Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 29 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Can I say that it is a great pleasure for me to stand and support Budget 2012. I do not have a lot of notes because I was hoping that I would have something sensible to rebut from the former member of Parliament for Waimakariri but all we got was nasty negative name-calling. 
This Budget is a good Budget this Budget is a sensible Budget this Budget is a pragmatic Budget and this Budget is a sensible realistic Budget. Families in New Zealand know that times are tough. The Labour Party does not know that times are tough. We know that times are tough. We know that we need a Budget that will stimulate jobs. Mr Cosgrove actually said there was nothing in this Budget to grow jobs so I will come back to jobs in a minute but we do need a Budget to stimulate jobs we need a Budget to deliver better services for our families and we need a Budget that is on track for a surplus in 2014-15. And that is what we have got because National is aspirational and we have a plan to actually build a brighter future for all New Zealanders. 
We have said time and time again what the priorities are and I will repeat them because the other side has a slight lack of memory. The first is to responsibly manage our Government finances and we are doing that through the able work of both our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Next is to build a more competitive and productive economy. That actually means more jobs. That does not mean to say that growth in government is growth in the economy. Growth in the economy is different from just growth in government and we are concentrating on more jobs. Then there is delivering public services and finally rebuilding Christchurch and Canterbury which have gone through some horrific shocks and shakes. 
I want to talk a bit about jobs because although Mr Cosgrove says there is nothing to grow jobs in this Budget I say that in the past 2 years we have created 60000 jobs. That is not bad in difficult economic times—60000 jobs. I ask what the Labour Government would have done had it been in Government. Well I can tell you. It would have opposed the 90-day job trial. That trial period has been really successful: 80 percent of employers would not have taken somebody on if it was not for that 90-day trial. It has been credited with creating 13000 new jobs—13000 new jobs. Labour would repeal it costing 13000 new jobs. That policy is designed to give businesses confidence not to take away confidence which is what the Labour Opposition would do. It is to give businesses confidence to take on people that they might not otherwise take on to take on those at the edges of the market whether they are young whether they are old or whether they are new to this country. And it is working because it is credited with creating 13000 jobs. The Labour Party if it was in power would repeal it and that would be the cost. 
The Labour Party opposed the 
 Hobbit 
 law. The 
 Hobbit  
law created 3000 jobs. Every time we have an incentive or a project or a plan to create jobs Labour members oppose it. They are  
Hobbit 
 haters as our Prime Minister likes to say. They are  
Hobbit 
 haters. That law created 3000 jobs. Each one of those jobs is a person. Each one of those jobs involves a worker and those workers have families. Labour is not the party of workers because it would have jeopardised 3000 jobs just like that—3000 jobs plus the 13000 jobs from the 90-day trial. It is adding up. 
Labour members are opposing the convention centre. That is another 900 jobs—900 jobs on top of the 3000 jobs on top of the 13000 jobs which they would jeopardise. On top of that they would arbitrarily and unsustainably raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That is 5000 jobs that they would put in jeopardy. They oppose the convention centre. When it is up and running it will create another 800 jobs. 
I could go on and on. That party is not the party of workers. When we add it up—13000 jobs plus 3000 jobs plus 5000 jobs plus 900 jobs plus 800 jobs—that is a lot of jobs. In times of economic recession in challenging times each of those jobs is precious and we want to make sure that our New Zealanders get those jobs have those jobs and do not have them stolen from them by the Labour Party. 
Its employment relations legislation in itself would take us back 30 years. It would cost even more jobs. We are now in a climate of fair and flexible employment and it is working but every piece of employment legislation and every employment improvement that we suggest those members oppose. They even opposed a piece of legislation that actually had the same wording about secret ballots for strikes as in their Labour Party union mates’ constitution. They even opposed that. 
But talking about jobs I want to talk about workplace safety because it is important that we actually link—and we all have a duty to link—productivity with workplace safety. The two go hand in hand and it is really important that one is not deemed to be a trade-off for the other. I am very proud to have shepherded through a huge investment in workplace safety: $37 million over the next 4 years and that is on top of the $1.5 million for the High Hazards Unit— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is the Minister who stopped the work on mining inspections. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: And they scoff. Mr Mallard is scoffing. Well can I tell you what Labour’s record was? Labour cut funding for health and safety in four of its nine Budgets. It cut health and safety funding in four of its nine Budgets. Our Budget on the other hand has a 20 percent increase in funding for health and safety. Under National health and safety spending has gone up by more than 40 percent—more than 40 percent. What did Labour do? Labour cut it in four of its nine Budgets. 
When Labour came to power the inspectorate was 163. It had 163 health and safety inspectors. Labour ran it down to 141. With National’s extra investment in health and safety because we realise and appreciate and acknowledge that it is such a priority that inspectorate will be increased to 180. Whereas Labour reduced it and ran it down from 163 down to 141 we will increase it to 180. That shows our commitment to workplace safety. Actually the other side does not really know where it is coming from in terms of this issue. I have got two comments about our improvements to workplace safety. One of them says: “The least the government could have done was to wait until the Royal Commission on Pike River Mine reports back in September”. That was from Darien Fenton. The other comment was: “We don’t need to wait for the Royal Commission’s decision.” That was from Andrew Little. I would suggest that they really should put their politics aside and work with us on workplace safety. 
Can I say that I actually congratulate the Council of Trade Unions on being active on the Workplace Health and Safety Council and also on being part of the forum the task force that I have announced which is going to have a look at the workplace health and safety in employment legislation. 
In all Labour’s 9 years of office it tinkered with the legislation three times. In 2002 Labour had the chance to reform it; it tinkered. In 2004 it had the chance to reform it; it tinkered. In 2006 it again had the chance to reform it and it tinkered. National is going to reform the health and safety legislation. We have invested another $37 million over the next 4 years in these tough economic times because we place a priority on workplace safety. We are looking at the health and safety legislation that has been in force for 20 years now. We think it is a timely review with the Pike River commission of inquiry due to report back in September and with the events of the Canterbury earthquake. It is timely that we have a comprehensive review to make sure that our health and safety regime is fit for purpose and where it is not we can make improvements. But what does Labour do? It opposes it. 
I just remind the House that our official rate for workplace incidents is appalling. It is 4.1 fatalities per 100000 workers. That is twice the rate of Australia or the UK. We lose nearly a person a week. The Labour Party can scoff at that but it is serious. When we know that every worker who goes to work in the morning comes home safely at night without injury we will know we have made a difference and $37 million over 4 years will make a huge difference.