Wilkinson Kate: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Wilkinson Kate: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16522] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak today and reinforce our Prime Minister’s message to all New Zealanders. It is 2011 and New Zealanders now have a choice. The contrast is stark; the choices are obvious. New Zealanders can choose this year. They can choose to vote for National with a focus on spending less borrowing less and growing the economy or they can choose to vote for Labour which wants to focus on spending more borrowing more taxing more and shrinking the economy. 
This Government has worked hard over the past couple of years to introduce policies that will be conducive to long-term economic growth in order to build a stronger economy. We have been focused on a creating an environment that provides New Zealanders with opportunities to succeed in life because we want to see families prospering. We want them to be proud of this country and what it has to offer and we want them to raise their children safe in the knowledge that they will have every opportunity to achieve great things. Already this year we have seen a stark difference laid out between this Government and the Opposition. On the one hand we have an aspirational Government with a proven track record in managing the economy in tough times. On the other we have a tax-and-spend Opposition that wants New Zealanders to be depend on the State for everything including their jobs. 
New Zealanders have a clear choice this year and just recently we have again seen a prime example of a policy that clearly distinguishes National from Labour. The 90-day trial period was one of the first policies that the Government introduced following the 2008 election. It came into effect on 1 March 2009. At that time we spoke at length about how trial periods would provide opportunities for New Zealand workers and how they would give businesses the confidence to take on workers that they might not otherwise have taken on. This policy was aimed and had always been aimed at getting more New Zealanders into work. It is used all over the world and we know from international experience that it actually does work. Under the previous Labour Government small businesses were scared of hiring people. They did not want to run the risk of taking someone on only to find out the person was unsuitable and then to end up in court. They needed to be given the confidence that this National Government gave them by introducing a 90-day trial period so that they could take on workers whom they might not otherwise have taken on. Without that trial period there was a huge hindrance to growth for small businesses. Business owners were reluctant to expand their operations because of fear and a lack of confidence and jobs that could have been created were abandoned. 
National set out to fix that. Labour’s own Small Business Advisory Group had found that the introduction of trial periods was the single most important change that could be made in employment legislation. That advisory group was right. The 90-day trial period has been a success. Everywhere I go businesses tell me success stories about how they took someone on whom they would not have taken on otherwise. The Department of Labour report  
Trial Employment Periods: An Evaluation of the First Year of Operation  
backed that up. It stated that 40 percent of employers said the last person they hired on a trial period would not have been taken on if this measure had not been available. 
Recently the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research analysed data from the first 6 months since the introduction of the trial period. Its conclusions are worth reading. The economist who wrote the report spoke on the radio about what the data showed. The impact was in terms of job numbers and that impact was 13000 jobs—13000 jobs. The data indicated that the 90-day trial had the positive impact of creating 13000 jobs in small businesses. That is 13000 people who would not have had jobs otherwise. That is 13000 families who are not standing in the dole queue. That is 13000 people who were given a chance to prove themselves. The Opposition’s response and the Council of Trade Union’s response was to say that was feeble. To call 13000 jobs feeble I think is ridiculous. I think we need to ask Helen Kelly why she is so opposed to small businesses wanting to hire new staff. What does she have against people getting jobs with these companies? We know that 96 to 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium sized enterprises yet Labour does not want them to succeed. It would take away one of the very instruments that has just resulted in an extra 13000 jobs. 
Why does Labour not like small businesses? Why does Labour not want small businesses to succeed? Why does Labour not want them to hire more people and create more jobs—why? I think Labour needs to answer that because the analysis says there are 13000 more jobs because of one of National’s policies. That is only one of our policies. If Labour had its way none of those 13000 people would be in work. I ask Labour members to pick up the phone and be up front with every one of those 13000 families and to tell them that Labour would sacrifice their livelihoods on the altar of ideology. I ask Labour members to tell them that Labour does not believe they deserve to have jobs. They should ring them up and tell them why Labour does not believe they deserve to have their jobs. Labour members should tell those people that Labour will make it harder for them to get a job in the future. 
While I am at it I say that Labour should call another 6000 New Zealanders. It should ring them up and tell them to join the dole queue so that Labour can introduce a $15 an hour minimum wage—it should tell them that. It should tell that to the 6000 people who will lose their jobs if Labour has its way and increases the hourly minimum wage to $15 an hour which we know is simply not sustainable. We wish it was sustainable but unfortunately it is simply not sustainable. We are not prepared to jeopardise 6000 New Zealanders—6000 jobs—for ideology. We will not allow that to happen. 
Suddenly the Labour members had another idea. They said “Let’s bribe the public. We’ll give them another holiday. We will Mondayise it.” This is Labour’s solution in respect of the issue of productivity. This is its great new idea. Do members know what it means? Because this year Anzac Day falls on Easter Monday Labour wants to Mondayise it. Does the House know how many times Anzac Day has fallen on Easter Monday? 
Amy Adams 
: Is it once? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Never! Never before has Anzac Day fallen on Easter Monday. Does the House know when this will next occur? When will Easter Monday next occur on Anzac Day? It is in 2095! This is Labour’s great idea! 
Our trial period works well. This Government backs New Zealanders. We set out to give small businesses the confidence to take on new staff and they have responded. Employers want to take people on and they want to take a chance on someone whom they might not otherwise have taken on. We all know that there will always be rogue employers that will make the rest look bad. I have no time for bad employers. The Labour Opposition will know that we have doubled the penalties relating to bad employers because we do not condone bad behaviour by bad employers. But the majority of employers are fair-minded hard-working Kiwis who want to see their company or their business and the people whom they employ succeed. I back them to achieve that. Trial periods will be extended to all employers from 1 April this year because we want to create more jobs. If this policy created 13000 jobs in small businesses members can imagine what it could do for all businesses. 
This policy has made a difference in New Zealand just as it has overseas. It is one of many policies that this Government has introduced to assist New Zealanders with the choices and opportunities available to them. What we do is to allow flexibility and choice. We are also allowing New Zealanders to actually cash in 1 week of holiday if they want to—only if they want to. If they do not want to do so they do not have to. They might be told that no they cannot do so as— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.