KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
It is my pleasure to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill in relation to clause 1, which, of course, is the title. The title to this bill has changed. It was originally the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. It has been expanded to deal with flexible working arrangements. Those arrangements are also defined further on in the bill. In relation to an employee—not, interestingly enough, in relation to an employer as well; it is only in relation to an employee—those flexible working arrangements mean flexibility either in terms of hours of work, the days of work, or the place of work at, for example, the employee’s home or place of work.
Flexibility, which is really the integral part of this bill, is important. Flexibility in the workplace is important, and National acknowledges that. We acknowledge that in order for employees to be successful, they need flexibility in their working arrangements. But that does not mean that this needs to be legislated for, and we believe that common sense can prevail.
This bill, the title of which has changed, is, as has been referred to in relation to other bills, a solution looking for a problem—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we are debating clause 1. It is very limited; it is just the title.
It is a very limited debate. The title is really about the flexibility of those working arrangements. We believe in flexibility, and, although we accept the title of the bill, we do not believe that flexible working arrangements should be, or indeed can be, legislated for.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
The title clause states that the “Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act”. The original title dealt with “Hours”. Clearly, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee believed, and many submitters believed, that the title had to be more reflective of the types of things that people should be able to discuss with their employer. After all, this is about making arrangements with an employer and having the right purely to request them.
It is rather amusing to hear that the National Party is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but does not think workers should have a right to request them in law. That is beyond belief. National says it is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but, oh no, no way should workers have the right by law to request those from an employer! We heard a great many submissions on this very good bill from people who gave ample evidence of the need for flexible working arrangements.
Hon Tau HenareThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. The member was straying a bit there. The title is what we are talking about. The member had been all right up to that point. I am sure that was Tau Henare’s point of order.
It is just that I have to teach the Opposition how to do this. I have been in title debates many a time, and I do not sit down after 2 minutes like the previous member, who ran out of any sort of thoughts about how to debate the title.
The word “Arrangements” is in the title because people want to be able to discuss arrangements. They may involve flexible working hours or they may involve flexible working days. They may involve all sorts of flexibility that the title seeks to actually describe by replacing the word “Hours” with “Arrangements”. I was just trying to illustrate—for the Opposition—that there is a need for a right in law, which is why we are changing the employment relations legislation. Obviously, we want to describe it in a way such that people will know they can discuss suitable arrangements for work, taking into account the family obligations they have as caregivers for their children, or for their adult parents or relatives who are disabled.
So “Arrangements” can mean all sorts of things. They may in fact assist employers greatly to retain skills that would otherwise be lost from the workplace and from businesses. [Interruption] Bob Clarkson agrees, because he has been on our select committee, and he knows the need for an employer to be able to sit down sensibly with a worker to discuss suitable arrangements that would keep that person in his or her job. That member knows from working in the construction industry how difficult it is to hold on to employees when there are other jobs elsewhere that might pay better. But people might stay in Bob Clarkson’s employment if they can, in fact, get flexible work arrangements.
So “Flexible Working Arrangements” is a very good description of this bill. That is why the select committee decided to change the original description, which just narrowly described “Hours”. We want to give a clear indication to workers out there that they have the right to request changes to the original set of conditions and terms that were laid down in their agreements with their employers when they started out, because their circumstances have changed. People’s circumstances change all the time in life, sometimes expectedly and sometimes unexpectedly.
I cannot imagine why any party in this House would be opposed to this title, or to this bill, or why any party would not like to alter the title. I am looking forward to Dr Wayne Mapp trying to explain why people should be afraid of this title and this bill, which is purely enabling people to arrange things to suit their personal circumstances with their employers, and giving them the right to request that their employers listen to those requests. What is scary about that? Why would anybody be afraid of that? It should not be something that anybody should fear. We will probably get a speech from the National side that this is communism. That is what one of those members said when we came to pass a law that dealt with the rights of workers to be paid for the jobs they do. This is just unbelievable!
Paula BennettThere is another National member screeching in the back. She pretends that she knows something about employment. We have yet to see any knowledge come out of her mouth—only vitriol and stupidity.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
There is a fundamental reason why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, and it is contained right there in the title clause. The reason is that the title clause refers to “this Act”. Acts are things that are mandatory, where State power is used to force people into arrangements they do not want.
The members on the other side, of course, laugh about that—they laugh about it. They just love State power; that is why they are in the Labour Party. They want oppressive State power whenever they can get it. Their recourse, of course, on every little issue is, in collaboration with the Green Party, to introduce legislation. If something has to be done to give people the ability to talk to each other—that is what this bill is about—they do it with legislation. Well, how about trust? What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with allowing employers and employees to voluntarily speak to each other?
