Roy Heather: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1855] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading debate on this bill and I am delighted to say that ACT New Zealand will be supporting it. I congratulate Dr Wayne on his initiative and on having the bill drawn out of the ballot. 
I like Mr Gordon Copeland sat here listening to Ruth Dyson’s speech. I have to say I sat here thinking it must be terrible to live in that sort of a world. It must be very very sad to live in a world where all employers are absolutely evil people and all employees are the best thing since sliced bread and cannot do a thing wrong. I sat here thinking: “I wonder how many people she has employed.” I have been an employer and I know what it is like to employ people. I think that many people on this side of the House probably find themselves in the same position that I do. We have an advantage in that we know what it is like to employ people. We know what it is like to take the risk and put one’s own money on the line in one’s own business. Sadly that is something that I am afraid seems to have escaped this Labour Government. 
I agree with Dr Wayne Mapp when he says that this bill is critical to the growth and productivity of New Zealand. He is absolutely right. Another reason that ACT is delighted to support this bill is that for many months before the last election Dr Muriel Newman’s bill—the Employment Relations (Probationary Period) Amendment Bill—was in the ballot and we are delighted that although Muriel is not here with us the bill is going ahead none the less. We would have actually gone with a probationary period of 6 months which is as Mr Gordon Copeland said United Future policy. We would be more than happy to see the 3-month period extended to 6 months but certainly we will support the 3 months in the absence of absolutely no probationary period at all. 
The benefits of this bill it seems to me are absolutely overwhelming and many speakers have risen to talk about the fact that youth probably will be the biggest beneficiaries of this bill. In fact 12 percent of youth are unemployed versus 3 percent in terms of general unemployment at the moment. When we look at the bill we have to ask ourselves what will actually make employers take someone on. They need if there is no probationary period to be absolutely certain in their minds that this is the right person for the job. It is not always easy to tell. How can they tell when they have somebody in front of them whom they do not know? The person might have references but an employer may not be sure how sound those references are. An employer has no experience of the person—the employer does not know him or her. It is a very difficult position for employers to put themselves in. This bill actually gives employers the opportunity to take somebody on and it gives the young person—if indeed it is a young person—the opportunity too of an easy out if that person decides at the end of the day that the job is not for him or her. 
The thing I like most about this bill is that it offers employers the opportunity to give somebody a chance. It gives a chance to somebody who might not have worked before or who has not had the opportunity to spend any length of time in the workforce. It might give that chance to somebody who is disabled and has been prevented from working previously because of that disability. Perhaps no one was willing to take that person on. The bill gives an employer an opportunity to take a risk with that person to take a chance take a long shot and an employer might find that that person is the best person he or she could have found for the job in the first place. Would that not be a great thing? This Labour Government talks at length about how we must have more people like that employed and this bill gives employers the opportunity to do that. 
Something that I do not think is widely known or perhaps remembered is that prior to 1998 all new public servants were required to serve a period of probation of not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years. Well would that not be a good thing? I say to Dr Mapp that I wish he had put that provision in his bill. That would be a wonderful thing for the public service. Imagine what troubles might have been avoided in the interim. Think of all those golden handshakes that might have been avoided. I think that perhaps the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee should be considering an amendment of that type when it gets to look at the bill. 
I will finish with the fact that many countries do use probation periods. In fact New Zealand appears to be the only OECD country that does not have a probation period. Again this Government lauds itself on doing so well in the OECD and wanting to do better. So what a golden opportunity this is for it too. ACT New Zealand proudly supports the bill and looks forward to its return to the House.