Hayes John: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12495] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 This debate has been really interesting. I say to the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate and not watching it that it is really interesting being lined up against a sailor who jumped ship and stayed here and a bunch of people who have never done anything in their lives except work for unions or organisations. They have never employed somebody and therefore do not understand the dynamic that we find in a small New Zealand company. 
Darren Hughes 
: Says the ex-bureaucrat. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I reiterate for the member for Otaki so that he can listen to us before he departs from this House next year that the National Party believes in flexible working arrangements. The bit we disagree with is that Labour is putting it into legislation that nobody in this country wants. 
Can I just explain something to Minister Dyson who brought in a Supplementary Order Paper half an hour ago where under clause 3(a) “certain persons” is turned into “any person”. Let us transfer that from the Supplementary Order Paper to clause 69AAA. If we are going to have “any person” in one provision for goodness’ sake why does the incompetence of this legislation have to be demonstrated—it is poor drafting—by defining in another provision things like a “spouse”? Is not a spouse any person? A “parent”—is not a parent any person? A “child”—is not a child any person? A “brother or sister”—is not that any person? A “grandparent”—is not that any person? A “grandchild”—is not that any person? A “spouse’s or partner’s parent”—is not that any person? For goodness’ sake! Why do we need the legislation written this way? If the Minister had had an overview if the Minister had read the appalling legislation that is before this Committee she would have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to straighten out this nonsense. We cannot put a finger in the dyke in one place without adjusting the rest of the template which as a result has been tampered with. This is—totally absolutely—poorly drafted legislation. 
We want to have flexibility. Mr King is a shearer. If the daughter of one of his shearers has a sore tooth then Mr King will want to have a flexible working arrangement on that day. Under this legislation that the ship-jumper from the UK is promoting we can find ourselves— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not take offence at that; the member is trying to promote something. But I have to clarify that ship-jumping is an illegal activity and I have never been part of that sort of activity. I came here many many years ago and I have a certificate and a letter of welcome signed by a National immigration Minister. 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: The member may not refer to another member in that way— 
JOHN HAYES 
: I will withdraw that comment but I acknowledge that even National Ministers can make serious mistakes. 
In the situation I am referring to with Mr King in the context of clause 69AAA if a person has an immediate problem and wants to make an adjustment that employee makes a request to the employer who then has a year to come up with an answer. Is that flexible? Come on! Of course it is not flexible. This Labour administration supported by the Greens United Future and New Zealand First is putting in rigid legislation that will give no flexibility at all to workers in this community. This is why we are arguing from a National perspective that for a business to operate effectively and efficiently there has to be a good relationship between an employer and an employee. 
I say to those trade unionists on the other side of the Chamber that there is one freedom in this country that every individual has and that is the right to sell his or her labour to whomever that person likes. If someone does not like his or her employer that person can move on. No one is going to stand in his or her way. It will be good for the business and it will be good for the person. We cannot legislate for good working relationships. We cannot legislate for good relationships within a business. It cannot be done. Talk to “Bob the Builder” because out of the members in this House he is probably the biggest employer of people right now. He knows that this legislation will be of no use to him. 
When we have challenged Labour members and asked: “Who are the companies that support this legislation; what are their names?” what companies do they name? There is Telecom. Who is the owner? It is the Government. Then they name Air New Zealand. Who is the owner? It is the Government. Then they talk about various organisations employing nurses and other entities that have lots of members. But they are not employers; they are not the people who are adding to the productive capital of this country. 
This legislation along with everything else this Government is doing is driving people offshore. We can fill the Wellington stadium the Cake Tin with 36000 people and what happens every year? That number of people goes to Australia. We can fill it up again with another 36000 or 37000 people and that number will go too. They do not all go to Australia but they are leaving permanently because they do not want clause 69AAA—absolutely they do not want it. They can see that inflexibility is coming into the workplace from the legislation and they do not like it. That is why they are leaving. 
This is bad policy. This is badly written law. The Minister has got her Supplementary Order Paper wrong. She brings in the word “any” to include every possibly conceivable situation and then in clause 69AAA she has paragraphs that run from (a) to (g) describing people who are already “any”. “Why not delete them all and just put the word ‘any’?” I ask the Minister. Then she will be tidying up what is at the moment bad law. 
 But then we have to think about the context. In the context is it flexible care we are going to be allowing? Is it temporary care we are going to be allowing? Is it permanent care we are going to be allowing? This legislation is poorly drafted. Do we define “care” in the bill? No we do not define “care” in the bill at all. 
Then we can talk about working arrangements. Working arrangements which workers can apply to their bosses for a change include the hours of work the days of work and the place of work. Well if people are apple orchardists like me the only place they can actually work is on their orchards. So what is the point of writing into legislation that we should enable employees to say: “No I don’t want to work on your orchard I want to go and work somewhere else.”? This is a nonsense; it is poorly drafted legislation. 
In relation to the question of hours of work I tell members that very often in rural communities—and I understand that this Government does not understand the slightest bit about rural communities—we have to work according to the weather. In the summer there is a lot of daylight so we have to work a lot of hours because that is when our lambs are born and our crops are grown. We need flexibility with our employees to cope with that. Of course there is no employer who is ever going to say to an employee: “No I don’t want to listen to your perfectly reasonable request.” because it is not going to be good for his or her business—that is the driver. This legislation is absolutely unnecessary and National opposes it totally.