Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11620] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution. I am absolutely convinced that Kate Wilkinson has not yet read the bill as introduced or amended. There is no proposal to make flexible working hours compulsory—people actually have to want them before they request them. The proposal that the Green Party member Sue Kedgley has put before Parliament is the right to request and the employer’s fair consideration of that request. 
 I commend Sue Kedgley not only for introducing the bill but also for stimulating debate within this Parliament and throughout the country. I also acknowledge the considerable amount of effort that both the member herself and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have put into rigorous consideration of this issue. Clearly the National members on the committee are the exception. 
It has been more than a year—14 months in fact—since the committee first reported back to Parliament. The committee recommended that the Department of Labour take a year to do some research and to look at the issues facing New Zealand employers and employees that this bill was proposing to address. The result of that work has been very interesting. It showed clearly the significance of the issue of quality flexible work for business and unions. It also showed us how flexible work arrangements can benefit our communities our economy and our environment. 
The Government has taken the opportunity during those 14 months to work with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions in order to explore the issue of workplace flexibility in greater depth. I thank both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for their commitment to educating their respective constituencies and promoting the benefits of workplace flexibility. I also acknowledge the other groups that have been party to that debate and education. 
It is clear that New Zealanders want need and deserve a better work-life balance than they currently have. Flexible work arrangements are a key part of that. Work-life balance is not just about delivering for employees though; it is about our overall quality of life and our living standards. It is about quality flexible work being good for employers because if they have an attractive workplace then they will be able to better attract and retain staff. As we know in New Zealand’s labour market that is one of the biggest challenges for our employers. Flexible responsive workplaces deliver productivity benefits and ease our skills shortages. They help New Zealand to compete globally for skilled workers and enable more New Zealanders who want to be in a paid job to be so. 
The results of the surveys of employees and employers that the Department of Labour instigated showed that flexible work arrangements including flexible start and finish times were consistently ranked among the most helpful initiatives for people to balance paid work with the rest of their life. The majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility. That is a good thing. In support of that employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact we know that many New Zealand employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements. But we know—and it was backed up by the research—that many do not. 
Almost all of the respondents agreed that this issue was an important one. Eight-four percent of respondents to the survey supported legislating for the right to request flexible working arrangements. Many supported legislation on the basis that it would legitimise the issue and provide a clear fair and transparent process for requesting flexible working arrangements and for the consideration of that request. One-third of respondents felt that a combination of approaches would work best—that is education promotion and legislation. That is why it is important that the Department of Labour Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions continue to provide information and resources to our respective constituencies. 
The bill provides certain groups of employees with the right to request flexible working arrangements—that is a change to their hours of work days of work or place of work. The bill requires employers to consider the request and provides specific grounds on which they can refuse. The bill also has a process for making and considering requests including a requirement that an employee must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. That aspect of the bill supports what we have heard during the consultation process which is that to be successful flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties: the individual concerned his or her colleagues and the employer. 
As Sue Kedgley mentioned in her earlier contribution the bill is based on similar UK legislation. That legislation has been very successful. Eighty percent of requests in the UK for flexible working arrangements have been accepted—the majority accepted in whole and a smaller number accepted with compromise. Studies into the effect of the legislation in the UK show that employers are now very positive about it. Seventy-six percent said the impact on their business was negligible. Ninety percent said they had no problems at all complying with the new requirements. Almost as important is that the majority of employers showed that the legislation has had a positive impact on employee attitudes and overall morale. 
The legislation in the UK has helped to change workplace cultures. The vast majority of UK employers now consider requests from employees that are not covered by the legislation. They have moved to a broader consideration. That finding shows how legislation can be a catalyst for positive change beyond the groups immediately affected. I am confident that New Zealand workplaces will be just as responsive to the need for flexibility and work-life balance. 
There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this including whether workers would have the right to revert to the original hours once their need if it were a specific need for flexible hours was considered. The committee has addressed that concern by amending the bill to require that a request must state whether the arrangements are to be permanent or temporary and if temporary how long they would last. There is also the possibility that consideration will need to be given to possible impacts on collective agreements where unions have specifically sought to regulate hours in order to prevent casualisation. Many collective agreements have specific full-time hours spelt out and unions have fought hard to hold on to those provisions against the increasing tide of part-time and casual work. 
The exclusion of some groups—for example those who have the responsibility of caring for dependent family members such as elderly parents—was also a concern during earlier debate on this bill. I am pleased to note that this concern has also been addressed by the amendment of the committee to extend the provisions of the bill to include workers with dependent relatives. 
A further issue is that of making the bill work in practice so that all workers are treated fairly. The system would not operate on a “first in first served” basis. The select committee has stimulated a healthy and incisive debate but there is still more work to be done. I welcome that. We want to be very confident that we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisaged. 
I again thank the members of the committee for their considered deliberations on this bill. I particularly acknowledge the positive outcome of the committee’s earlier recommendation that research and consultation should be carried out before decisions were made on progressing the bill. That work and the very useful submissions received from business unions and other interested parties has helped make for a more robust bill that reflects the importance of flexibility in New Zealand workplaces. This member’s bill is another good example of our Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by the proposed changes. Again I thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward. I wish the next stages of the bill speedy progress.