Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11636] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to see the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill return to the House for its second reading. I acknowledge many of the speakers and in particular my colleague Mark Gosche who has reminded us that this is all about people and people’s lives. It is not about figures charts the OECD and growth; it is about what is happening to real people. I want to read a quote from a woman: “I care for my husband who has had multiple strokes and also support my disabled mother who lives in a nearby rest home. To keep sane I care for toddlers in the nursery of a day-care centre for 2 hours a day. That is my social and relaxation therapy.” What an amazing person she is. I think there are many people as we have heard tonight in that situation to whom this bill will bring some relief. 
This bill has had a very long gestation having been introduced in 2005 and initially reported back as some members have said in mid-2006 with the recommendation that it be delayed for a year. I thank the member Sue Kedgley not only for bringing the issue to the House for debate but also for her patience and willingness to work with other parties to achieve a bill that the majority of parties in this House now support. 
This bill is a very modest legislative step in confirming what we all like to say we support which is that New Zealanders should have more balance between their working and family lives. As other speakers have mentioned there is now a significant body of evidence to suggest that people who work long and unsocial hours are more likely to experience negative health outcomes strained family relationships and in some cases parenting and child difficulties. This Government is well aware of this and has had policies on work-life balance for a long time. With the help of other like-minded parties it has introduced positive changes to help balance work and family life such as paid parental leave 4 weeks’ annual leave Working for Families 20 hours’ free early childhood education cheaper doctors’ visits and much much more. Obviously Labour is supporting this bill because we believe there is more work to be done. 
I note with some amusement that the reinvented National Party said last week that it is supporting longer paid parental leave claiming it only ever opposed it because it did not apply to the self-employed. Well that is just rubbish—utter rubbish! The National Party vehemently opposed paid parental leave from the time it was introduced in 2001 and at every stage of the legislation in 2004 National members voted against extending the period of paid leave from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. In the recent debate about extending paid parental leave to the self-employed National member Jo Goodhew said that paid parental leave was like a benefit and that as such the National Party was philosophically opposed to it because really those people would much rather have had a tax cut. 
So what is it with the National Party? I would like to know really. Are those members now telling us they were wrong or is it just that Labour is so far ahead with its ideas and policy that National has decided it had better catch up? 
Turning to the bill I say that New Zealand’s long working hours culture is a problem we need to tackle. Other speakers again have mentioned the aggregate number of hours that are worked in New Zealand. Per head of population they are the sixth highest in the OECD. Today’s New Zealanders are expected to work long hours including week-nights and weekends and put the firm before their families. Many workers work at more than one job to make ends meet. So despite all the talk about work-life balance and making some progress at the big end of town not a lot has been happening for workers lower down the economic chain. That is having a real impact on our families. If mum and dad are both working shifts then what is happening to the kids? 
In my view one of the core problems we face is the lack of working-time regulations in New Zealand. The 8-hour day 40-hour week introduced by the first Labour Government as standard conditions for most workers has fallen foul of the relentless drive for economic competitiveness. We heard some of that silly stuff from the member Wayne Mapp earlier on. Although there are many benefits to having flexible working it is a double-edged sword and in New Zealand the flexibility has been going all one way. Employers have extended working opening and operating hours and extended shifts and today they use more and more flexible work tools such as part-time work casualisation and temporary and contracted work. 
So although I completely support this bill as part of a drive towards achieving a better work-life balance in New Zealand I remain concerned that “flexible” in many employers’ minds simply means more part-time work contracting and casualisation. Therefore today in this debate I am calling for a discussion on whether working hours or working times should be regulated in this country with minimum and maximum hours of work. 
One of the reasons that the flexible working hours legislation in the UK has worked well is that they have working-time regulations. So do many other countries. Indeed Australia has a standard 38-hour week before overtime is paid along with the ability to work flexitime—regardless of what the member Wayne Mapp said. The United States has a 40-hour work week for wage earners and almost all European countries have a standard 40-hour week. Of course there is France with its 35-hour week and we all know the corresponding increase in productivity that has come from the 35-hour week. In our country we have few of these protections except where unions have managed to negotiate for limits to working hours and the acceptance of recognised breaks. 
Interestingly those issues are often at the top of the agenda when it comes to negotiations. The international pattern is that countries with relatively limited or no regulation of working time tend to have a much higher incidence of excessive hours than other countries. Our problem—that 40 percent of New Zealand workers are working more than 45 hours a week and 21 percent are working more than 50 hours a week—is a big one and it is no wonder that parents are under stress and families are suffering. Flexible working can deliver enormous benefits if it is done with everyone’s needs in mind and that is why we need this legislation. 
Although some have undoubtedly benefited from having flexible work practices more have not. The workplace reforms that we saw in the 1990s during National’s “decade of shame” were driven by the imperative of business profitability without there being any regard for the cost to families and communities. From what we have heard tonight that is what National would like to see continue. The social effects are obvious. 
This bill is very light-handed regulation; it just gives workers the right to ask for flexible hours. What is the big deal? But it gives employers many legitimate reasons to say no. Its real value will be to further the acceptability of flexible working and to see benefits for both businesses and workers. It is very disappointing to hear of the opposition to this bill from Business New Zealand. I have to say that when it comes to work-life balance that organisation talks the talk but when it comes down to making the talk a reality for more people it moves into its default position of opposing regulation. 
Research shows that similar legislation in the UK Germany and the Netherlands has not resulted in the opening of floodgates with massive disputes around the right to request. Few requests have ended up in court. Fewer than 1 percent of all UK employers rejecting a request have had a claim made against them. Even the business organisation in England the Confederation of British Industry says it believes that the new right to request flexible working hours has made huge strides in promoting different ways of working. 
 Although I am not surprised about the National Party’s opposition to this bill I will make a little prediction. In a year or so John Key Kate Wilkinson and others in the National Party will flip-flop and jump on to the bandwagon to support the right to request flexible work. They will figure out that it is actually a very very popular thing—just like paid parental leave—and that it is a necessary thing. Just mark my words that is what will happen. 
There are many many other amendments and this is not the time to outline those but I do look forward to debating them in the Committee stage of the bill. Once again I congratulate the member and I also congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which worked so hard on this bill.