If we did not have an Act that had mandatory State power, all we would need is the ability for people to talk to each other on a freely negotiated basis. There would be no State coercion and State power, and there would be absolutely no need for this kind of legislation.
Our objection to this legislation is fundamentally because it imposes obligations by law and with sanctions. That does violence to the integrity of the employment contract, which is a freely negotiated arrangement between employer and employee. You know, in the modern marketplace there is actually a balance of power between the parties.
But this Government and this Green Party think the solution—as is clearly set out in clause 1—is to have an Act. Acts are about forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That is the fundamental feature of any legislation. Acts force people to do things they would otherwise not do, and they are required to do them only because they will face sanctions—fines, penalties, and other strictures. All of that means that Labour and the Green Party have to have an Act. And that really shows the fundamental difference between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber, does it not?
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Could I just remind the member that we are talking about a title of an Act. Please come back to the title.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
That is all we are talking about. There is plenty of opportunity—
—about arrangements that are forced on people by legislation. That is actually what the title is about. It is about forcing arrangements on people through mandatory legislation. I have to be as clear as possible on this. The title clause stated: “This Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Act”, which sounded like a voluntary concept. But “Hours” has been changed to “Arrangements”, and this is the kicker. It is State power and State coercion doing violence to freely negotiated arrangements between employer and employee in the modern employment environment. There actually is some level of equality of bargaining power in the modern, contemporary workforce.
You know, we are not in sweatshops any more. We do not wear sackcloth any more. We are in the 21st century. We do not need this legislation. We do not need an Act. We do not need legislation that forces people into agreements they would otherwise not make. National is very clear on this. We tell people to voluntarily negotiate agreements. In truth, that works virtually all of the time. We do not need an Act, we do not need compulsion, we do not need mandatory sanctions, and we do not need these forced arrangements where employers have no choice but to agree to propositions put up by parties, because if they do not agree, there will be sanctions. Employers do not have the option to simply say no, walk away, and say it does not suit them. That is not a possibility, because they are then forced into negotiation, mediation, and, ultimately, right through to the Employment Court. I see the promoter of the bill shaking her head against that, but that is what is forced in this agreement.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
I seek to speak briefly, goaded by the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. First, I would like to say that the reason that we have changed the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is so that we can accommodate people’s requests to change, if they so wish, the location as well as the hours and time of their work. That is the reason why we have sought to change the title of the bill, and it is very simple.
It is extraordinary that the previous speaker said this legislation is using State power to force people into an arrangement they do not want. This is arguably the most light-handed legislation to come before the House in recent years. All that it provides for is the right to request—the right to request—flexible working arrangements. And it is very fair legislation, because not only does it give employees the right to make requests but it protects employers as well. Far from forcing employers to accept requests, it gives them seven or eight grounds to decline them.
The other point I would like to make briefly is that it is extraordinary that the National Party in New Zealand is opposing this most light-handed legislation when its equivalent party, the Conservative Party in England, is one of the leading proponents of flexible working arrangements legislation. The member Kate Wilkinson is shaking her head, but I would like to quote briefly from David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in England—
Well, I was just rebutting the comments from the previous speaker. I will quote from David Cameron later, when we come to discuss the substance of the bill. But I say it is extraordinary that the Conservative Party in England embraces such legislation and sees it as a way, a tool, of modernising work places, of helping families to balance the competing demands of paid work and families—that party is embracing such legislation—and the National Party here in New Zealand is opposing something as simple as the right to request flexible working arrangements. We have heard a lot from the National Party about how it is family-friendly and is supporting children, yet it cannot even bring itself to support this bill. Really, that is extraordinary.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
There is plenty of opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill. At the moment we are trying to keep to a debate on the title.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare.
Kia ora.
HONE HARAWIRA: Kia ora, Paula. I support the proposal to change the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to ask whether it is possible to backdate the bill to just before I went up to Alice Springs, so that my working conditions and the location of my work could be moved from being in this House, and I could continue with my parliamentary activities in Alice Springs. As an indigenous member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau I was doing my best to understand the needs of the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I think that flexible working arrangements might also be a good idea to ensure that certain other members of this House can spend a lot more time at home and not bother us in this Chamber.
Flexible working arrangements are something I myself have been very keen on in the last 20 years. Although I heard Mr Mapp talking about how they will mean death and destruction for businesses, I know from experience that arrangements allowing people to work in a location that improves their productivity is good for the business. It has been good for business when freely negotiated with the employer and freely agreed upon by the employer. I know from experience that it works.
