribute to him. I know that he supported this measure, because he was a kind and decent man who was fierce in his advocacy and support for working people and their families. He always stood up for the little guy.

They say that when it comes to politics, timing is everything. Sadly, the timing for this bill, which promotes redundancy protection for working people, could not be more timely. I do say that with a heavy heart. It could not be more timely, because the tsunami of redundancies continues to surge through this land, whether it be the almost 200 jobs gone from Summit Wools Spinners in Ōāmaru in February, to the mining jobs lost on the West Coast and in Huntly late last year, through to the hundreds who lost their jobs throughout New Zealand when Mainzeal Property and Construction collapsed. The surge just keeps on going, and momentum is building. We know that momentum is building because Telecom has warned it will be cutting hundreds of jobs later this year. Last week Fonterra announced it will cut 300 jobs, and New Zealand Post has also signalled the cutting of postal delivery services. Hundreds more jobs will be lost when that plan is unveiled. The members opposite seem to think that that is fine, and they do not seem to have any problem with it, but on this side of the House we do. Just like the tsunami delivered by mother Nature, we know that after the big surge there are others to come. We know this because when large numbers of jobs get sucked out of communities like Ōāmaru, Westport, and Huntly, less money is available to be spent there. When those wages go from those communities, that has a huge downstream effect on small and medium sized businesses, and then those businesses lose income and more jobs go there too. And so the cycle continues.

These are not the job losses that you will see announced on TV or in the newspapers. These are the jobs that are lost under the radar—a job here, three jobs there, another eight jobs more down the road. They are the jobs you will see reflected in the quarterly household labour force survey, which told us that the number of people employed decreased by 23,000 in the December 2012 quarter alone. That represents 23,000 jobs disappearing from our labour market. The statistics are depressing enough, but convert those numbers into people—hard-working people whose jobs have vanished through no fault of their own, people who have children and other dependent relatives relying on those wages, people who once spent those wages at their local businesses—and you will know that 23,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. The devastation caused by this tsunami of job loss is just as heart-wrenching and far-reaching as that caused by nature’s tsunamis.

However, in the aftermath of a natural disaster we all seem able to agree that the victims should be helped and compensated for their loss. This bill before the House today seeks that same safety net and security for the victims of this man-made disaster. Ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders deserve the right to be warned about the approaching tsunami, and they need some compensation to help them pick up the pieces and get on with their lives. Let us face it. Getting on with their lives is a tough proposition in New Zealand at present. If a job gets sucked from underneath you now, you are a long time between jobs in New Zealand because there are just not the new jobs out there. A net job loss of 23,000 jobs in 2012 makes job search an uphill battle. Just ask the 2,500 people who lined up for 150 minimum-wage supermarket jobs at Countdown in Manukau. The job market is dire.

While the young, the middle-aged, and the older workers—men, women, and teenagers—line up for jobs at minimum wage, this Government sits back and waits. It waits for the market to work its miracle. The Government sees the tsunami coming but pretends it is not happening. National is in denial—and have we not already heard that tonight? When the growing tsunami hits the land, the Government just watches the devastation it wreaks on the villages below and says that it cannot do anything about it. “The global financial crisis is causing the tsunami.” it says, and all it can do is sit, watch, and wait for the market.

Labour has a different view of this man-made tsunami. Labour sees it coming. We know the size of it, and we have a plan. Labour looks for the cause and plans to change that, but also we know that the damage can be mitigated—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What is the plan?

—by a Government that is prepared to act, Mr Joyce, a Government that is prepared to act. Labour in Government will not be “relaxed” about leaving its citizens at the mercy of this man-made tsunami, and this bill, Mr Joyce, is an example of the measures that Labour is prepared to take. The National Government will gnash its teeth—and are not National members doing that right now? They will be gnashing their teeth and telling us that imposing the cost of redundancy pay on employers will cause businesses to go under. Well, that is a bit rich from a Government that is deliberately overcharging every single business in New Zealand with hiked-up ACC levies that ought to be lowered. But the truth is that it is not workers’ rights or protections that are causing the tsunami of redundancies sweeping our land; it is a floundering economy—a floundering economy and a Government without a plan or any clues on what to do about it, by its own admission.

