Wilkinson Kate: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Let us remember back to 2008 when from listening to Labour one would have thought the sky was going to fall in and bad employers would be named and shamed all because we introduced an optional 90-day trial period for new employees in small businesses. It was nothing radical just moderate and more in line with international trends and jurisdictions. We thought hard about it. It was thoughtful and moderate. We built in protections of good faith and protections that stated that it would be only by agreement. We also built in protections that ensured discrimination and harassment rights would be retained. We enabled mediation to be available. 
In the past nearly 18 months what has happened? Has the sky fallen in? No the sky has not fallen in. Has the trial period been abused? If it had been abused we would want to know about it so that as we draft and craft the amendments now we could add in more protections if need be. But there is no evidence of abuse or exploitation of workers. Nobody has been named and shamed. Opposition to the 90-day trial has been made mute. 
What has happened is good news. The sky has not fallen in. Neither Labour nor the unions which were very vociferous at the time have been able to demonstrate that the 90-day trial period is not working. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Because it did work. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It works. They have not been able to demonstrate that it is not fair because it is fair. They have not been able to demonstrate that it is not reasonable because it is reasonable. It is working. It is fair reasonable and it is working. It has given businesses more confidence in admittedly difficult economic times to take on workers whom they might not otherwise have taken on. The Department of Labour’s report highlights as we know that 40 percent of employers would not have taken on employees except for the 90-day trial period. It has given workers especially those on the margins who perhaps do not have an employment record or qualifications or who are new to the country the opportunity to say “Give me a go.” They have backed themselves in order to prove themselves and get their foot in the employment door. 
I went to our local refugee migrant centre in Christchurch and I asked staff there what their biggest challenge was. They said it was getting their migrants to have a job. I asked them whether they used the 90-day trial but they did not because Labour had scaremongered so much. People there said it would be good because their migrants did not have a job record and did not speak English very well. They did not really know what to expect but would love the opportunity to be given a try and to get their feet in the employment door. Because of the scaremongering some of them had not been given that opportunity. 
This policy is good policy. It has not resulted in fire-at-will. It is a hiring policy. It has given more confidence in hiring. We want people to have jobs and this 90-day trial regime is one of the tools in the tool kit to get more people into jobs. It is not radical stuff. It is reasonable and moderate and it brings us more into line with other international jurisdictions which are a lot tougher. Its success is one of the reasons we are extending the opportunity to all businesses. Let us look at other jurisdictions. The UK has a 12-month trial period. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Twelve months? Wasn’t that under a Labour Government? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Twelve months under a Labour Government. What do we have? We have 90 days which is 3 months or one-quarter of the UK period. Similarly Australia has a 12-month period introduced under a Labor Government. What do we have? We have 3 months. This is good policy.