I just want to say that flexible working arrangements are a step up from flexible working hours. They encourage people to give more to the businesses for which they work if they can see that the businesses are willing to give back. Whoever suggested that the title be changed from flexible working hours to flexible working arrangements must have been somebody incredibly intelligent. It must have been one of the two members here next to me, Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia. It is a very good idea and will enhance the purpose of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
Speaking on the title of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, I think that some people have missed the point about the title and about what the amendment was about. Sue Kedgley has pointed it out, but I want to repeat it. When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed this bill and discussed amending the title we realised that talking just about hours and days of work was not enough. If we are genuinely talking about flexible work then people need to have the right to request flexible work in other places.
Many of us have grown up in the times when we were told that one day in our future, life was going to be very different because technology would take over and we would all work shorter hours and we could work from home and so on. I am still waiting for that day. Certainly, some of the more progressive employers that we see at the higher end of the market recognise that working from home is a productive way of accommodating flexible work needs for employees, often after they have just had a baby and are still at home caring for the child or they have childcare responsibilities—
Hon Ruth DysonOr when they have had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, which this Labour-led Government, along with its partners, introduced and the National Party opposed.
Shane JonesThat is right.
We recognise also that there is a growing responsibility for our ageing population. Many, many people are going to have to care for their older adults at home. I have just recently had that experience through my partner, whose father was in hospital and his older mother at home. The responsibilities have fallen on my partner, both for visiting his father in hospital and for having to take care of his older mother. He has a very good employer who allowed him to have flexible arrangements around his working hours—
Yes, absolutely—and flexible arrangements that allowed him to do his work from other places. The title is about that.
The difference between arrangements and working hours is very significant. The select committee certainly took that on board in recommending that the word “Hours” in the phrase “Flexible Working Hours” be replaced with the word “Arrangements”, because it is a more accurate description of what the bill is all about and what we are trying to do in introducing modernising legislation, perhaps to catch up with some other countries, and accepting that New Zealand has fallen a little bit further behind other countries in having legislation that enables the right to request flexible arrangements.
The title is all about that right. It is about flexible working arrangements but it is also simply about the right to request them. I know we will get on to that in further debate on the substance of the bill. The title is absolutely about working arrangements, working in other places, being able to request different working hours and part-time or shift work, and about being able to have genuine flexibility that meets an arrangement with employers. “Arrangements” is a modern word that is used in other employment legislation. It fits in with our current employment legislation, which members would see if they took a look at collective arrangements and other things. As such, I think the change in title is entirely appropriate.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 49
- New Zealand National 48
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
The commencement date, which is what clause 2 of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill deals with, indicates some time for people to set themselves up to be able to comply with this new legislation. Those who look at the bill will see that the commencement date is 1 July 2008. That is a fair while away for anybody who is concerned about something being sprung on them all of a sudden. [ Interruption] Even David Bennett—who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—will be able to read the bill between now and 1 July 2008. Apparently, somewhere along the way he got a law degree. Therefore, we suspect that even he will be able to understand this clause. The clause means that the Act would come into force on 1 July 2008.
Bob ClarksonYes, that is right. That is how they write the laws nowadays. It may have been different in Bob’s time—when it was written in Old English. The reality is that when an Act gets voted on in Parliament—I say this just for the sake of the Opposition members—it comes into force. It is fairly standard wording, which they would know if they had a look at bills before they came down here and made fools of themselves by showing to everybody their ignorance of how legislation is drafted. David Bennett might be able to explain it to Bob Clarkson, because apparently he has a law degree. “Bob the Builder” does not have a law degree, but even he knows that between now and 1 July 2008 there is ample time for people to prepare themselves for this momentous thing that will descend upon them, as far as the National Party is concerned, when a worker can go to his or her employer to say: “My old mum has had a stroke, and I need to alter my working arrangements with you. Would you like to hear my request?”. Even employers like Bob Clarkson should be able to prepare themselves for a request from an employee who says: “I now have caregiver responsibilities at home for my old mum, who has had a stroke. Would you like to discuss this matter with me, because I have a very reasonable request to put in front of you, as the employer? Would you care to listen to that request?”.