At its heart this bill is about fairness. The global financial crisis and this Government’s lack of a plan to get the economy moving are bad news for all of us, but why is it that the burden falls so heavily on workers and their families? Currently, an employer can keep their profit margin, their income, intact while making staff redundant. The employer can keep 100 percent of their income while their employee loses 100 percent of their income. That is just not fair. This bill requires a more even sharing of that burden. It does that by requiring the employer to give at least 4 weeks’ notice of an impending redundancy and by then requiring a redundancy payment of 4 weeks’ pay for the first year of service and 2 weeks’ pay for every year thereafter, up to a maximum of 26 weeks’ pay—not a lot to ask. Most people actually believe that this is a legal right now in New Zealand. The number of people who have said to me: “Oh, no, Sue, you don’t need to put that into law; everyone gets it anyway.”—well, they are quite wrong. It is what they expect of a country like New Zealand today, but it is not currently in the law, and that is not fair.

I also believe that this bill will also stop a whole lot of other unfair practices. In the last 4 weeks I have had two separate Hamilton people relay similar stories to me. One was a 17-year-old; the other a middle-aged mechanical engineer. In both instances they had been made redundant, but, in reality, others had been employed to do their jobs. In the instance of the 17-year-old, another person had been taken on to do the same job as him, just 2 weeks before he lost his job. The mechanical engineer was replaced after being made redundant. They have both been unfairly dismissed, illegally. They received no notice and no payment, and I do believe that if there were a statutory payment for genuine redundancy, then that illegal practice would cease.

Soon David Bennett from the National Party is going to get on his feet. He is going to weep and wail about this bill being about protecting unions, and he will show once again his ignorance—his ignorance in understanding of these issues—because that will be quite wrong. The truth is that people who belong to unions already get redundancy protection. They do not need to have this legislation. It is the people who do not belong to unions who miss out, and this bill will rectify that.

For those who say this will be bad for business, I ask them to take a good long look at what is happening in New Zealand now. Businesses have been going under in record numbers. Has that been caused by worker protections like redundancy pay? No. Has it been caused by big pay demands from unions? No. Has it been caused by inflexible employment laws? No. It is none of the above; it is quite the opposite. The cause has been the global financial crisis brought about by a lack of standards or regulation, and a Government that has no plan to grow the economy. What is National’s answer? It wants to reduce workers’ rights and wages, as it plans to do with a bill introduced to Parliament just a few weeks ago. Again it has come up with the wrong solutions, because it has not identified the cause of the problem it is trying to fix. The problem this bill is trying to fix is the lack of protection for ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who are losing their jobs and incomes every day, every week, through no fault of their own. I commend this bill to the House.

Tonight there will be a revelation because I am actually going to agree with Sue Moroney for once. Sue Moroney said in her speech that David Bennett would stand up here next and say that this bill, the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, is about protecting unions. It is not about protecting unions. This bill hurts unions. This bill gives a compulsory requirement for employers to pay out a redundancy payment. That is the very thing people join a union for, to get that kind of protection in the negotiation process. This bill hurts unions.

How dare Labour Party members come to this House and attack unions? How dare they come into this House and take away the very right that unions try to deliver to their members? How dare that member, Sue Moroney, whom I have heard time and time again in Hamilton speak of her heritage in the union movement? She often says that when we go to public meetings. She talks about her involvement in unions and how she solved the world’s problems in the union movement. Today she is attacking unions—she is attacking unions through this bill. She wants to take away the fundamental right that unions negotiate for. Unions negotiate for terms and conditions. Sue Moroney knows better! Sue Moroney knows better than all the unions in New Zealand. She knows what will be the requirement for redundancy, and that is 4 weeks plus 2 weeks for each year.

Well, I talk to you and ask you: what about those unions that have negotiated more than that, more generous conditions than that? What about them? What about them? The Labour Party is saying that they should not have those generous conditions. The Labour Party is saying that this is the standard that they should be going for. What about all those people who have given years to the union movement, have worked on the picket lines, and have gone out there and worked for those unions, only to find that the Labour Party shafts them in this House? That is what Labour members do. They shaft their own people. Once they get in and sit in cushy chairs, they want to be in control of the power of their people, not the unions themselves. I find it disgraceful that a Labour Party would bring a bill like this to this House.

