Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 6A of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill which really is the substance of the bill. This is the clause that provides the employee with the statutory right to request a variation of working arrangements and it also provides for the prescriptive statutory duty of the employer in relation to that request. 
Before I continue though I will spend a little bit of time on Supplementary Order Paper 148 from the Minister Ruth Dyson which omits the word “reasonably” from new section 69AA(c). That might sound innocuous enough but at the moment that paragraph provides that “an employer may refuse a request only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on certain grounds;”. This Minister has said that the paragraph should read that “an employer may refuse a request only if it cannot be accommodated on certain grounds;”. There is a big difference between a request that cannot be accommodated and one that cannot reasonably be accommodated. “Reasonably” brings in the notion of objectivity which obviously that Minister is totally unaware of. By removing the word “reasonably” it virtually means that unless it is impossible for the employer to accommodate the request the request must be granted. By removing it it takes away objectivity and the Minister should be aware of that. I think it is a very dangerous precedent to set in relation to that Supplementary Order Paper. 
This clause is the real substance of the bill. I know that National has said that it supports flexibility but we are concerned firstly that the legislation is not necessary and secondly about the cost to the employer. In fact a  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial back in November was entitled “Don’t turn flexibility into a cost”. It is an interesting article and I would like to quote some excerpts from it because I think it is very useful and adds to this debate. The article reads: “Flexibility with reference to working arrangements is a word long favoured by employers … Previously flexibility was advanced for the good of firms industries and the whole economy; all of which needed to be as competitive as possible once they were exposed to global markets. Now flexibility is being argued on principles of ‘work-life balance’ particularly for working couples trying to meet the demands of children and a career. There is no reason that both interests cannot be served by mutually convenient working arrangements but mutual is the crucial word.” 
This legislation is simply not necessary. The article continues: “But the more concrete proposals are those intended to help employees make requests for flexible terms have their requests reasonably considered and arrangements adhered to. It suggests legislation could make more specific provisions for employees’ rights to request flexible arrangements the procedures employers must follow when they receive a request and the permissible grounds for a refusal. If this begins to sound ominous for employers it is.” That is what the editorial says; I will repeat it: “If this begins to sound ominous for employers it is.” The article continues: “The principle needs restating that flexibility is best left to individuals and firms to find in their infinitely varying needs and circumstances. As soon as flexibility is codified even as a negotiating procedure it is in danger of becoming just another cost of employment and a discouragement to growth.”—“As soon as flexibility is codified” which is what this bill is trying to do—“even as a negotiating procedure it is in danger of becoming just another cost of employment and a discouragement to growth.” 
Concerns have been expressed—and we will get practical here—that employers will have to prioritise the demands of parents and carers who qualify ahead of requests from other employees. Warnings have been given that this bill could also lead to personal grievances if employees feel that their demands for flexible working arrangements are not heeded.