Members on the benches on this side of the Chamber and on the benches in other parts of the Chamber think that is a good thing. They think that is a sensible thing for the law to allow. It is not onerous. It will not be sprung on people by surprise, because this commencement clause states that employers will have until 1 July 2008 to prepare themselves for such requests. I do not seriously think that any member opposite who believes there should be flexible working arrangements would disagree with a time frame of that sort. It gives people plenty of time to get ready for it, to read the bill—
Oh, the member says it is coercion. The National Party caucus must be a very strange place to work. Members must not be allowed to request anything of each other in case the person they were requesting it of had to make a decision. Of course, we know that those members cannot make decisions or make up their minds. We know that at least the Tories over in the UK have the brains to figure this one out—this measure is family friendly. National members try to paint themselves as being family friendly, and being all for family values. I am astounded that Gordon Copeland has given his vote to National members to vote against family-friendly legislation like this, which will not come in until 1 July 2008. But he is on flexible working hours tonight! He has sent his proxy vote over to the National Party while he is off talking to the bishop—
What is going on is that those members pretend they are for family values, they pretend that they want families to be able to care for sick and elderly relatives and disabled children, or children of any age, basically—
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps we could stick with the commencement clause, as you have been quick to jump on this side when members have strayed from the place that we are up to in the bill, and—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member will be seated. There was no call for the last remark. A lot of members on both sides in the debate on the first clause strayed, and I tried to bring the debate back. The member will withdraw that last remark.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I thank the member. I remind the member who is speaking that this is a debate on the commencement date.
Yes, and that is why I am stressing that need for a lot of people to read the legislation before the commencement date. Some people can act quickly and some take a long time to come to grips with the law. That is why we amended this legislation, because it used to state, “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now it states, “1 July 2008.” That is for people who take a long time to get to grips with a law like this—like Ms Bennett over there, who has not read the bill and who has not bothered to understand it, but will get up and proclaim against it as being some terrible form of compulsion. We want to give those people as much time as we can. By 1 July 2008 they should have read the bill, digested it, understood it, and realised that it is eminently sensible legislation, which anybody in this country should be able to cope with by that date.
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. I think that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is critically important for families. I am sure that most political parties in this House totally support the right of families to have flexible working hours, and if they do not, then I think the question probably is, why not?
The date for the legislation to come into force is 1 July 2008. That really will give employers and employees time to familiarise themselves with the legislation, and will enable employers to perhaps give considerable thought to how they might assist their employees to have flexible arrangements.
No, I do not think that people need to close down, because there are already employers who have been more than willing to have flexible arrangements. They have had increased productivity as a result of doing that, and we support that.
One of the issues we want to raise tonight is the definition of a child whom one can take flexible working hours to care for. We support Minister Dyson’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 148 for that reason.
OK. Well, I think the great thing about the legislation is that it promotes flexible working hours. I can speak about this issue because I was a young mother who had to go to work, and I could not get flexible working hours. I know, when I think back to having to leave my children and go to work, that maybe they suffered because of the long hours I had to work as a young mother.
But the commencement date is important, I believe, because of the change that has been made to the day the legislation will come into force. It will now be 1 July 2008. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 49
- New Zealand National 48
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Clause 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 2A be agreed to.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 49
- New Zealand National 48
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Clause 2A agreed to.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
The purpose clause of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill gives a bit more meat to the debate than the previous two clauses we have been discussing. As members who have read the bill and understood it will have seen, a significant change has been made in the purpose clause from what was originally quite a narrow group of people who would have been able to qualify. The replacement clause is the new majority clause, and members will note that it is a majority clause because the National Party could not bring itself to support this very sensible proposition.
The clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to insert a new Part 6AA into the principal Act to—(a) provide a statutory right to employees who meet specified criteria as to the period of their employment to request a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements because they provide care of certain persons; and (b) place certain duties on employers who receive those requests.” How could anybody oppose that? As the author of the bill, Sue Kedgley, said, the clause is very light-handed. It will not bring down the world and it will not bring employers to their knees, as the National Party likes to pretend. The clause provides for the right of employees to request of their employers a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements.
I was sitting on a select committee the other day and I read some very interesting stuff from Business New Zealand about productivity in this country—the National Party should take note of it. Business New Zealand said that there is a greater need for part-time work and flexible working hours, because they will assist an improvement in productivity.
Where is Dr Lockwood Smith when we need him in this debate? He has been going on and on about improving productivity for so long that I cannot remember when he was not talking about it. We had Business New Zealand in front of the select committee saying that we need to encourage the ability for more workers to have part-time hours and flexible working times. This bill will allow people to request that right from their employers.
Anne TolleyIf there was nothing stopping them—and we heard all about that during the something like 18 months the bill was with the select committee—we would have seen a massive change in employers’ approach to this bill. We offered them the chance by having an adjournment, if you like, on this bill of 1 whole year.
We asked the employers who came along to the select committee and submitted whether they could show us the educational material they gave to their members of the Employers and Manufacturers Association showing them how to go about making a request, because we had worker after worker, and group after group, coming and saying that it was extraordinarily difficult to get that simple request listened to.