What is more disgraceful is the word that she used. I knew Sue was going to use this word; she always uses this word. It is the word “fairness”. Sue used the word “fairness”—the word “fairness”—after 7 minutes of that speech not talking about the bill but talking about people getting unemployed, and then saying that the reason for that is the global financial crisis, which it is. This bill is not about fairness, Sue. This is not about fairness; this is about the Sue Moroneys of this world telling people that they know better than those people do. It is about the Sue Moroneys of this world saying: “I know how much you’re entitled to.” How does Sue Moroney know what some worker is entitled to? That is what I want to know. How can you, Sue Moroney, say that you know what everybody is entitled to? Sue Moroney certainly does not know what everybody is entitled to; I can guarantee you that.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: David Bennett thinks we should just get rid of the minimum wage.

The Labour Party is waking up. Iain Lees-Galloway, the man who gave away transport to Julie Anne Genter—it is good to see you in the House, Iain. Why are you here? I do not know. You are not representing the Labour Party transport policy.

Then there is Darien Fenton. Darien Fenton is a great member of the Labour Party. She is a person who stands up all the time at select committee hearings for members of the union movement. I want to see Darien Fenton support this bill, shafting the union movement. I want to see her stand up and do that. Then behind her is that great man from the south of the country Andrew Little. He wants State Highway 3, which Iain Lees-Galloway does not actually know is a road. Mr Little will be standing up soon and he will be shafting and putting the knife into the union movement—the very movement that he led. How can you do that when you come to this House—take advantage of your position and destroy the union movement?

This is not good legislation. It is not good for employers, it is not good for unions; it is Sue Moroney telling the world that she knows best. That is what this bill is. That is typical Labour left politics: it knows best, it will not let anyone negotiate. How dare somebody go into a contractual arrangement around their services? How dare somebody actually go and negotiate something like that? How dare we actually trust our people to have the strength to negotiate? Why would we trust our own people when we have 120 people in this room who know better because they have been in Sue Moroney’s position and they know what everybody deserves? That is a shameful, shameful approach by the Labour Party.

💬 Sue Moroney: This is the minimum. It is just the minimum they deserve.

Oh, this is the minimum. This is the minimum that the Labour Party wants. That is just a disgrace. We hear the talk from the Labour Party about no plan. Well, I want Sue Moroney to say that in front of Tim Macindoe and me in the election campaign in Hamilton over the next year and a half, because we are looking forward to having you come to Hamilton and say that, Sue Moroney.

Iain Lees-Galloway is not going to support the Waikato Expressway, which is the biggest provider in the last 3 years of new jobs in Hamilton, which the Government provided. Iain Lees-Galloway will not be supporting that. Sue Moroney will not be supporting it. Will they be supporting the convention centre? No. Will they be supporting irrigation in Canterbury? No. Will they be supporting any growth in the New Zealand economy? No. All the plans that have been put forward by this Government, which are good for New Zealand infrastructure, and which provide jobs, are not supported by that side. Those members do not support them. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway wants a public-private partnership for the Waikato Expressway. That is not happening under this Government, mate.

This is a good Government. This is a Government that delivers for New Zealanders. This is a Government that trusts our people. We do not need a Sue Moroney to tell our people what they are entitled to, and we will not shaft the union movement like the Labour Party is doing here tonight. We will let the unions go into negotiations, as they have done for many, many a year, and we will let them have that role. It is a disgrace for the Labour Party. I do not know why you are wearing red, Sue. I do not think you should wear red in this House after shafting the union movement like that. It is not in the best interests of you or your party.

Personal choice is what it is really about, if you look at it. At the end of the day, we all know the difference between the left and the right, the good and the bad. It is very simple. On this side, the good side, we believe in giving people personal choice. We trust our people. We believe in our people. We believe in our country. On the left, they do not believe in our people, they do not believe in our country; they believe only in themselves. They believe that people like Sue Moroney can tell an employee how much they are entitled to get as their redundancy. Well, I did not know that Sue Moroney had those kinds of skills and strengths and attributes. I have learnt that tonight. I do not believe in them, but I have learnt tonight that Sue Moroney can just pick out of the bag what the minimum requirements are for redundancy. How do you have that power, Sue? What gives you that power to just set a minimum requirement? I believe she does not have that power. Nobody in this room has that power.

