Bennett Paula: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett Paula: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6730] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I thought it was perhaps time that we dealt with some realities and some realities for everyone—not the rhetoric not the maybes not the wishes but actually some realities. I must pick up on one of Mr Gosche’s comments about unemployment being where it is and I certainly agree that elements of those skill shortages cannot be ignored or underestimated at all. But I ask the member to let us also not forget that on average 680 of those workers leave New Zealand permanently each week and that is something we do not have in common with those other countries that have a probationary period. 
Let us deal with some of the realities of what businesses employees and those who wish to get a job are actually working for. Before coming into Parliament I worked in the recruitment field and on a daily basis dealt with businesses and those who were looking for a role. Some of them were looking for first-time roles and some of them were looking for a change in employment and I dealt with people from labour hire through to middle and top management positions. So I was not dealing with just those at the upper level; I was dealing equally with those working in factories and in labour hire those doing all sorts of stuff. 
I wonder whether Labour members have recently spoken to many new immigrants. Such immigrants were coming daily into our offices and asking for us to please get someone to give them a go. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You don’t have an office. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I am talking about when I was in recruitment. When I was in my job we had people who daily— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ah! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: When I was in my real job and working at it every day we literally had new immigrants walking in and saying: “Could you please help us find that job and give us a go?”. From what we were hearing they were not being given a fair go. That is certainly what we hear from Maori it is certainly what we hear from young people and it is certainly what we hear from Pacific Islanders. But this takes a change of attitude by employers and I know that the Government is working on this and we back the Government because some of that does take. 
Equally it takes us to give them a chance. Those people were saying they would work for nothing for a few weeks and do whatever it takes to get in and actually prove themselves. Of course that is illegal and rightly so. We do not want the situation where people are not being paid for the work they do. But we need to loosen the law and make it easier for employers to take a risk with someone. 
Let me deal with some of the realities. Businesses are currently struggling to get staff. There is a shortage of skilled workers and for that matter of unskilled workers because people are leaving New Zealand at such a rate. They are leaving because of high taxes and for a variety of other reasons such as not wishing to live under a socialist Government that is not fulfilling their needs. In reality businesses cannot afford to have a revolving door for employees. They cannot afford to be churning people through. The Government put forward the concept that some employers would take people on and after 89 days flick them back out the door without any reason given or those people having any rights. 
Let us deal with some realities. Businesses cannot afford to do that. Businesses cannot afford to turn people over every 3 months—because of the training involved because of the upset to the work environment and because it does not work for them. 
There is not a lot of room to move in business these days. Gone are the days of a nice little office environment where there was a secretary for every middle-manager and above. Gone are the days when office juniors were walking through. Gone are the days when there was that level of employment in offices. We now live in a technological age and fewer people are needed for that work. There is less fat in business and one person does a lot more jobs than was the case 15 or 20 years ago. 
So when businesses are looking to replace someone or looking to fill a job they are looking for someone with specific skills. When taking someone on they say they can no longer give the person a year to get tuned into the environment get used to the job and actually do it. They need someone who is fairly quickly going to get up to speed and fill that gap. They then invest a lot of training in that person and invest money in what they do. We do not have that same number of employees. Of course the Department of Labour might be an exception which perhaps had 67 people who were paid $80000 or more in 2002 and now has 255 people who are paid $80000 or more. That is how in touch it is. 
But now we are saying to employers they have to employ on aptitude and attitude. They can no longer employ purely on skill. That means taking a risk. They can no longer say they need someone who has experience in A B and C and has worked in this environment because those people are not out there any more. So they have to employ on aptitude and they have to employ on attitude. They have to believe that the person has the right attitude to be turning up each day and have to believe that the person has the ability to learn. That is a damn sight riskier than it used to be. 
So people need a chance to walk through the door and prove themselves. They need an opportunity to show they have that aptitude and attitude because there is no test for those things and we do not always see it at an interview. And those people as is shown in the statistics Mr Gosche was talking about are the very ones who are not being given a shot at it They are not being given opportunities to get through the door prove themselves and then perhaps not only get that job but be promoted within the company. They might see opportunities grow considerably not just for themselves but for their families and their whole means turned round. 
I want to talk briefly about the amendments put forward by Wayne Mapp. I think this is an indication of identifying that there was room to move that we were not into taking rights off everybody as has been claimed time and time again but that people still have their human rights as they quite rightly should and that we were interested in evening things up and making sure it was a win for everyone. 
We need to talk about who actually wins under this bill and who gets the opportunities to go further ahead and get their foot in the door. The Labour Government makes it sound as if National members were the big bad ones who would allow no rights for employees and businesses would churn workers through every 3 months and spit them out. Let us deal with some of the realities. The top companies that do well financially as we well know are the ones that best look after and support their employees. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Dead right. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: That is a fact. It is a fact for small business for medium-sized business and for big business. Those that would churn employees through every 3 months would not have a successful business financially or otherwise. They know that as well as anyone else does. They know that in this day of skill shortages they cannot just take employees on and train them up for a bit and then spit them out 3 months later. Any smart business knows that that is not the way to do it whether it is a small business or big business. Small businesses at the moment with the compliance costs and the struggle they have to make it every week in business are struggling more than anyone else. Yet the Labour Government thinks that business people are driving around in big cars and have lots of money and are getting rich The reality is that they are struggling more than anyone else. 
The other ones who will be torn from this are businesses like mechanics that turn round and say they would give a young person a go see whether there is an aptitude mechanically and take the person on for a few months to see whether the person likes it and whether it works for him or her. But those businesses are not going to do that and do not currently do that. These kids are not being given a go. That is something National was certainly looking at addressing in this bill that Dr Mapp has put forward. 
I think he has addressed some of the concerns that were there. We look at the amendments that are going through and I think there is every opportunity for us to have addressed some of the concerns that came through except from those extreme people who were not willing to listen at all to any reason or the realities out there. Dr Mapp is looking at putting forward a very sensible amendment to reduce the period for seasonal or short-term employment. I also commend him for an amendment that clarifies the situation where someone has been working for the company on a temporary basis and is then employed on a permanent basis. That probation period should go back to the first day of work with the company. I say good on New Zealand First for raising that matter. 
I am just so happy to stand up and speak in support of this bill. I certainly recommend it and think it is a great thing for New Zealand. It brings us in line with other OECD countries. I certainly put my vote forward for it.