Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10509] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
This bill has been introduced out of necessity for the sake of common sense. Statutory rest and meal breaks were added to the Employment Relations Act under the previous administration last year and came into effect on 1 April 2009. National supported that legislation then as it gave statutory recognition of breaks reflecting standard practice across New Zealand. This Government still supports the intention of that law and wants to assure all New Zealanders that their right to adequate breaks will retain statutory protection. To make that perfectly clear I say all workers will remain entitled to reasonable rest and meal breaks under this bill. I expect that as was the case with the original law most workers will see no change to their arrangements under this bill. 
If the existing legislation provided sufficient flexibility this bill would not even be before the House. The fact is that the existing law has created a number of problems due to its being overly prescriptive both in terms of what constitutes a break and of the extent of flexibility about when breaks may be taken. Although professions such as sole-operated air traffic control towers had functioned quite happily for 60 years without issue they now find themselves to be in breach of the law. Labour claims that its amendments fixed that issue but that is not the case. The Civil Aviation Authority made it clear that if towers were to be closed as required under the law they had to be shut at the same time in order to ensure that pilots were not forced to deal with a forever-changing timetable of closures around the country. That meant that New Plymouth Napier Gisborne Rotorua and Invercargill would all have faced disruption to their schedules cancelled flights and a resulting loss of revenue. 
It is not only air traffic controllers who have been caught out by this law. Pharmacies schools and sole-charge operations such as petrol stations have all struggled to implement it. School principals have raised concerns that if insisted upon the current law could push out the hours that a school has to stay open to beyond 4 p.m. It is important that the law is workable and practical for every school. Other hard-working New Zealanders have also felt the impractical effects of the current law. For example I received a letter from a mother who works part-time as a night-fill staffer for a supermarket. She was unhappy about the changes. She and her colleagues have always worked from 7 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. with a 15-minute paid break at 9.30 p.m. The new law has resulted in them now taking a 30-minute unpaid break at 11 p.m. and returning to the job for the final half hour eventually knocking off at midnight. None of the staff want to have that 30-minute break; all they want is to do the job and go home to bed before midnight not to sit in the staffroom doing nothing. It was suggested that in order to avoid taking the break they cut back their hours to work 4-hour shifts but that would mean a loss of income. Clearly there is a practical problem here and that is the fundamental concern with regard to the law as it stands. 
No one opposes a worker’s right to have meal and rest breaks but dictating a general rule for every single situation does not allow enough flexibility. Instead we are left with instances where many employers are faced with two choices: either to continue as normal and break the law or wear the cost of compliance and inconvenience. Neither is an appealing option especially when the staff and the employer had their own arrangements that have long been agreed to. I have received letters from employers and employees about this issue questioning why they cannot just keep to their arrangements which have worked without complaint for years. Unfortunately the practical implications of the current law simply do not match up with its intention. 
This bill is about common sense. The National Government supports all workers’ right to take breaks. That was why we voted for the amending legislation in 2008 but the principal Act needs to be fixed. Its prescriptive nature means that it is being used to cause disruption and create difficulties that did not exist before. On paper it might have appeared sound but practically it is flawed. 
This bill will amend the principal Act so that it provides a requirement for employers to either allow for rest and meal breaks that give employees a reasonable opportunity for refreshment or make compensatory provision. These amendments will move the law from prescription to flexibility encouraging employers and employees to negotiate terms that best suit their workplace. This will maintain service or production continuity and is more in line with the flexible arrangements that work so well across the country. This bill will provide flexibility so that the timing of rest and meal breaks suits as far as is reasonable the continuity of service or production at the workplace. The nature of breaks varies according to the nature of work. The bill provides for employees and employers to negotiate alternative compensatory measures in lieu of breaks such as later start or earlier finish times or accumulated time in lieu. Such arrangements are not facilitated by the current legislation. 
A code of practice that provides additional guidance for employers and employees on determining suitable rest and meal break arrangements will also be developed. This will help small and medium sized businesses to identify some workable solutions on the duration and timing of breaks in different circumstances. Employers’ obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 will continue to apply; so too will the duty of good faith under the principal Act. 
This amendment will preserve the legislative intent to provide breaks that support employees’ well-being but it will offer greater common sense and flexibility in order to ensure that our laws support productivity in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.