What we have is the ability to give our people the power to negotiate those rights and responsibilities. We have got the ability in this House to encourage the union movement to actually keep those negotiations going. It is a sad, sad day when Labour Party members come into this House—they are out of the unions now; they may be funded by them, but they are out of them—and try to take advantage of that movement, because they do not want to give away control. They still think they control those unions and this is their way of expressing control over the union movement, and that is a sad day for the Labour Party.

This bill does not deserve to go through the House and we will not be supporting it in that case.

I am very pleased to stand and support this Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, but I must say that I am gobsmacked by that speech by David Bennett. I am almost speechless—although he did not quite manage to put in his best line, his best line ever, which is: “The Government is not here to make people’s lives better.”

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s right. That’s what he thinks.

That is right—the best line. So the member did not quite meet his standard tonight. I am sure we will go back over Hansard and find some other pearls of wisdom, but I have never heard so much ridiculous nonsense in all my time in the House. Even 3 years ago when this bill was in front of Parliament, I did not hear anything quite so mad and ridiculous from that member, who, I suspect, probably said a whole lot of silly things along the same lines that year. Yes, I am gobsmacked.

You know, 3 years ago the Government did have a chance to do the right thing when this bill was in front of Parliament. They failed by voting down this bill and they are going to do it again tonight. What they are doing by doing that is failing the thousands of workers who have been laid off through no fault of their own, often without notice, and without compensation to get them through the hard times while they look for another job.

I would like to talk about choice and the allegation from the member David Bennett that people should be free to negotiate. Well, I have met a lot of workers who have been free to negotiate and who actually have been laid off with nothing. They get no compensation, no notice, and are expected to try to support their families through the hard times while they look for another job—no sympathy, no nothing. It is really humiliating. It is a tragedy, a personal tragedy for each of those workers and their families. It does have an awful impact. Anyone who has ever been made redundant—and I am sure that member is going to be made redundant next year—will understand the humiliation of redundancy for them and their families. [Interruption] He is over here. Here is over here.

Let us talk about those who can negotiate redundancy pay and why this bill is fair. Let us talk about Lesley Longstone. The incompetence of the Minister of Education meant—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Did she get the minimum rate?

No, she did not get 4 weeks pay plus 2 weeks for the half a year that she had been there. She got $425,000 in a golden handshake because Hekia Parata could not get on with her—$425,000. Why is that OK when other workers get nothing? Why is that OK, David Bennett? Let us think about some others here. Don Elder—how much did Don Elder get? Don Elder got a quarter of a million dollars extra pay plus gardening leave when he made a botch-up of Solid Energy.

💬 Sue Moroney: Unbelievable.

Unbelievable. He got a quarter of a million dollars plus gardening leave—money to stay home and allegedly work—because he made a botch-up of Solid Energy. Then you look at people like Paul Reynolds in Telecom, who got $1.75 million in a golden handshake following his departure from Telecom. And Fonterra, which we have been talking about tonight—

💬 Andrew Little: Facing severe hardship.

Facing severe hardship, that is right; he was trying to face the hardship that was coming. Then Fonterra paid its former chief executive, Andrew Ferrier, $8.2 million in a golden goodbye when he left the cooperative in 2011.

This bill is a very, very modest measure. The member David Bennett clearly does not understand minimums. He clearly does not support the minimum wage, because that is not about telling people what they should be paid, that is providing a floor for every worker in New Zealand, below which they cannot be paid. That is what this bill will do.

The National Government could do the right thing on the eve of the Budget. Tomorrow when it will be boasting about the jobs that it has not created, it needs to think about the people who have lost their jobs. It needs to think very hard about that, and do something right for a change. It had the chance to support this bill tonight and send it to a select committee.

It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, that luminary of economic prosperity and business growth, the member Darien Fenton.

💬 Darien Fenton: “Dah-rien” Fenton.