The evidence was from professional women and from workers in supermarkets, factories, and the many, many industries that presented themselves, but every one of them said that they had difficulty in getting their employers to consider their requests. They did not want a law change just for the sake of it; they wanted a law change because of their own personal experience.
We had employers saying they wanted to improve productivity in New Zealand by encouraging flexibility of working arrangements, and they asked for a voluntarist approach. We gave them a year and said: “Go ahead and do it. Show us your stuff.”, but unfortunately they just did not bother. They just paid lip-service to the idea. As a result, we have this very light-handed legislation that asks employers in New Zealand to, please, listen to the requests.
If it does not suit Bob Clarkson, as an employer, there are seven reasons why he can say no, and legitimately say no. What is wrong with that? I ask what is wrong with that. Employees are given the right to request, and employers are given a whole menu of reasons to say: “For this particular reason, I am sorry but I cannot accede to your request.” And those employers would have obeyed the law. They would have listened to requests from people who, after all, have responsibilities in their family home to look after a child, a sick relative, a disabled person, or an older person in need of care.
That shows us how heartless National members are. They do not even want to give a worker a right in law to make that request. They say: “Oh, they have a right now.” Well, I ask Dr Mapp how it is that so many people turned up to that select committee and said that that right did not exist in reality. The right might exist in some theoretical legislation that Dr Mapp would dream up, but it ain’t in the reality of the workplace right now.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
I want to set out in principle why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. In the 21st century everyone recognises that the modern workplace is dynamic and flexible. There are far fewer of the very large organisations run on very, very hierarchical systems, such as existed in the past when we had old-fashioned manufacturing systems that were very process-orientated. That is not the description of the modern world; it is not the description of the contemporary way of running a business. The Labour Party and the Green Party seem to be wedded to a 19th century approach to industrial relations—that the only way these sorts of things can be fixed up is to have legislation. What I have to say to the Government, and what I have to say to Mr Gosche in particular—because he was really telling a fundamental mistruth before when he implied, in short, that employees do not have the right to ask—is that of course employees have the right to ask. People have the right, as human beings, to ask. That is what negotiation is about. You know, it is more or less as if he had said that employees do not have the right to ask for a wage increase. That is, frankly, fatuous, because of course people negotiate. That has been the case for quite some time, and is increasingly the case in the modern, flexible workforce.
In the old days, people felt they had to work for one employer for maybe 20 or 30 years. They felt somewhat locked in. That is not the contemporary experience. People change jobs much more frequently. Employers know that, and they know they have to be competitive when they are negotiating with employees, not just at the time of the initial contract but through the life of the contract. That is why, in truth—and this was heard in the select committee because I was there and the evidence was clear—there are a great range of flexible arrangements freely negotiated between employer and employee. So when National says that we do not need the legislation, we are saying that we do not need a set of rules that essentially end up with court involvement, because if a person makes a request and the employer says that for one of these seven reasons it is not possible, the next step is litigation. That is what we are against.
Well, actually the Employment Relations Authority does not have just a mediation role.
I am not going to get up and say that this bill is going to be the great disaster of all time for the New Zealand workplace. Clearly, people will cope with it. But it will be just one of those extra little points of legislation that crushes productivity in the New Zealand workforce, and that is a crucially important point. One of the most serious challenges that New Zealand faces is declining productivity, and we face it in context with Australia and the United States. Do members know that neither of those jurisdictions have this kind of legislation, and both those jurisdictions are more prosperous than New Zealand? They have more effective working relationships, they have higher incomes, and New Zealanders are choosing to go—in particular, to Australia. One of the fundamental differences why Australia and the United States have fundamentally faster growth rates than European countries—and this legislation is based on a European model—is that they have a lighter-handed regulatory approach to workplace law. That is simply a basic fact. It cannot be contested by members on the other side. They would have to argue against the actual facts and then do something we cannot do in this House, which would be to tell a lie. I presume they do not want to tell a lie, so they essentially avoid the truth and suggest that people cannot ask to have flexible working arrangements. But of course people can ask, and if it does not work out, they will make their own arrangements. Employers know that if they lose someone it might be damn difficult to get someone else, so they are going to be in a dialogue.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
The previous speaker was Wayne Mapp, in case someone is listening at the moment. I think the last time Wayne Mapp took an interest in labour relations matters he had a bill before this House that said that any employer could sack any worker for any reason that employer liked, without disclosing the reason why. Could anyone imagine what it would be like for a person in his or her first job to lose that job and not know why? What sort of future would a young person have, finding that he or she was sacked totally unjustifiably and having no one to look after the situation? [ Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
The point I am trying to make here is that there are many examples where people want a bit of flexibility, but are nervous of asking for it. If Wayne Mapp was the Minister of Labour, woe betide anyone who asked for flexibility within his or her first 3 months of employment. People who said they wanted flexibility would be down the road. The other thing is that if people waited until the 3 months were past and said they would like some flexibility now, the employers would ask why they did not mention it before, and why they were not able to have a conversation about it right at the start. Of course, Wayne Mapp would not care about that, because at the end of the day people would be able to be sacked for no reason whatsoever. So I do not think Dr Wayne Mapp is very credible on this issue, at all.
