Estimates Debate — Vote Labour

I think that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Labour, has a bit of a problem. When we had the estimates hearing at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, she came along, all soothing words and platitudes. There were lots of patsy questions from the National members about how everything was going wonderfully. We had to note that the Minister had not managed to succeed in any bids to increase anything in her portfolio; in fact, there was a major cut to the area of employment relations for education leave, and I think that that will grow in significance as time goes on.

Since then we have found out that the Minister had a very, very sneaky plan. She was saving up for her leader, the Prime Minister, to announce changes at the National Party conference in front of all the National Party faithful, those big funders, because in the end that is what it is about. It is about delivering to those party funders, the people who have been telling National that it is not doing enough in the area of industrial relations and that they want to see the Government make it harder for workers because things have gone a little bit too far.

The problem the Minister has is that attacking the rights of wage and salary earners in New Zealand is not an economic plan. We have seen that today. There is no plan to stop the assault on the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders, there is no plan to stop the growth of the deficit and the huge debt that is mounting up for future generations, and there is no plan to catch up with Australia. You know, the promise that was made by this Government prior to the last election about catching up with Australia was National’s mantra, and as for the other promise about keeping our children home and stopping them from crossing the Tasman, what are we seeing? They are leaving in droves. Well, I wonder why.

John Key’s speech to the National Party conference was supposed to be about growing the economy. That was his big moment. But his only new ideas are actually old ideas. They are old ideas of undermining the ability of Kiwi wage and salary earners to earn a decent living in this country. The absence of any new ideas to grow the economy, wages, and living standards means that as we have seen today, we are drifting further and further behind Australia and other countries.

I have to say to the Minister that removing workers’ rights and allowing them to be sacked within their first 3 months of employment—unfair dismissal in New Zealand—is not a plan for growth in jobs. It simply undermines further the employment security for Kiwis when unemployment is already high and growing. Let us be honest about what has been happening in the last 18 months. Wage and salary earners have done it hard.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Less than Australia’s—90 days compared to 6 months.

Surely even Mr Mapp would agree that wage and salary earners have done it hard in the last 18 months. They have lost their jobs, they have been made redundant, they have had their hours cut, they have had wage freezes, and they and their families have borne the brunt of the economic downturn and the recession. But the Government—

💬 Simon Bridges: That’s why we’re making changes.

No, that Government does not think that is enough. It thinks that these workers, these families, need to be punished a little bit more. Their accident compensation has been cut, their regos have gone up, and their accident compensation levies have gone up. The Minister is planning to scale back meal and rest breaks, she has done away with pay equity—and, may I say, the contribution from the Minister of Women’s Affairs earlier was just embarrassing—and the Government has cut employment education leave and health and safety entitlements. But the Government is punishing wage and salary earners a little bit more. This Government thinks Kiwi workers need to be punished because they are lazy and untrustworthy.

I say to the Minister that one of the questions that came at the select committee was a patsy question from one of her National colleagues. It was about engagement and social partnership with regard to how often she had met with the Council of Trade Unions, and so on. Well, we have all heard in the last few days that the Council of Trade Unions is not all that happy with the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister, but it is interesting that the Government was really happy to engage with the Council of Trade Unions when it needed the council’s help. At the Job Summit, it was all cosy. When the Government needed the talents and ideas of working people to help it get through the recession, it was quite happy to pretend that it was friends with the Council of Trade Unions. But of course we have seen a broken promise to the Council of Trade Unions. The Government has acted in extremely bad faith, yet I have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour talking a lot about good faith in the last few days. They do not know what that means and they have made it harder for ordinary Kiwis to earn a decent living.

It is a pleasure for me to take a call on the labour portfolio. With regard to the recently announced employment reforms, if one listens to the Labour Party, one would think that it was the end of the world and that the sky was falling in. But the feedback that we are receiving is incredibly positive. If we look at the editorials and sieve out the feedback from Labour’s friends, we see that it has all been positive. The reforms have been described as moderate, thoughtful, pragmatic, and not radical at all. We are confident that these reforms strike that right balance, because we are working hard to turn round the country and the economy. From the debris that was left to us by the previous Labour Government, we are working hard to turn round the economy and get people into jobs.

One of the reforms that we made was to introduce the 90-day trial employment period, about which Labour said at the time that the sky would fall in. It came into effect in March 2009, and Labour said the sky would fall in. Actually, I tell the Labour members that the sky has not fallen in. Do members remember that back in those days Labour said it was going to name and shame all the bad employers who were exploiting employees—and what has happened? Absolute silence. Not one employer has been named and shamed. Even during the estimates hearing at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I was at pains to say I am conscious of the need to avoid the exploitation of workers. That is why we crafted the legislation in the way that we did at the time—to avoid exploitation, and to provide practical protections for workers.

The evaluation of the trial period was pretty positive, was it not?

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Your evaluation doesn’t count.

It was the department’s evaluation. It showed that 57 percent of employers had hired staff since March 2009. I think that that is pretty good, actually. It showed that 74 percent of employees employed on a trial period continued to be employed after the trial period. That is 74 percent. We say three out of four is great. Do members know what the Labour members say? They say one in four does not have a job. Do members know why some people from the one-in-four group do not have a job? One of the reasons was that the employee did not like the job, so he or she left. Another reason was that the employee did not find the job suitable. Another reason was that the employee’s family did not want the employee to be employed. Actually, three out of four employees continue to be employed. I think that is good for the economy and good for the employment market. Not only is that the case, but of those who were employed under the scheme, 40 percent of employers said they would not have employed that person if it had not been for a trial period—40 percent.

Yet the Labour members try to tell us that the trial period does not work. They tried to tell us that the sky had fallen in. They tried to tell us that they would name and shame bad employers, and they have not named and shamed one bad employer. Do members know what we have done? We have doubled the penalties for employers, so that if there are bad employers, they will be pinged. We have doubled the penalties for employers.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Waikanae Post-it—there’s one named and shamed. Would you like another one, Minister?

I have been welcoming any feedback for nearly the past 18 months, I say to the Hon Maryan Street, but nobody has given me some proof. Now, when we are extending the 90-day trial period to all businesses—which, by the way, brings us more into line with other jurisdictions internationally—is the very time when I would have expected some feedback to tell me that the new law does not work. But nobody has told me that the new law does not work. In the last 18 months, nobody has said it does not work. Those members just say that the sky will fall in. Well, the sky has not fallen in.

Do members know about the Labour members’ latest bugbear? Their latest bugbear is about sickies. Their latest bugbear is a concern that in the case of someone being regularly sick on a Friday or a Monday with a hangover, we might expect that person to prove that he or she is sick. That is to be done at the cost of the employer, yet the Labour members think that the sky will fall in because of that. They want to encourage workers to take sickies on a Friday and Monday. They may like to think that they are pro-productivity, but if we talk about people taking sickies on Mondays and Fridays, then, oh, it is the end of the world again.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson, and greetings to the Committee. This is a Minister who has the interesting dichotomy of having no new ideas in this portfolio, but she is touting lots of old, failed ideas. For the ever-increasing number of Kiwis who do not have a job or are underemployed, those who are struggling on low and middle incomes to make ends meet—

I am sorry to inform the member that this is a time-limited debate, and the time has now elapsed.

The question was put that Vote Labour, Vote Customs, Vote Lands, Vote Statistics, Vote Emergency Management, Vote Racing, Vote Senior Citizens, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote National Archives, Vote National Library, Vote Local Government, Vote Consumer Affairs, Vote Māori Affairs, Vote Community and Voluntary Sector, Vote Revenue, the preamble, clauses 1 to 12, and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.

I move, That the report be adopted.