Darien—oh I most apologise. I most apologise. Let us not take these things personally. The member Sue Moroney talks about the tsunami of something else and, oh, I could not really make much sense of it, other than the fact that I felt like I was drowning. However, the ironic factor in this, which is not actually lost on any New Zealander, is the fact that that party—in fact, everyone on that side of the House—virtually vote against everything that we are trying to do to create the business environment from which jobs will grow. We cannot just put seeds in a pot and miraculously make jobs grow; you actually have to do things to get the economic settings right.

The Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill is another very good example of how the Labour Party seems to think that businesses are some sort of bottomless pit of money and that they should just shower it around their employees, regardless of the relationship, effort, and engagement that those employees have had with the employer. Labour misses the fundamental cornerstone of business, and that is that businesses must produce a product, or provide a service, that no one else is providing that is either cheaper than someone else’s or is of better quality than someone else’s. They must provide it in a way in which they can actually make a profit. So they must sell it for more than what it cost them, and they must grow their market to have some sort of scale. That means they must invest and take risks. None of this seems to make sense to anyone on that side of the House, or the people over there in the old “watermelon patch”. At the end of the day, if a business does not do those things, it will not succeed. It is as plain and simple as that. It is not just the case that the employer can get out the old xerox and run off a few $100 bills just to take care of the needs of the sort of Labour Party fantasyland stuff. Of course, if the employer was the Green Party, it probably could, because we all know that Russel Norman is gearing up his photocopier, because as soon as he gets his hands on the Treasury benches, he wants to push “Go” on the old photocopier and fire out those $100 bills, all the while being supported by its friends in the Labour Party.

This sort of bill is really the economic business equivalent of pushing water uphill with a rake. It just does not make any sense whatsoever and you end up with a big mess on your hands. I understand that this bill was actually formerly introduced by the member Darien Fenton—Darien Fenton, the economic luminary of business growth and prosperity. It is no surprise to me that it lacks the ability to stand up to any economic scrutiny whatsoever. It is full of socialist, sort of, union ideology. Unlike my colleague David Bennett, I will not stand here in defence of the unions, but what I will stand in defence of is their ability to negotiate with employers for what is right for the employer-employee relationship. I will stand up for that. That is exactly what this bill does not do, so that member’s list ranking is plummeting through the floor as we speak. That is a terrible shame.

This bill would have employees receiving redundancy after 12 months of employment. If anything, if there is going to be a tsunami, there will be a tsunami across the small to medium sized enterprises in this country that just simply cannot sustain that sort of crazy talk. It just does not make sense—it just does not make sense. This is the loony Labour Party sort of nonsense that we have become so used to. New Zealanders love it. They lap it up. This disincentivises the hiring of staff. This is what the Public Advisory Group on Restructuring and Redundancy said: “It disincentivises the hiring of staff, reduces wages, and it will mean that there will be more temporary contracts and contract workers.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What are the unions doing, anyway?

What would the unions say about that—what would the unions say about that? It puts additional stress on businesses, it will run some businesses out of work altogether, and it reduces their competitiveness. That is my wingman—my wingman—Tau Henare over there. This bill undermines businesses and does not make any sense whatsoever. It is just another effort from the Labour Party that I think really expresses and sums up what the Labour Party of today is all about, and that is that it actually does not know what it is about. This bill will not be supported by the National Party.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, and I congratulate the Labour member Sue Moroney on bringing this bill to the House.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is a bill that will provide compassionate and necessary minimum standards for those many workers who have lost their jobs and find themselves, through no fault of their own, made redundant from their workplaces. The previous speaker, Mike Sabin, was incredibly stingy in his approach about this.

The bill provides for 4 weeks’ notice of redundancy to the worker. That is really important. If a worker is about to lose their job—a job they have held for many years, say—then the more notice the better. It gives a bolster of time for the worker to be able to start the process of looking for another job. The bill also provides redundancy compensation of 4 weeks’ pay if the worker has worked there for at least a year, and 2 weeks’ pay for each extra year, up to a maximum of 26 weeks. So that means that the worker would get 26 weeks’ compensation only if they have worked at the same place for 12 years or more.