I am absolutely appalled that the National Party, on women’s suffrage day, is using the kinds of arguments that, if they had been successful in 1893, would mean we still would not have the vote today. That is the stupidity of the arguments presented by the National Party.
Let us say that those arguments had been used before the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1972. If the current members of the National Party had been responsible for that Act, we would not have had it. They would have been able to stand up in the House and say that any woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay with the men she worked with, and that would have been true—every woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay. Did women have equal pay? Did any of them ask for equal pay? No. Why did they not ask for equal pay? Because the request did not have to be considered at all. So we had to pass a law in this Parliament to bring about equal pay for exactly the same work. There used to be national awards—appropriately named—in this country that had one pay rate for men and one pay rate for women, one for male clerks and one for female clerks. Richard Worth is nodding his head; he remembers the good old days. That is the way they like it over in the National Party—women knowing their place. What a surprise that that has not changed at all over on the National side of the Chamber!
The law had to change in order to bring about a difference. But have we got equal pay today? The law says that we should have equal pay, but have we? There is this stubborn pay gap of 12 percent, and we know that in some areas it is actually far greater. Can anyone on that side of the Chamber explain to me why, 5 years down the track, after qualifying in exactly the same degree, with exactly the same qualification and the same level of degree, women are earning 20 percent less than their male counterparts in the legal profession? Law is one of the classic examples where women are paid, on average, much less overall than men. It is true in the accountancy profession as well. Guess what? These wonderful professions, one of which I am a proud member—I am a lawyer myself—have also managed to develop gender segregation. Certain work within the law firms gets handed out to the women, and certain work within the accountancy firms gets handed out to the women, too.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I have my tiki on, so I would like to speak to the purpose of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is really about the family, and the family is a bit more extensive than the bill allows for, so that is what the Māori Party would like to talk about. I see a new parliamentary party that is starting up has said it is going to be the first real voice for the family. That is really interesting, because I think every party has the interests of the family at its heart, deep down. We support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s amendment to extend the coverage of the bill beyond young children under 5 years of age and disabled children up to 18 years of age, and to cover other whānau members, such as partners, parents, grandparents, siblings, and mokopuna.
We are not just saying this; it is part of our culture. You see, we have one word for “auntie” and it is the same word as that for “mum”. Whae, whaea, whaene, kōkā—it is the same word. We have the same word for “cousin” that we have for “brother” and the same word for “cousin” that we have for “sister”. So our sisters are tuahine whether they are our first cousins or our real sisters. And the situation is similar for mokopuna. That is a reality of the way we live. I have several mokopuna who live with me. They are not all my own grandchildren but are my sister’s grandchildren and my grandchildren, and that situation is not covered here. So not only do we support the widening of Minister Dyson’s amendment that extends the provision but we request that consideration be given to the Māori concept of whānau, as well as broadening the provision generally.
In terms of what Dr Mapp said about the bill, we know about the 90-day wonder, and that is the whole point. Sometimes we have to give security and support to people in situations, the work situation in particular, and that is why the bill is necessary. All it does is to give the opportunity for discussion to take place about more flexible arrangements. Accordingly, it has to place some responsibility back on the employer. So the Māori Party at this stage certainly supports this bill.
I would just like to quote from the report Pūao-te-ata-tū, which was provided by an advisory group, the ministerial advisory committee on a Māori perspective for the then Department of Social Welfare, way back in 1988. We all know about John Rangihau, who was the architect of that report: It states: “The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation, or even as part of nuclear family, but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child’s care and placement. The technique, in the Committee’s opinion, must be to reaffirm the hapu bonds”—that is the wider group—“and capitalise on the traditional strengths of the wider group.”
So the customary preference for the children to be maintained within the context of the hapū is something that is of great value to the Māori Party. We are pleased to support the amendment that adds further flexibility to the flexibility already there in the bill. Kia ora.
KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
I am delighted to take a call in relation to this part of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Most people, including those in the National Party, support the concept of flexibility, and we appreciate that quality flexible work is important. We know there is a general consensus that flexible work is important to all New Zealanders, not just to parents and not just to people with caring responsibilities. Quality flexible work is important for individuals, organisations, families, and communities. But flexible working legislation such as this bill is an oxymoron. We support flexibility—of course we do—but employees already have an existing right, under the provisions for good faith in the Employment Relations Act, to ask for flexible working arrangements. This legislation is simply unnecessary. We value flexibility. We know that forward-looking businesses also value employees for the contribution they bring to the business, not just for the hours they work. We value giving people choice about how they work if they deliver the same outputs, because that is good for business. But what we do not agree with is legislation instead of education.
The author of this bill is about to herald to us that the example to follow is the legislation in the United Kingdom. Comparisons, I have to warn members, although sometimes useful, can also be misleading. If we look at the UK report, we see there are significant differences and significant discrepancies. The official departmental report itself referred to methodological inconsistencies in the UK research, stating that the results are not necessarily supported by research, and that there was no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from. It further advised that the current set of labour market and economic and social conditions in New Zealand did not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in the analysis for that country’s solution. So it is very dangerous to simply mimic the UK legislation and say it will work in New Zealand.
In fact, if we look at the UK report, we will see some of the cautions in that report. It said that small firms may find it more difficult to accommodate some types of requests than larger firms in similar lines of work. It states: “It is possible that carers who are not covered by the legislation and whose employers do not open flexible working opportunities to other staff may resent employees that are entitled to make a request … This could lead to lower morale amongst these staff in the workplace.” This bill is limited in that respect.
There is a compliance cost to employers. In the UK it has been estimated that on average it will take 2 hours of employee time and 3 hours of management time to process a request that is dealt with formally. At the moment it would take less than half that time to deal with a request informally under the provisions of good faith that already exist in our employment relations legislation. The proposal involves costs to businesses—implementation costs and procedural costs—and we will deal with those. These matters can go as far as the Supreme Court, so it is not a light-handed measure, it is not non-onerous, and there are costs associated with accommodating such requests when they are accepted.
Mr Gosche, who is very, very vocal, talked about productivity. He talked about how flexible working arrangements such as these and strictly legislated flexible working arrangements will improve and enhance productivity. But he himself should read the UK report, which said that overall only 44 percent of firms have experienced a net positive impact on productivity as a result of the flexible working arrangements that have been legislated for there. Fewer than half the firms have experienced a positive impact on productivity.
We have had mention of Suffrage Day; we knew it would come up. It is a day that we do celebrate and one that we certainly should celebrate.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I have listened to the debate thus far with interest. I have listened particularly to the National Party because as far as I can determine it is the only party in this House that is opposing the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. ACT, which I thought would be opposing the legislation, is working flexible hours already, so, clearly, that party agrees with it.
Kate Wilkinson made a point. She said that currently all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours, or something along those lines. That is true. I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not. But she is missing the whole point of the purpose clause. There is an obligation in the purpose clause for the employer to consider that request seriously. That is the whole guts of this bill. The employee can already make a request, but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously. I compliment Sue Kedgley on being so amenable and so flexible on this bill. I have tried to work it out, and I think just about every clause has been put under the microscope, and has been either struck out and replaced, or revamped in some way, and Sue has taken it all on board.
That leads me to compliment the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, of which I was a member, on its determination and dedication to get the bill right. The purpose clause as introduced was totally unacceptable. It was too restrictive concerning whom it applied to—employees caring for children under 5 years and disabled children up to 18 years. It was bureaucratic, insomuch as employers effectively could not refuse to change employees’ working hours, or had very limited reasons for doing so. And it was very limited in whom it would apply to, insomuch as the arrangement had to be permanent, as I understand it. The select committee changed all that, with Sue Kedgley’s agreement, and, dare I say, blessing. That made the purpose clause much more acceptable.
New Zealand First opposed the bill as introduced, but we are big enough, ugly enough, and tough enough to say that the bill before us now has got it right. That is what National members should be doing. They should not sit over there and say that all employers are fair-minded people from the word go. In fact, Wayne Mapp said the reverse. He said that far fewer employers were wedded to 19th century thinking. I think that is what he said, and that implies that some employers would dismiss any informal request from an employee who wanted to look after a person who is ill—dismiss it without any regard at all. That is an admission by Wayne Mapp; I see he is nodding his head. The sole reason we need this bill is that some employers would deny such a request come what may.
This bill is about the right of a person who looks after another person to request flexible working arrangements so that the person can do that. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Some employers have written to me and to my party, implying almost that the world will come to an end if this bill is passed. That is not so. This is very, dare I say it, innocuous legislation. It fits into New Zealanders’ mainstream thinking. New Zealand is a compassionate country. It is a country filled with compassionate people. If there is anything sad about this bill, it is that we have to produce it because some people are not as considerate and compassionate as they perhaps should be. Some people do not value their staff as they should.
