Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2717] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the interim report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. 
 Today we are debating an unusual parliamentary procedure—an interim report by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on my member’s bill that sets aside the House’s consideration of this bill for a year so that officials can undertake further research and collect further information on workplace practices regarding flexible working hours and consult more widely with industry unions and other stakeholders about how best to deliver flexible working practices in New Zealand. It is a novel procedure and I do not think it has happened in recent memory. Some say that perhaps it has never happened before but it is a process that the Green Party welcomes and considers very constructive because it provides us with the opportunity for more research to be undertaken by officials on the extent of flexible working practices in New Zealand and for further consultation to take place in order to improve the wording of the bill and possibly its provisions and also hopefully to allay some of the fears some employers expressed about how the bill may affect workplaces in New Zealand. 
We acknowledge that when the legislation on which this bill is based was introduced in the United Kingdom it was Government legislation proposed by Labour in England so the Government was able to have an extended period of consultation with employers and unions before it introduced the bill. That lengthy consultation period enabled it to iron out concerns and discuss the details of implementation. But because this is a member’s bill there has not been the same opportunity to do so here. The 1-year pause enables that to happen and we welcome that as a very constructive and innovative process. 
I thank the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the Hon Mark Gosche for his positive role in facilitating this novel process and for his support for the bill. I also thank all of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their consideration of the bill and all the submitters—I think there were about 100—who made submissions on it. We believe that the fears expressed by some of the employers who made submissions during the hearings on the bill were unfounded. We believe that if they really understood the huge proven advantages that flexible working offers employers in terms of increased productivity reduced absenteeism and so forth—and the tremendous success of the almost identical legislation in the United Kingdom—they would embrace the bill. 
The quality of our working lives work-life balance issues and more flexible working practices especially for employees with families are huge issues in New Zealand and survey after survey has confirmed that. A recent survey of 4500 parents found that 93 percent of them said that the single change they would most like to see in the workplace was flexible working hours. They said they were finding it increasingly difficult to juggle paid work and parenting and they felt unsupported by workplaces. Regardless of their gender age or ethnicity the need for more flexible workplaces was the single most important issue. It was the same in numerous other surveys. In a survey of 1200 fathers 80 percent said that they wanted to be able to spend more time with their children. Another survey by a recruitment agency found that almost a third of people said they believed their current working hours were undermining family life. 
But I think the reason this is such an important social issue here in New Zealand is that we stand out internationally in terms of the proportion of people who are working long hours. On average New Zealanders work 1826 hours a year compared with an average of 1778 hours across the OECD. One study the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions referred to in its submission showed that one in five workers in New Zealand works 50 or more hours and as its working families study showed that culture of long and indeed excessive working hours impacts heavily on parents with children or other dependants. We heard in the submissions to the committee numerous examples of parents who were having great difficulty in trying to cope with long working hours and commutes and with raising their children. So it is time that Parliament addressed this important social issue. This bill presents us with the opportunity to do so and to encourage employers to go beyond the work-to-rule mentality and recognise the immense benefits in providing more flexible working arrangements. 
I will not go into very much detail about the bill. It is based on UK legislation where parents with young or disabled children have the right to request—and that is all it does. All it enshrines is a statutory right to request to work flexible working hours and a framework to negotiate to work those hours. So it is really minimal legislation. The employer can turn down a request but the employer has a statutory duty to consider that request seriously. In fact many submitters among businesses that opposed the bill thought that it was about the right to work flexibly when it is actually a much more modest right just to request to work flexibly. 
The legislation has been enormously successful in the UK even though it is modest legislation. More than a million employees in the United Kingdom have successfully used the mechanisms in the bill to seek flexible working hours and 90 percent of the requests have been accepted in whole or through a compromise. I think a recent study found that almost 90 percent of cases were settled very easily and many of the requests are made by email. It is very minimal and low-cost legislation but interestingly when the bill was proposed in the United Kingdom employers there expressed the identical fears that some employers here have expressed—namely that it would increase compliance costs. None of those fears have been realised. 
One of the great things about introducing legislation that already exists elsewhere is that there have been more than five comprehensive surveys carried out by business organisations in the UK such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the UK Department of Trade and Industry. All of those surveys have found that most employers in the UK—for example 76 percent in one study—have had little difficulty with that new right. They did not believe that it had tipped the balance too far in favour of working parents. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 90 percent had no significant problems in complying with the new requirements despite the concerns about that before the bill was passed. Sixty percent of employers who provided some form of flexible working hours considered the practice to be cost-effective; there were minimal or no costs. I could go on and on but the good news too is that huge benefits were found in terms of increased productivity etc. The legislation has been a huge success there so why would we not embrace it here? 
More than a hundred submissions were heard on the bill which was overwhelmingly supported by women’s organisations unions and women’s business organisations but employers raised three issues. They said that they did not need legislation because they already had flexible working hours. They said that all they needed was education. The claim that we have flexible working hours does not stack up. Just in 2004 research by Toshiba found that few organisations in New Zealand have embraced the practice of flexible working. Most had only a vague understanding of the advantages. I have already cited the survey in which the overwhelming majority of parents said that it was the single most important change they would like to see in the workplace. If we had flexible working hours then 93 percent of parents would not be saying that that was the change they would most like to see. The fact is that although there are some outstanding examples of workplaces that do introduce flexible hours such as Telecom and Treasury most employees do not have them in their workplaces. So we need legislation that ensures that all employees and not just those who work at Telecom or Treasury etc. have access to those flexible working arrangements particularly when their children are young. 
As for the argument about education we have had education on the issue for years. It has gone on and on. The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust has been plugging away. In fact back in 1971 flexible working hours was one of the main demands of the women’s movement. That was 37 years ago. Are we going to wait another 37 years for it? Germany Denmark the Netherlands—many countries go much further than this bill goes. They provide a legal right to request more flexible working arrangements for all workers. Many submitters supported extending the right and we would definitely like to extend it certainly in the first instance for all persons caring for an elderly dependant which has just been done in the UK and indeed in time across the entire workplace. 
We believe that this bill is not just about assisting our parents struggling with full-time work and trying to look after young families although that is very important; it is about encouraging a more flexible results-driven rather than an hours-driven culture and about a much more innovative culture in New Zealand.