I am not sure whether many members in this House have ever experienced being made redundant, but I can assure you it is a traumatic experience. During the recent cross-party manufacturing inquiry, which did not include the other side of the House, I heard an incredibly moving and brave submission from a woman in a small town who had lost her job because the factory she worked in had to close down. She described how redundancy affected not just her financial stability but also her self-esteem, which undermined her ability to confidently apply for other jobs—not that there were many jobs available. She had to shift from the manufacturing sector, where she had worked for 17 years, into retail. She counted herself lucky to find a job at all, since they are very scarce in New Zealand and especially in small-town New Zealand.

This woman was one of over 40,000 or so people in New Zealand in the manufacturing sector who have lost their jobs in the last 4 years. She could easily have been one of the more than 5,000 Public Service employees who are no longer providing public services to us. This woman was luckier than many workers who are made redundant, because she belonged to a union, Mr Bennett. She had a collective employment agreement with her employer, and so she did receive some compensation to tide her over through the months that it took her to find another job in her small town. Her union had been able to bargain for those provisions. It is worth mentioning that this will become increasingly difficult when the Government introduces changes to the Employment Relations Act that include measures that will make it harder for workers to join a union and bargain collectively. In this type of employment relations environment that the Government is fostering, it becomes increasingly important to have minimum redundancy provisions enshrined in legislation.

This bill did not come out of nowhere. Most other OECD countries have some form of rights for workers to have notice of, and compensation for, redundancy. Many OECD countries have much better provisions for workers generally, which really does make us less of an attractive working environment for the skilled workers we desperately need to keep in New Zealand and attract to New Zealand. Without redundancy provisions, employees have less incentive to make long-term investments in their jobs, and the Government is left bearing the bulk of the cost of supporting and re-establishing them into new jobs. This is a recommendation from the public advisory group. There were employer representatives in that group who supported this and acknowledged that this is a basic right, and a cost to employers that they should bear. We will be supporting this bill.

What interesting debates we have heard this evening on the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, some of them perhaps with the tongue slightly in the cheek. But there is truth and heartfelt concern in all that has been said on this side of the House, because—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What a load of cobblers.

Here we go—here we go. It does not take the Labour members long to revert to type, does it? They climb into bed with the Greens, there is a touch of consideration over policy, they get it wrong, and then they go back to what they do best. They go back to what is safe for them: kicking employers and interfering with employment relations. Labour cannot resist it.

We saw this legislation—Andrew Little will remember; he has got a good sense of history—in the last three periods of Labour Governments: under Norman Kirk, under David Lange, and then under Helen Clark. Some of us are old enough to bear the scars of those dreadful periods of uncertainty, insecurity, and being told what to do by an overpowering Government. We saw this legislation then, and now, lest we forget, it comes galloping out from the same stable, this time as a member’s bill. It is a try-on. It is not real. It is to give the unions a fright. It is to give employees the idea that someone is on their side. Sue Moroney does it in the firm knowledge that it will not be passed, so she can do it comfortably, and the union sycophants—the four of them over there, sitting tensely, tensely—

💬 Maggie Barry: In a bloc.

In a bloc, yes—worry.

Honestly, this is just the same as when Bill English has to explain to Labour about its capital gains tax. This legislation will be applied only to businesses and will therefore discourage the productive sector from activity. It will have the effect of reducing job opportunities and destroying normal labour relations between employers and employees by removing any sense of independence or security from both parties. It is a classic case of Labour saying that it knows best and that this is what you must do.

National believes that employment law must expand job opportunities and provide an appropriate combination of flexibility and fairness both for employees and for employers. Both groups agree that it should be so, so why are we doing this? Why are we imposing this on people? This bill does not provide flexibility. It is as rigid as a waratah fencing standard. Fairness does not come into the calculation.

Let us see what it does. Let us do a little bit of analysis. All employees who work for more than 12 months are entitled to redundancy compensation. Every employee to whom the part—new Part 6E—applies is entitled to receive a notice of dismissal of no less than 4 weeks, and compensation for redundancy of 2 weeks’ remuneration for each subsequent full or partial year of continuous employment, up to a maximum entitlement of 26 weeks’ remuneration. The Minister of Labour must run the public education campaign on the minimum entitlements and report back to the House on the campaign.

