Goodhew Jo: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2728] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 Let me say from the outset that I fully support flexible working hours—where possible. I did not have the privilege of hearing the submissions and the discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish I had done so so that today I would from memory be able to discuss some of what was heard there. But I have taken the time to read the opinions of a number of people and the reports back. I commend the fact that we will have a year to look into whether this legislation will achieve what Green Party member Ms Kedgley intends it to achieve but I have grave misgivings for what it might mean for New Zealand businesses and for what it is saying about New Zealand families. 
As I often like to do I will start by looking at the history of this legislation. The Green Party member Ms Kedgley promotes the UK view that legislation is the way to achieve this flexibility and work-life balance. Members should make no mistake: this bill is largely about women for it is women who will often want that flexibility to attend to their family duties. Women have come a very long way over the years in showing their value in the workplace and in being valued in the workplace. They are valued for their skills and their employers know it. Employers would be the first to say that they do not want their valuable employees to move on because they cannot find some form of balance in how they utilise their hours. In the last 4 years there has been an increase of more than 16 percent in women’s participation in the workplace. That suggests to me—and I think it may do to others—that that might have happened because the contemporary workplace is a good place to be and because it has attracted women back into it which may well be because they have been able to achieve flexibility. I do not pretend that that will always be the case for everyone but I am suggesting from what I have read and heard that it is the case in many many situations. 
The philosophy behind this bill is admirable. But equally there are significant potential fish-hooks aplenty. Family-friendly policies— 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s why National will vote against it when it comes back. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I hear on the other side of the House that National will vote against the bill but I want to say that we are looking very positively towards the year of gathering information. We will not make our decisions today about how we will be voting in a year’s time; the member suggests unkindly that we will. We are however supporting this bill— 
Darren Hughes 
: Will the member bet me $10? I’ll bet you $5! 
JO GOODHEW 
: I’m not a betting woman. So the philosophy as I have said is admirable. Family-friendly policies sound great and having work-life balance sounds great as well. 
But New Zealand businesses—and 95 percent of them are small businesses—are not the proverbial Father Christmas. They have to make their businesses pay; they have an investment to protect. I bring to members’ attention here today a number of implications of this bill for businesses. It is said that the bill will possibly create difficult hurdles for business to the point where it might be unfair or impossible for some businesses to implement the legislation. In a comment in the  
Independent 
 Marlborough Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Tim Leslie said that flexibility should not be a right but that it should be part of a negotiation of employee conditions. I agree wholeheartedly. Mr Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand says he has yet to see proof of the problem Ms Kedgley is trying to fix and if it does exist he says education is the better route. Of course in the House this afternoon we have already heard support for education as an option for improving the number of workplaces that offer flexibility. 
The bill is being deferred and for good reason. It is so that officials can collect and collate reliable information on New Zealand workplace practices for it seems clear that the select committee heard that many are offering that flexibility. 
Mr O’Reilly also pointed out that maybe this family-friendly bill will exclude some who have family responsibilities towards elderly parents or sick spouses and today Ms Kedgley has acknowledged that and said she would like to see the bill extended. But I worry that that might be the thin end of the wedge and that we will find as in the paid parental leave legislation that once everyone is included it will not represent what we had hoped. Everyone will have so much flexibility that we will put businesses out of business. I ask where the responsibility that New Zealanders have to look after family starts and ends. This Government and clearly the Green Party too would have us believe that it is the responsibility of businesses to put at risk their profitability in order to assist employees to meet their responsibilities to family members. As a parent I took on employment that meant I was able to meet my obligations as a parent and I know I was lucky in that respect. But my various employers assisted by varying my hours where possible because they were good employers—and possibly because they also wanted to keep me on. They did not need legislation to enforce their provision of flexible working hours where their circumstances of running the business allowed. 
Other examples in my electorate of Aoraki abound. It is largely a rural service area of the country and I have been approached by businesses that are concerned by this bill because they have some women—a small number only—who work in those businesses. They have offered those women what flexibility they can but the reality is that the businesses operate between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the women in the businesses should they ask for more flexibility would certainly not to be able to answer customers’ calls after 5 o’clock at night because those calls just do not occur—they do not happen after 5 o’clock at night. So employers will have to turn those requests down. Interesting reasons abound for the requests for flexibility such as employees having too little time to spend with their families. Does that mean perhaps that after parents have had a busy day at home with their families and their children businesses should crank up and operate at night to suit the needs of those parents? Perhaps I take that to the extreme. 
The benefits to business of flexible working hours have been said to be a drop in staff turnover retention of skills a decrease in absenteeism and an increase in job satisfaction. That is absolutely true; those are all benefits of flexible working hours. Those same benefits also have the potential to be monetary benefits for businesses because they mean businesses keep their staff. So why would businesses not be flexible without having legislation to require that? Businesses are wary of further legislation and compliance costs which is not surprising because even just lately amendments to a number of Acts have increased business compliance costs: the Health and Safety in Employment Act the Holidays Act and the Employment Relations Act. Businesses are wary; they are very wary. 
I found it interesting to read some of the opinions of Nikki Dines of Simpson Grierson’s employment law group because she gave some insights into the potential for problems. While the rationale for the bill may be commendable—and I have already mentioned that—there are some serious issues with it both from a legal and economic perspective. The employer can refuse the application only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on one or more of the following grounds: inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff inability to recruit additional staff detrimental impact on quality detrimental impact on performance insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work and planned structural changes. But it does not matter if there is a burden of additional costs on employers or any detrimental effect on their ability to meet customer demand. Where an employer fails to give proper consideration to flexible working requests the employee may be awarded compensation and we are told there is no cap on the level of compensation. That really is a potential worry. 
This bill looks to increase compliance costs for employers significantly. It seems to be yet another proposal that could lead to uncertainty and increase costs for employers. But let me remind members again that I am in favour of flexible working hours for employees. I can tell members that that happens without legislation requiring it—but let us see. I ask members to wait for another year and see exactly what is collected and collated for we will not decide today. 
I have another example of a workplace in which a colleague of mine tells me there is grave concern. It is a legal practice with 15 employees eight of whom by having young children would qualify for the flexibility provisions. This legislation is a concern to them. I say in conclusion that I am hopeful we will actually get some sense out of this issue next year and we will know how to vote then.