It is somewhat hypocritical of the National Party to oppose this bill, because National members work under—
I withdraw the comment. It is somewhat unusual for National members to oppose this bill, because National members, as we all do, work under the Standing Orders of this House. We do not negotiate them; we sit around the table and agree to them. They allow the 48 National members to have 12 members away from the House at any one time, for any reason whatsoever, with no questions asked—unless the whip asks a question. Nobody else in the House can question where those members are. The National Party is allowed to have 12 members away, and their votes still count. I want to prevail upon National members. I know many of them personally. I know Wayne Mapp; he has been here the same length of time as me.
Russell FairbrotherI thank the member. I ask the National Party to rethink its position. We are not bringing the world to an end with this bill. We are producing legislation that is fair-minded, in the interests of, firstly, people who are looking after other people, and, secondly, people who are being cared for. We are not making any great imposition on employers. We are giving employers until 1 July 2008 to come to terms with this. I think the National Party should rethink its position. I think this bill should go through this House, supported by everybody here, with perhaps the exception of ACT, which is not present tonight, and Gordon Copeland, who is not present, either. I know I should not say who is present and who is not, but he is giving his vote by proxy. This is very reasonable legislation, and New Zealand First supports it and supports the purpose clause.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
In speaking to the purpose clause of this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill, I say there has been some incredible discussion here tonight, particularly from the Opposition benches. It reminds me why it is really, really important that we have parties in this House that understand the realities of the working lives of many New Zealanders. It is not all wonderful like the honourable Wayne Mapp would have us believe.
As other people have said, this legislation is very, very light-handed stuff. It does not say that workers have a statutory right to demand flexible hours. It does not even say that they have the right to negotiate flexible hours. It says that they have the right to ask, and that the employer must respond. I think Peter Brown made a very good point on the difference between this legislation, and the right under the Employment Relations Act to be responded to with good faith. My question to Opposition members is that if they are saying we have current rights, and if they are objecting to this bill on the basis that a case can, allegedly, go all the way to the Supreme Court, how do they think the current rights under the Employment Relations Act are done?
Well, I would not be hiring Ms Wilkinson as a lawyer, quite frankly. That could end up in the Employment Court, as well.
I thought it was really, really interesting to hear Mr Mapp, and I know he has never got over his 90-day bill—
No, because that member does not understand the reality of the world. He really does not. He was saying that everyone has the right to negotiate. Well, that is really nice; people have got the right to ask, and they just have to up and say to the boss they would like a pay increase. Did that member not listen to the people from the Hospitality Association? They came along and said they are a very democratic organisation, and if people want flexible hours and they say no, those people go down the road. That is democracy, and that is how it works for lots and lots of people. The fact is that there is a lot stopping people from asking for flexible working hours at the moment; if there was not, then we would see it much more widespread than it currently is.
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was certainly told by many, many people that although some employers were responding, many were not. There is very, very uneven application of work-life balance after 5 or 10 years of talking about it and all the nice things that we hear, and the various awards that employers get for showing that they recognise work-life balance in their employment. But it is often found in the big end of town—it is the lawyers, it is the high-paid workers, and so on. For example, I do not know any cleaners in the country who have been able to ask their employer for flexible working hours and have been granted them. The cleaners in this workplace—Parliament—have to work at night, and if they said to their boss: “Oh well, my husband has to work during the day, so I’d like to do the cleaning during the day.”, do members think that under the current legislation they would have a prayer? I challenge the National members to stay up one night and talk to the cleaners about what life is really like for them, and what it is like working for a contractor. I challenge them.
Sue MoroneyThat is true. I think that the whole purpose and driving force behind this bill is the fact that we are working long hours. Wayne Mapp talked about productivity in Australia and the USA. I point out to him, as I did in my second reading speech, that Australia and the USA actually have working time regulation. They have it, we do not, and that is part of our problem. I certainly said that in my second reading speech, and we need to do something about it. Those countries have working time regulation so that people who work more than 40 hours a week have to be paid overtime. That is even the case for people earning the minimum wage in the UK—if they work more than 40 hours a week they get paid overtime. That does not happen here, and that is why people end up working very, very long hours to make ends meet. They work very long and unsafe hours.
This bill is being welcomed across the board, apart from the National Party. I notice that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation is saying that many of its members in the nursing workforce have extensive family commitments that make working rigid rosters difficult, and that that often deters them from re-entering the nursing profession once they have children. What we hear in this House day after day is whinging from the other side of the House about the lack of professional health workers, and how we cannot attract them, and so on. Here is an opportunity for the National members to show they understand.