Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12063] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 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. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Mediation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: 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.