Hayes John: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12483] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have never heard such a diatribe in my life. I do not believe that the previous speaker has employed anybody in her life. I stand in the Chamber tonight to oppose this legislation and first of all to make the point that the National Party believes that flexible working arrangements are in principle a very good idea. The bit that we are opposed to is the Government’s view that it needs to legislate for flexible working arrangements. This country is sick and tired of being a nanny State. It is sick and tired of a Government that makes rules for every conceivable contingency. People are fed up. I invite the Government to look at the opinion polls and it will see how much support there is for this legislation. National members are convinced that the legislation as proposed is absolutely unnecessary in order to secure flexible working arrangements. It will be counter-productive in securing truly flexible working arrangements. 
I am an employer and have been an employer for about 30 years. When a staff member says to me: “John my father is ill.”; or “I’ve got a funeral.”; or “My daughter has the flu.” I say “Listen take the day off.” It is in my interests that employees deal with their family circumstances. If they have a problem at home they will not be any use in the workplace. That is a perfectly normal arrangement between employers and employees. I say to the Labour Government that this legislation which it is forcing on people will destroy initiative in this country. 
 Let me tell the Labour Government about employers in Dannevirke who recently said to me: “Look we want you to know John we are supporting you because this Government is destroying initiative and entrepreneurship.” 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member on the other side of the Chamber has had her 5 minutes and you actually spoke to one of my colleagues about being over-the-top with interjections. That member has consistently spoken in opposition to my colleague who is on his feet. Let him have a go Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a fair comment I think but I would say that the member who is speaking has interjected consistently. I ask the members to keep it down. It is when members constantly talk that it is unacceptable. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is the constant chipping away by this Labour Government at the rights of employers and decent employees and the putting of rules red tape and bureaucracy into the workplace that is killing this country. This constant chipping is sending 700 people a week permanently out of this country to Australia because they have had a stomachful of this Government and its rules and red tape. 
But let me come back to the employer in Dannevirke who recently said to me: “John this Government is destroying initiative.” I asked “How?”. The employer said: “Have you heard of Working for Families?”. I said I had. The employer said to me: “Well we’ve got a bit of a problem John. When we’ve got an export order to fill and we want someone to work on a Saturday or a Sunday or a Friday night and we ask our employees to please come in and help us get this order filled they say to us they can’t come because if they earn more money it will come off what the Government is already paying them.” 
Darren Hughes 
: So what is the lesson in that? 
JOHN HAYES 
: I say to Mr Hughes that the point of this as he will find out in Otaki when the rug is pulled from under him next year is that people are sick and tired of this Government creating rules and red tape that destroy initiative and discourage people from going to work. We do not need that and we do not need this legislation. I say to the people of New Zealand that clause 3(a) of this bill at the moment states that the purpose of the Act will be to “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;”. 
Now the great contribution from Madam Dyson from the South Island is to delete “certain persons” and insert “any person”. So anybody can invent any reason why he or she does not have to come to work. Can I say that clause 3(a) is incomprehensible English. Nobody will understand what this clause means. No labour lawyer will be able to fathom what this moribund intellectually defunct Labour Government is trying to promote in this legislation. This legislation certainly will not encourage people to have flexible working arrangements. National believes that employees and employers are already free to bargain in good faith over flexible working arrangements. That is certainly my experience as both an employer—