Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2722] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I thank Sue Kedgley first of all for promoting this bill and beginning a debate in this country about the way forward on this issue and I thank fellow members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who attacked this issue with I think some genuine interest. The politics I suppose have been largely taken out of the report if we read it and we are actually trying to find solutions. It is perhaps a good course of action for other members who promote members’ bills to look at. Here a promoter of a bill has agreed to have that bill held over for another year so that further debate study and hopefully education can take place. In a year’s time this Parliament may decide that we do not need this bill or it may decide that we do need to pass legislation. It gives a good opportunity and a window for people to actually prove their points. 
The arguments put before the select committee were really about whether we should regulate or educate. Largely employers indicated a preference for education and largely the people representing workers—and that in itself was a very interesting collection of people; everyone from women in the law through to business and professional women through to the traditional trade unions—preferred regulation. Some employers also wrote submissions stating that they supported the legislation but by the time they turned up at the select committee they had slightly changed their minds which was interesting. However everybody agreed that flexible working hours are desirable. The problem is in defining who sets the flexible working hours and the select committee heard many different arguments. 
What I would like to see before going into a little bit more detail about those arguments is this year taken up as an opportunity by the Department of Labour employers unions and any other representatives of workers to see how the education approach actually would work in New Zealand because we have a 12-month window of opportunity. Let us hope it is taken up with vigour because at the end of that year the select committee will be able to say that the arguments were right—that the education way is the correct way and we do not need to regulate. I am hoping that all those employer organisations that came along and said that this is the way forward—and so did the Council of Trade Unions; it said that education was a vital part of this—will grab this opportunity and run with it. I think we would probably all be happy if we could achieve the result that this bill seeks to achieve without regulation and without law. But let us see how it goes over the next 12 months and see whether a concerted effort can be made through a tripartite approach among the Government workers and employers. 
There is no doubt that the flexible working hours arrangements in some industries are good but some are not. One employer submission just about convinced me on the spot that this law should be passed. That was from the Hospitality Association. What did it say? I know those people from way back. That industry has the most flexible working hours one can imagine in this country because the hospitality industry is a 24/7 industry and has been for most of New Zealand’s history. The association’s idea of flexible working hours is to go down the street and see about 20 restaurants all offering different flexible working hours. The hospitality industry describes itself as being very democratic. The view is that if employees do not like the hours at a particular restaurant they should just vote with their feet and go down the road and get a new job. That is the sort of unenlightened approach that makes it necessary to have this bill. So there is a big black mark against the hospitality industry for the submission it made. That one single submission almost convinced me that Sue Kedgley’s bill should not only be passed but be strengthened. So that industry needs to learn something from the other industries that came along and gave us a much better picture of what could be done. Telecom made a good submission and outlined as did other organisations how it worked with its workforce to provide flexible working hours. 
What was very clear from the Human Rights Commission was that we do not really know enough about what is actually happening in New Zealand in this context. Where are the good examples? How can other employers learn from those good examples? That education process could take off and make a good deal of progress in the next year. So we are pleased to see that the Human Rights Commission and other organisations are willing to help in this process. 
We heard from workers who came along and said they have flexibility beyond belief. They came from the National Distribution Union and told us that their hours are so flexible that they do not know what their hours will be tomorrow. That is the sort of problem that families have to contend with. It has been interesting this week to see organisations throw up their hands in horror at the idea of a kids’ hotel where people will have 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week opportunities to put their kids into childcare. I felt somewhat queasy at that idea too having three adult children now and watching my grandson who spends quite a bit of his time in childcare centres. It is very different from my upbringing when mum stayed at home and looked after the seven kids while dad went out to work. We have changed as a society. But people are looking at this idea of 7-day-a-week 24-hour-a-day childcare centres with somewhat of a queasy approach. 
So what does that say about the need for real flexibility that goes both ways? I congratulate the Federation of Business and Professional Women on its submission because it pointed out that childcare centres do not operate to cover those women who are suddenly required to be at a breakfast meeting at 7.15 a.m. and who are told that they are not pulling their weight and are not part of the team if they do not turn up to after-work drinks. They may have to contend with the sudden appearance of chickenpox and cannot take the kids to a childcare centre for those 2 weeks when they might give everybody else chickenpox. Do we have genuine flexibility on both sides of the argument in terms of employee and employer when having to deal with those types of issues? Certainly a lot of the women who appeared before the select committee outlined their difficulties. For example women lawyers indicated that about a quarter of the legal staff in New Zealand are working in a part-time capacity because there is not adequate flexibility to be able to cope as a working woman with the demands of a very busy legal practice. 
So there were very powerful arguments from that side of the argument as to why one might want to regulate. But equally there were powerful arguments from a lot of employers. They came along and said in a very considered way that they have to take into account a whole lot of other things and that the bill did not necessarily cover all of their concerns. There were contractual arrangements. Points were raised about seniority and the right to work extra hours in the bus industry for instance. Contracts of employment have to be dealt with. 
So this is an opportunity for employers unions and the Department of Labour and other Government agencies to get their heads together and work through a good education programme in order to pick up on the research that the select committee clearly saw as being lacking. We have that opportunity over the next 12 months and I applaud the select committee for taking a very mature approach to this bill. When we next report Parliament will get a clearer picture of the situation. Hopefully in the 12-month period of time we will see a great deal of effort made by employers unions and Government departments to try to make sure that flexibility is a two-way thing and see good examples shown by employers to other employers as to how they were flexible and how that might fit different workplaces. 
The 12-month period also gives Sue Kedgley as the promoter of the bill an opportunity to listen to the submitters who have made valid criticisms about the bill itself—the way it was drafted and where the gaps are. They said it did not go far enough and I agree with that. I do not think it went far enough in terms of the types of people it would apply to. There is no reason why others should not be entitled to this type of thing if it were made law. We have a good opportunity now as a Parliament to consider this matter again and hopefully we will come back with a decision that is based on a lot more fact a lot more knowledge and a lot more work. So I say well done to Sue Kedgley for promoting this bill and I again thank the select committee members for a job well done in compiling this interim report.