What is all that about? What will this do, and what would the effect of this sort of proposal be should it ever become law? If it ever were to become law, what effect would it have on the unions? What about the collectives? What about the union negotiators who know the people, know the employers, and know what they can do? No, cut them right out of the deal. Let us picture just a few scenarios, because over there we have got the experience of the unions. Over here we have got people who have been both employees and employers. Over there—

💬 Sue Moroney: And here.

Well, I do not know. I do not know what Sue Moroney did before she came into Parliament. But I would say that the first thing that would happen is that this will be a big disincentive to hire more staff. Just think of it down on the West Coast, which is already knocked about. Employers are just getting some breaks. Tourism numbers are lifting. Employers are asking: “Shall we take on a new person in these somewhat shaky times, or shall we make do, take on temporary staff, maybe on contract, so that if things do go wrong, at least we will not be wiped out completely?”.

We have heard the sorts of figures that could be involved in terms of cost to business. This bill would create a disincentive for employers to retain and to promote staff. The levels that this legislation determines would make redundancy unaffordable for most businesses. For most businesses, redundancy is a last resort. Employers actually do like their staff. Why does Labour always paint employers as Dickensian, evil characters?

Finally, this bill is unnecessary. If it is so good, how come Labour did not see fit to bring it in during its—

Order! [Interruption] Order! Your time has expired. Thank you.

What a pleasure it is to follow that eloquent member from the National Party, Chris Auchinvole. Usually he follows me, but this time I have the pleasure of being after him, which is very interesting. I must say he is on another planet from most of the workers whom I actually talk to. I was interested too to hear the interpretation of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chair, David Bennett. What a unique interpretation! Obviously he has got a red banner high above his head that I did not know that he ever had. I must congratulate Sue Moroney on getting her bill drawn from the ballot. It is a hard job to get a bill drawn from the ballot.

New Zealand First is going to support this bill only to the select committee at this stage. We want to hear from employers. We want to hear from employees. We want to know whether or not this bill is workable in this economic climate that we actually find ourselves in. In years gone by people did not have to worry about redundancy, people did not have to worry about the price of groceries, and people did not have to worry about trying to find another job, but under this National Government jobs are scarcer than hen’s teeth. I know that when we look in our local papers the number of jobs that are available is minimal, and it is shrinking by the day. Today redundancy is a big word, a big factor that looms over every worker’s head. It is a heavy load. To be made redundant in this situation is a really life-changing event. It can mean the poverty line, sinking below the poverty line. The worst of it is that there is no legislated minimum level of compensation for people faced with redundancy. It is a sad indictment on New Zealand that we sit alone among First World countries in offering little assistance to workers who are faced with redundancy.

It is ironic that despite the workers facing hardship, the large corporates continue to pay out the corporate elite with their golden handshakes. Month after month we see this happening. We see it on the TV and we read about it in the newspapers: this one stepped down and got a huge payout; another one stepped down and got a huge payout. I know that Darien Fenton read out a long list of these people. Of course, at the top of that was Lesley Longstone from the Ministry of Education. It is almost as if there is one set of rules for the workers and another set for the fat cats at the top of the pile. We know that that is what is happening.

How can you reconcile this with the workers—the people who are battling, who get up every day and slog their intestines out for the minimum wage? There are lots and lots of them. In service stations and in kiwifruit packing houses there are a whole lot. These people have got no protection. They are our poorest and our most vulnerable workers. It is these workers who are disproportionately affected by this gap in the employment legislation. In the current financial climate we have witnessed huge job losses—redundancies from KiwiRail, Fonterra, the Department of Conservation, Mainzeal Property and Construction, Summit Wool Spinners, Telecom, and Tīwai Point, just to mention a few big organisations. We have not mentioned the small shops in our towns that we see closing up on a regular basis and having closing-down sales. These are all examples of businesses downscaling, cutting back, or going under in this economic environment. This is not the brighter future that people were anticipating, or families, or workers. Small businesses and medium-sized businesses are finding this environment tough—really tough. Up and down provincial New Zealand they are finding it tough.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.